Paedohysteria UK Updates 29-09-12
Megan Stammers found in France – due to fly home today – 30 year old teacher arrested by French police for child abduction : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19768303
Schoolgirl Megan Stammers is expected to fly home to the UK from France later, more than a week after she went missing with her maths teacher.
It is understood the 15-year-old’s mother Danielle Wilson will fly to Bordeaux to accompany Megan back to Eastbourne, East Sussex.
Teacher Jeremy Forrest, 30, has been arrested by French police on suspicion of child abduction.
The pair were found in Bordeaux on Friday, after a sighting on Thursday.
___________________________________________________________________
The ‘victims’ of the Asian grooming scandal in Rochdale may sue social services for failing to ‘protect’ them :
In other words, working-class white teenage girls who were ‘groomed’ ie. sold their bodies to ugly older Asian men in return for money, drugs, and alcohol, are now suing the British state for millions of pounds for failing to stop them prostituting themselves.
The feminist child abuse industry in action.
______________________________________________________________________
A British TV Channel is going to air a programme this week which claims that legendary personality Jimmy Saville, recently deceased, abused girls as young as 13 :
The women’s interviews will feature in the programme, which is due to be broadcast on October 3 as part of ITV1′s ‘Exposure’ documentary strand.
An ITV spokesman explained that the show was still being edited and refused to comment on reports that the alleged incidents – said to range from indecency to unlawful sex – involved girls as young as 13.
Former police detective and child protection expert Mark Williams-Thomas, who hosts On the Run, conducted the investigation.
Savile’s friends and family have previously insisted that he wasn’t a sexual predator.
In other words, working-class white teenage girls who were ‘groomed’ ie. sold their bodies to ugly older Asian men in return for money, drugs, and alcohol, are now suing the British state for millions of pounds for failing to stop them prostituting themselves.
but, stopping them would be Abuse by the Patriarchy, no?
i saw an article yesterday about how the washington beltway was swimming in wealth (for the political/feminist classes that is)
that “wealth” comes from the destroyed lives of boys and men
but at least some good news: “Schoolgirl Megan” (lol) has finally been freed from her vicious captor, another Oppressive Male, whatta monster. . . although the terrible damage inflicted by her Perpetrator, of course, can never be healed
after the brit Medea cleans up on this, should be a good “I’m Still So Very Scared” or “I Was An Abused Schoolgirl” book deal for the poor tortured child . . . Oprah’s Empire is already counting the dollars
hey france, how you liking the New Nazis? sure are a lot of collaborators in your cowardly cuntry, you must have used up all the actual men in WW2
nobody’s gonna save you this time, frenchy, may you fry in hell
ray
29 Sep 12 at 6:34 pm
Ray,
This case is going to come back to haunt the French government. Now that they’ve capitualted, thinking that it will improve their image with the Anglosphere, the Feminist elites like Hillary are sensing weakness. Just like a bunch of sharks smelling blood, the feminists are going to be swarming all over France now with all kinds of grievances and demands.
Eric
29 Sep 12 at 8:48 pm
@theantifeminist
Is this “Paedohysteria UK Updates dd-mm-yy” feature going to be published at the end of each month?
I hope so, it’s very handy.
Alan Vaughn
30 Sep 12 at 12:16 am
This inevitably had to happen!
This is the absolute stupidity of The feminist child abuse industry in action.
Those girls, or rather: their
sleazy robbersSolicitors simply exploited this law by turning it the other way. The feminist totalitarian state insists that they protect children from ‘paedophiles’ and everything else to do with sex, therefore thesesharksSolicitors, are merely ‘reminding’ them of that fact, thus dutifully (and very profitably) informing them that they failed to enforce their own ridiculous law!It would be absurd if only it didn’t totally destroy untold thousands of good people, which it is no doubt going to…
Alan Vaughn
30 Sep 12 at 1:09 am
Boy, this fake victim/gonna sue mentality of these white teen whores is disgusting.
They make a financial decision to bang rich Asians for cash, which is a private contract which harmed no one, and then they sue the state for millions for not protecting them from themselves, and their decisions.
What if I cross a street without looking out for cars, get hurt in an accident – can I sue the state for not building an overpass pedestrian bridge right there, where I wanted to cross the street? Why not? I made a bad personal decision and the state/taxpayers owe me millions for my stupidity!
I’d laugh these cases out of court, were I in power.
Alex
30 Sep 12 at 1:12 am
I didn’t think of this at first, but did anyone else notice that Megan’s mom has a different surname than her daughter? I wonder if this yet another ‘heroic single mom’ who’s spent her youth thug-chasing and now is ‘deeply concerned’ that her daughter might actually be thinking about sex and stuff…
Eric
30 Sep 12 at 9:30 am
Well Eric, from what theantifeminist himself described of the town where they both live:
I think it could indeed ONLY be what you suspect to be her family situation and type of upbringing she was afforded from her ‘heroic single mom’!
That of course being the feminist’s ideal family…
Alan Vaughn
30 Sep 12 at 10:04 am
eric the bold –I wonder if this yet another ‘heroic single mom’ who’s spent her youth thug-chasing and now is ‘deeply concerned’ that her daughter might actually be thinking about sex and stuff…
mom is A Fright guar an teed
theres no excuse in times like these, living under nations ruled by Femistan the Empowered, for a guy not to know the International SSisterhood and their well-paid lackies arent gonna let him and a 15 y.o. shack up in a western country
he didnt just look at pictures or whatever…. he tried to actually ABSCOND lol
yo dood, it aint 1956
when i read about this arrest, first thing came to mind was a picture of m-o-m, (falsely) frantic on the phone to LE agencies and govt toadies all across the femosphere
they are gonna toast this pore sucker
ray
30 Sep 12 at 10:37 am
I wouldn’t be surprised if she was wearing such attire in school to turn the teacher on (in the Uk, most girls have to wear school uniform, but unlike Japan or Spain, there usually isn’t a standard uniform, even for each particular school. So girls are free to ‘push the limits’ as it were, wearing black skirts that don’t cover their asses, ‘trousers’ that are basically skin-tight legging etc.)
Like Highwayman, I have nothing whatsover against ‘sluts’ or girls wearing ‘slutty’ clothing (wish they would all wear that), but in Eastbourne, like many places, the girls are the type that walk around in just see through panties and cut off tops, then take pleasure in creep shaming you or even calling you a paedophile if you even look in their direction.
theantifeminist
30 Sep 12 at 7:13 pm
Every day in the British newspapers there are 2 or 3 stories of paedo outrage to feed the mob. Sometimes, they don’t even hack into the mobile phones of murdered kiddies to get them either. I wouldn’t be surprised if they rachet up the paedohysteria over the next couple of weeks to dampen any kind of sympathy for the teacher.
I don’t have time to post all of the stories but if any of you want to post any you see at the following two subreddits :
http://reddit.com/r/malesexuality
http://reddit.com/r/pedosexhysteria (this is run by human-stupidity)
It’s also important to submit articles related to the feminist rape of male sexuality to the men’srights reddit too – we don’t want it to become the exclusive hangout of mRAs.
theantifeminist
30 Sep 12 at 7:32 pm
Alan & Antifeminist:
How much would you bet that Megan’s mom was prominent among the Cougar Contigent of these slutty-looking females?
It always amazes reading some of the comments among the Fathers’ Rights/Socon MRAs about scantily-clad women. When I see women in other countries dressed like that they look sexy and in the Anglosphere they look slutty. I think these feminised women so radiate their hatred of men, that even dressed in burkhas, they’d still come across as man-hating sluts.
Eric
30 Sep 12 at 8:33 pm
Ray;
I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the United Queendom was plotting a commando raid into France if their diplomatic strong-arming failed. They’ve already threatened that with Ecuador over Julian Assange. And who can forget Bush Junior telling us all that invading Afghanistan was necessary because the Taliban was oppressing women? (Sort of incidently, they did murder 3,000 or so American people on American soil, but that was beside the point).
This poor guy is going get toasted indeed, if the Femistasi had their way, literally too. I’m sure they’re fantasizing about a good, old-fashioned stake-burning even as we speak.
Eric
30 Sep 12 at 8:43 pm
Antifeminist:
Thank you for the links. It would be great to get involved in this issue some more.
My observations about the media generally leads me to suspect that this incident is being hyped up as a precursor to some kind of ‘crackdown’ the STU might be planning over in Britain.
Eric
30 Sep 12 at 8:48 pm
Antifeminist:
On a related issue, I have a question about STU theory because it comes up from time to time.
It’s true that the STU is about monoploizing sex in the hands of a few females by eliminating competition, generally speaking. We know it seems to have resulted in a surplus of available men to desirable females already.
However, those things being the case; why does it seem that females totally squander their monopolistic privileges and instead tend to pursue the LEAST desirable males and avoid the MOST desirable ones?
I’ve brought this up on different blogs and gotten various answers; I’d like to get your opinion of this phenomenon. I have a theory of my own about it, too.
Eric
1 Oct 12 at 12:13 am
Alex:
You are dead right of course, but what you’ve overlooked with this one is that it involved ‘protecting children’: the most POWERFUL and all-encompassing
feministlegal term used in the law today.Wherever and whenever the term protect children appears, ALL logic, common sense and even many other legal statute is instantly null-and-void.
The law covering the protection of children overrides all others, no matter how ridiculous or illogical it may appear, or how ridiculous it really is.
The laws governing the protection of children which could very soon mean human beings up to 25 years old, are for all intents and purposes: set in stone and are irreversable, which means they can only be made more Draconian and oppressive: NEVER more lenient.
They are also essential for the successful perpetuation and propagation of Western paedohysteria, thus the penalties for any form of dissent or simple public debate; i.e questioning their validity or actual usefulness, are severe and could very soon be as severe as the penalties awarded to actual perpetrators accused of (thus are automatically guilty of) committing any offences governed by those laws..
Alan Vaughn
1 Oct 12 at 12:49 am
@theantifeminist, could you please delete my first (botched) reply to Alex? Thanks AV.
Alan Vaughn
1 Oct 12 at 12:56 am
Perhaps I’m underestimating the psychos in government, Alan, and/or the influence of the fembot lobby, but I can’t see how they could raise the age limit to 25. Just 50 years ago, people often had kids by the age of 25 – how could they justify raising the age of minority so high?
As it is, it’s ridiculous that a 20 year old can go to war and kill or be killed, but he can’t buy a beer in many states of the USA, but 25 seems overreach – 21 seems to be the very highest they can go with this ‘innocent child’ meme, before they become laughing stocks.
I feel like a Roman, in the last days of the Empire – the bread is running out, the circuses are so over the top they’ve become unintended comedies, and the Emperor and the Senate have been revealed as having no clothes. Is there any doubt that only the bottom dropping out will complete this farce?
Alex
1 Oct 12 at 5:27 am
Alex,
Hopefully Eric might field this one soon,as he can explain better than me (being an American ‘concerned’ citizen), how under the new medical system dubbed ‘Obamacare’ a person is a ‘child’ (for medical purposes) up to and including age 25…
(This could be a first step)?
What (obviously) might follow on from that in a feminist totalitarian state such as America, should be easy to predict, I’d say…
Alan Vaughn
1 Oct 12 at 6:03 am
Alex,
Also you mentioned
Well where I come from that was relatively ‘mature’ to be having kids, it was more common at around 18 to 24 for young men to be married (and 1st bun (child) already in the oven) and the wife as young as 16.
Go back a little further and it was most common for people to be married with a young family at 15, 16 and 17.
My maternal grandparents for example, were married in 1915: my grandfather was 17 and grandmother was 16. She gave birth to their first son (my late uncle) when she had just turned 17.
What’s also interesting about that era (coincidentally, around the time the infamous suffragettes came along and began their systematic destruction of our societies), was that nearly ALL of those young teenage marriages actually lasted to the death do us part stage too.
Now of course, such relationships are illegal, perverted, predatory and paedophillic!
Alan Vaughn
1 Oct 12 at 6:19 am
I hear you, Alan, about the proverbial foot in the door, but it’s gonna have to be a pretty slick con – if they’re minor children until 25, that means you have to strip from them the legal standing to make decisions till that age – they can’t marry, go to school or pick up a trade without parental permission, military can’t use them if they’re minors, can’t contract in their own name so the car companies, credit card companies can’t load them up with debt while they’re young and stupid, etc…
Still, point taken, that like all totalitarian schemes, they all start with getting the tip of the spear in/foot in the door and then expanding on it – it will be interesting to see where it goes.
I would have said that stupidity past a certain point would be self defeating, because men would just say the hell with it, and leave the country and if even 1/5 of the men leave you’ll have a total economic collapse as at least half the women have degrees in financially useless things, like Art History, Gender Studies, Literature, Liberal Arts, etc…
However, if you read the news, they’re barring the gates, to make sure men don’t vote with their feet. Owe child support or money to the IRS, no passport. Have even a minor criminal record, and all drug arrests qualify, so get busted smoking a joint, no passport – at this time it has to be more than a joint, but that’s where it’s headed. Just read that the gov is going to buy up all those toxic house mortgages, and they’ll be making arrests of people who don’t make their house payments – bet they’ll deny you a passport over that as well.
So, not only do they intend to shove this NWO, feminist, politically correct system down your throat, but they object to the idea that their tax slaves might want to escape their Utopia – the entire West is to become an open air prison apparently – whether you’re in the E.U. or the USA, Canada, Australia, it doesn’t matter, they’re all headed the same direction. No worries though, when it goes past a certain point, I’m gone – you just have to let a fire burn itself out and take care of yourself and stay out of its way.
Alex
1 Oct 12 at 7:30 am
Alex;
The seeds for raising the AOC to 25 have been getting sown here for a long time. Mostly the media pundits promote it; for example Laura Schlessinger, a Socon feminist often says that no one should marry before 25; and since she doesn’t believe in sex before marriage, well… Practically every media pundit refers to anyone under 25 as a ‘kid’ or a ‘child’.
As far as legalities go, the 25 AOC is not a statute anywhere, but is socially and informally enforced as though it were a legal issue. Most universities have policies that regard students there as ‘children’. Obama’s Healthcare Act was the real shot across the bow. It legally authorizes parents to claim any of their offspring up to the age of 26 as dependent children. I remember when the law was enacted, a lot of the Fathers’ Rights MRAs said that child-support payments would be enforced up to 26, since they have to pay health insurance for their children under the plan.
I think that the 25 AOC is going to be implemented here gradually rather than immediately. You’ve probably seen how easy it is to get the American public to accept about anything as the ‘new normal’ after a sufficient barrage of propaganda has prepared them for it.
Eric
1 Oct 12 at 7:37 am
On the subject of paedocrites, I noticed that our old pal, Mr. Manboobz is really stirred up over something. He’s screaming about ‘hate groups’ and the SPLC again, and at high volume, too. Apparently, it had something to do with a post at AVfM, but I tried to follow his link and it didn’t work—who knows?
But in light of this story in France, the last time I remember Fatrelle going into this kind of frenzy was about the time Eivand Berge was arrested. If anyone remembers the battle I had with Manboobz over his—ummm, ‘involvement’— with the Berge case over on the Spearhead, it’s hard not to wonder about his coincidental timing yet again.
My instinct is telling me that this case in France isn’t over yet. The paedocrites have got something bigger up their sleeves and they’re using this case to some larger purpose.
Eric
1 Oct 12 at 12:20 pm
Organised crime? wat
Jonas
1 Oct 12 at 5:53 pm
I know this deserves a longer reply, but in brief I think it’s down to the fact that the female mind is increasingly and hopelessly maladapted to sex in the 21st century.
I’d like to hear your theory of it.
theantifeminist
1 Oct 12 at 8:43 pm
I went to the dreaded manboobz blog (as your story aroused my curiosity a little more than I could ignore) and I was hoping I could find whatever it was he was so stirred up over, but the first thing I saw as soon as his stupid homepage opened, was this message at the top of the post:
UPDATE: AVFM has taken the post down.
However after reading his very vague post, it appears he’s convinced that he has enough evidence now to assert that many of the commentators at AVfM are using the blog as a soap-box to express their racist bigotry and that AVfM even welcomes racism and the views of racist bigots…
I hope he tries to take it further because he will effectively hang himself if he does.
AVfM commentators may be a lot of things – conservative father’s rights activists, paedocrites (and let’s face it nearly every man is nowadays, thanks to paedohysteria) and even white-knights, but racist bigots??
He has to be joking!
The nearest thing I’ve read in there to what could be misread as ‘racism’ or racial hatred would be a few comments and even posted articles where it is quite rightly alluded to that the sex-offender or paedophile stereotype, as defined by feminist misandry and upheld by rampant societal paedohysteria, is invariably the Anglo or ‘Caucasian’ (white) male.
Alan Vaughn
1 Oct 12 at 9:53 pm
I’m sure Paul Elam knows what he’s doing, but I’m surprised that he’s bowed down to the child rape apologist known as David Fraudtrelle on this occasion.
I read the Pamela Geller article and it seemed pretty sound to me – except she could have made more of the fact that Morris Dees, the founder of the SLPC, was accused by his wife of sexually interfering with his own underage daughter.
I checked out Geller’s wikipedia entry, and it seems that she was put on the SLPC hate list for being against the islamification of the USA and europe.
In other words, so f****** what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Geller
EDIT : just took a quick look at the comments underneath Fraudtrelle’s article. Seems some of his readers are Islamophobic right wing white nationalists :
http://theantifeminist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/david-futrelle-islamaphobia.jpg
theantifeminist
1 Oct 12 at 10:14 pm
I see… So does this mean therefore the SPLC are in favour of Islamification of our society even when most people are against it?
She was merely expressing the same views that any Christian or other non-muslim would voice. It’s not what most (including Afro- Americans) would regard as racism or hatred that’s for sure.
Indeed so f****** what.
And yes, it is (once again) disappointing to see Paul bow down to and effectively surrender to feminist pressure, albeit indirectly from that exerted by Mr Dirty Fattroll…
Alan Vaughn
1 Oct 12 at 10:33 pm
LOL…
That RubyHypatia has nothing to fear. Soon every man in western society will not only try to imagine, but will actually live in fear of exactly what she stated there, except substitution of ‘misogynistic’ with ‘misandristic’…
Oh and that other word: ‘ratical’, do you think that was deliberately misspelled, or is she just dumb?
Alan Vaughn
1 Oct 12 at 10:47 pm
It would appear that Fraudtrelle and the SPLC are in favour of Sharia Law – i.e. ‘sluts’ being stoned to death, women only allowed to go out in public if they are escorted by their husband and master.
Misogynistic hate crime extremists.
It would also appear that David Futrelle supports 50 year old men fucking 8 year old girls (Mohammed).
…well that one shouldn’t surprise us…
Blaming anti-Islamic American bloggers for Anders Breivik is about as valid as blaming leftie bloggers who opposed the invasion of Iraq for the london tube bombings or the Madrid train station atrocity.
theantifeminist
1 Oct 12 at 10:53 pm
Well yeah… Of course. That’s why his slogan is “MISOGYNY. I MOCK IT.”
I guess….?
Ah! it’s a typo: he was supposed to type:
“MISOGYNY. I LOVE IT.”
Alan Vaughn
1 Oct 12 at 10:59 pm
Antifeminist:
I think it stems from a combination of factors, based on female perception.
Feminism educates women to believe that they are superior to men and that all men are subhumans, at the same time it teaches them that they are entitled to the ‘perfect relationship’ simply by virtue of the fact that they are female.
The two things are contradictory, so women believe that any man who isn’t ‘perfect’ by their definition is no better than a violent thug. And since women are, by definition, supposed to be superior to men, they gravitate towards the lowest and most dysfunctional males because it’s easier to feel superior and dominant towards them than it is towards a normal man.
Women also can be with such men and escape any responsibility of commitment. If she leaves a thug, nobody’s going to blame her; if she chooses a thug, she can rationalize by claiming that all men are pigs anyway, and the Sisterhood will assure her that she’s the victim.
In divorces, we see those dynamics clearly. A woman marries a normal guy, because she needs a sperm donor. When she’s had ‘kids’ she’s done with the husband; and unleashes all resentment she’s built up over needing a man for as little as donating sperm in a vicious and vindicative divorce. She’s been conditioned to see every good thing the man did during marriage as using her and taking advantage of her; so the better a man treated her, the more she despises him for it. Invariably, they jump immediately in with some bad-boy and become Cougars, repeating their earlier independence and grrrl power.
Anyway, it could also use some further expansion, but that’s the general outline. Their behavior is based on what used to be called a ‘Superiority Complex’ in psychology.
Eric
2 Oct 12 at 12:50 am
Alan:
That’s a good question about the misspelling. Considering that, like most of the airheads who comment there, she across as a complete ignoramus. She says that Mediaeval Christianty was hostile to women. I guess that’s also why the era is known to history as ‘The Age of Chivalry’. LOL
Eric
2 Oct 12 at 12:55 am
I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the United Queendom was plotting a commando raid into France if their diplomatic strong-arming failed.
nah eric the United Queendom wouldnt consider that (too close of a political ally) but i guarantee the UK told the frenchies in no uncertain terms that they WOULD hand over The Monster or face bigtime economic/political consequences
western men, after all, need to be kept in a state of terror in order for the matriarchies to function and expand
now, were it extradition from a third world country, the UK certainly would have snatched him militarily, if necessary — b/c the public sentiment in the UK (i.e., women) would be 100 percent in favor of extradition and a 30 year jail term
and isnt that all that matters anymore, anywhere in the West? — if women want it, it happens
antifeminist —
I read the Pamela Geller article and it seemed pretty sound to me – except she could have made more of the fact that Morris Dees, the founder of the SLPC, was accused by his wife of sexually interfering with his own underage daughter.
that would have been a big mistake tactically
the article was v good, tho quite slanted towards right-wing ideo-politics…. and the repubs/righties are NO friends of boys and men in the West — theyre collaborators w the gynarchy
however the piece wasnt written for AVfM, so they ran it as composed . . . correctly, b/c it is a very effective and revealing piece not only about SPLC, but also about the THOUSANDS of feminist/leftist NGOs across the anglosphere which are little more than corrupt fronts for the hatred and persecution of boys and men — while organization employees live in luxury
the quality of writing is quite good at AVfM — theyre big enuf now, tho, that they should hire a real editor/proofreader
for AVfM, it’s just a matter of keeping the egos in check, at this point
that’s usually the downfall of men, with sexuality being number two
cheers
ray
2 Oct 12 at 1:10 am
Alan & Antifeminist:
So that’s why the link disappeared.
Pamela Geller comes up in the news over here once in awhile. She’s a Florida attorney, a Tea Party activist, and, from what I’ve seen, runs something like an SPLC-type, anti-hate watchdog group monitoring radical Moslems.
Now let’s see: didn’t the SPLC begin as a whatchdog group monitoring radical white supremacists? Weren’t they concerned about an ‘Aryanification’ of the US and Europe?
I guess some ‘radicals’ are more equal than others…
Still, Elam’s bowing to Futrelle’s pressure, especially after all the heat he’s taken over his recent ‘MRM Blueprint for the Future’ isn’t boding very positively for the direction AVfM is going.
Eric
2 Oct 12 at 1:10 am
“Blaming anti-Islamic American bloggers for Anders Breivik is about as valid as blaming leftie bloggers wo opposed the invasion of Iraq for the London Tube bombing”
Futrelle never learns.
Even the femihag-dominated Norwegian courts couldn’t even find a way to blame Apargus, a Norwegian MRM-blogger, for Breivik’s crimes!
I wonder if Fatroll and his SPLC henchman Goldweg aren’t planning on playing on American ignorance to stir up some more anti-MRM hate-mongering.
Eric
2 Oct 12 at 1:24 am
Futrelle reminds me of an aggressive drunk in a bar, wildly picking fights and flailing away with his fists, aiming at everybody and finding nobody. Meanwhile, the grizzly veteran bar patrons are just waiting to step up from their tables to knock the fat f***** out cold.
theantifeminist
2 Oct 12 at 10:49 am
I think the MRM in general is just getting a bit too impatient to be ‘mainstream’. I don’t think there’s a realistic chance of that anytime soon anyway, and vainly rushing for msm acceptance will likely just dilute the cause and even open the door to infiltration and co-opting.
I notice also that after over a decade of regularly updating his site, Angry Harry took quite a break, and his recent updates have certainly been far from ‘mainstream’ (ex: the quote from Winston Churchill regarding votes for women).
As I said before though, we all have our own opinions on how the MRM should progress and nobody can please everybody. If people decide that sites like the-spearhead and avformen are getting too soft and mainstream, then other sites will just spring up and take their place. And as I also said, I don’t know how I would have reacted to being placed on the SLPC hate list etc.
theantifeminist
2 Oct 12 at 10:59 am
Antifeminist:
‘If people decide that sites like AVfM or the Spearhead are going too soft or mainstream, other sites will spring up to take their places.’
That could very well be the case. It could be that what we’re seeing right now with the Fathers Rights movement is the same thing that happened to the Game/PUA movement awhile back. They were active in the MRM for a time, but then sort of became an independent movement of their own. The Fathers Rights guys might be splitting off into another faction too. In other words, this might be just another transitional phase in the MRM.
I’ve noticed the same thing with Rookh as with Angry Harry. He also stopped blogging for awhile, but has come back strongly recently, outing Futrelle and writing some really powerful stuff.
‘I don’t know how I would have reacted to being placed on the SPLC hate list.’
Considering that SPLC attack happened at the same time Eivand Berge was arrested, I think it’s not improbable that Elam, Welmer and others saw themselves in Apargus’ place. I don’t know about the rest of the Anglosphere, but the American police are feared over here just about like the German Gestapo and with good reason.
Eric
2 Oct 12 at 8:42 pm
I know your question was not addressed to me but I find myself confused by it. The Sexual Trade Union Theory as far as I understand it is the belief that feminism (and feminist-like movements) are in large part the consorted efforts by unattractive women to limit men’s sexual options (hence campaigns against prostitution, pornography and male sexual access to young girls) in order to increase the sexual bargaining power or unattractive women. What you seem to be describing “monopolizing sex in the hands of a few females” seems to be a female version of an alpha male reproduction strategy…unless I am misunderstanding you…and I don’t know anyone who advocates a belief that feminism is a mirror image of the reproduction strategies pursued by some alpa males and I don’t think that theory would hold any water given the differences between men and women (but if you think you can defend that thesis I would love to hear your arguments).
With regard to your opinion that women seem to be pursuing the least desirable males and ingnoring the most desirable ones…I assume that you are talking about the fact that many women seem to make irresponsible dating/marriage choices. I agree that too many women make irresponsible choices wrt to sexual partners though I think that phrases such as “women only want violent thugs” (common in the more far right elements of the MRM) and such are exaggerations and a form of rhetorical overkill that is not very helpful. Why do too many women make such irresponsible choices? My opinion is that women are naturally attracted a man’s status AND his reliabiltiy and thus they will find traits that indicate a high level of status and a high level of reliability attractive. “Nice Guys” (males with high levels of reliability but who may or may not have a desirable level of status) are running on hard times of course as their sexual market value is being artificially lowered by things such as divorce and spousal support laws (which can reduce the need for male reliability), certain elements of the welfare state, a cultural environment that does not hold women accountable for thier actions or for the choices they make and yes Age of Consent Laws (teenage girls will avoid nice guys their own age because they cant make any money at that age and thus dont have anything to show for thier reliability and thus pursue bad boys who can provide status and excitement…aoc laws and pedohysteria prevent older nice guys who CAN have something to show for thier reliability from competing with teenage jerks for teenage females…the teenage male jerks thus gain a head start on developing “skills” with females which then gives them a leg up later on in life as well). Thus I do not support the view that some in the MRA and MGTOW movements have that female patner choice inevitably leads to women chasing assholes, it’s kind of hard to argue this point when there are so many things in our society that artificially lower female incentives to choose nice guys.
The Highwayman
3 Oct 12 at 12:28 am
HMMM…not sure what you mean by this comment but I disagree that France is a cowardly country their soldiers certainly were brave in the trenches during the first world war. While it is true that France quickly succumbed to the germans during the second world war that was a fate suffered by many nations during that war. The german army during the early years of the war was possibly one of the best ever feilded the only thing that prevented Britain from being overrun was the english channel and the Royal Navy. The British, Canadian, American and Soviet armies all eventually learned how to deal with the Wehrmacht but every single one of those armies got a pasting when they first encountered it. Unfortunately for the French there were no large bodies of water or vast landscapes and harsh winters to allow them to lick thier wounds and reorganize. Also the French people were subjected to much kinder treatment (while under German occupation) than most other peoples that found themselves under German occupation (especially slavic ones) so their higher levels of collaboration may have had more to do with having fewer incentives to engage in open revolt as opposed to cowardice.
The Highwayman
3 Oct 12 at 1:28 am
Good point Highwayman, and perhaps Ray didn’t realise that two of our most loyal and esteemed readers and commentators (Jack and Nico) are both French.
theantifeminist
3 Oct 12 at 3:52 am
Highwayman & Antifeminist:
And just for the record, one of my great-grandmothers was also French. I learned how to cook from watching her BTW!
I would assume that, like most of continental Europe, France is essentially a conservative country with a liberal over-structure.
I
Eric
3 Oct 12 at 4:03 am
Highwayman:
Yes, you did misunderstand a part of this. Your description of the STU as ‘a concerted effort to limit male options’ was what I meant by ‘monopolising sex in the hands of a few’. Although to add to that somewhat, as commenter MRA has pointed out, the most attractive women in the feminist movement encourage things like ‘fat acceptance’ and ‘cougarism’ among other women. But I don’t think they’re being female ‘alphas’; more like female Futrelles—sabotaging other women for their own gain.
To the other part: women’s attraction to assholes, I agree with you in part: NORMAL women are attracted to high status, responsible, and strong males. But the paradox here is that in feminist-dominated cultures, where women supposedly have constrained male options and so slanted the laws and social paradigms to their own favor, they DO NOT typically choose high-status, strong, responsible, or intelligent men.
The only conclusion from this phenomenon is that there is something inherent in feminist indoctrination that inclines women to go against their own instincts and choose unfit males for mates (in the same way they renounce motherhood and consider abortion a virtue).
Eric
3 Oct 12 at 4:13 am
[...] http://theantifeminist.com/paedohysteria-uk-updates-29-09-12/ [...]
Is Pakistani grooming really that bad? « oogenhand
7 Oct 12 at 5:31 am