Angry Harry : ‘The Physical and Psychological Differences Between Men and Women’

Angry Harry responds to a lecture by Dr Lewis Wolpert based on his latest book,
‘Why Can’t a Woman Be More Like a Man’

In a recent piece of mine – entitled Who Is More Empathic – Men Or Women? – I mentioned that I was very happy to see that scientists concerned with Biology and Psychology were, finally, managing to stand up to the empty-headed nonsense that has been foisted on to the western world by ideologically driven ‘scientists’ for the past four decades; ‘scientists’ who kept denying that genes had very much to do with various psychological traits, when the evidence has always strongly pointed to the very opposite.

These people were, and are, not ‘scientists’, but deceitful politically-corrected ideologues attempting to impose their left-wing agendas on to the science community and on to the world at large.

They still dominate most of academia.

How pleased I was, therefore, to receive an email pointing out that Dr Lewis Wolpert – a well-known UK biologist – had recently given a public lecture on the well-documented effects of genes and biology on both human brains and behaviours.

Unfortunately, however, the lecture turned out to consist of little more than wild speculation, faulty logic, gender politics and a constant stream of venomous nonsense specifically designed to stir up hatred towards men…


Is Angry Harry Back?

We certainly hope so :

Where have you been?

What are you doing?

Are you ‘back’?


These are some of the questions that kept recurring in the emails that were sent to me following my recent posting of my most excellent masterpiece Looking Up Women’s Skirts – which I wrote because I was really aggravated about a Japanese film that I saw only part of; a couple of months ago.

Well, let me summarise the situation.

I have not written much for Angry Harry for over a year now. There are many reasons for this.

Too much other work to do. Burn out. Boredom. And a desire to spend my time focusing on other matters…

Academics Support Size Zero Models..and Sexual Trade Union Theory

Forget chubby, keep it slim! Says a new controversial report supporting size zero.

Despite many slamming size zero models – even Victoria Beckham banned them  from her fashion show last year – the runway waif has now been backed by top academics.

A new report warns that getting rid of super-skinny models could worsen the nation’s obesity epidemic.

Researchers Dr Davide Dragone and Dr Luca Savorelli, from the University of Bologna, Italy claim that introducing larger models will increase unhealthy eating habits.

On the same basis as these academics, I’ve argued previously that in the midst of a child obesity epidemic, the feminist obsession with anorexia and the banning of ‘idealistic’ slim images of women is an utter obscenity and a clear form of child abuse.  But what’s more, it’s clear evidence for the sexual trade union theory of what feminism is.

I’ve promised Ferdinand Bardemu I’ll write the occasional article for Inmalafide.  I thought I’d start with an outline of the theory propounded on this blog that feminism is a sexual trade union for women reacting to changes in technology that continue to drive open the free sexual market (and put feminists, and the majority of women, at a sexual disadvantage).

Thinking about the article, I’ve been forced to reflect again on why I think this explanation of feminism is superior to the massively more popular ‘Cultural Marxism’ accounts.  And I’ve read again the first chapter of Steve Moxon’s excellent (and essential) ‘The Woman Racket’ and also Angry Harry’s typically cogent and well argued essay ‘Cultural Marxism and Feminism’.

I don’t think sexual trade union theory, and theories that place Cultural Marxism at the center, are actually in opposition.  I just think that the latter are simply incapable of providing complete explanations of the entire historical narrative of feminism, and the specific focus that feminism has always had on protecting the sexual interests of its supporters as they become increasingly threatened by a forever widening free sexual market.  Cultural Marxism has been the intellectual mask, the rationalisation, that feminism has needed since the sexual market was blown open with the introduction of the contraceptive pill.  That is not to deny that Cultural Marxism has, indeed, had a very concrete and leading role in the astonishing ‘success’ that feminism has enjoyed in the last few decades.  But, for me, it is sexual trade union theory that best explains the underlying psychological motivations behind feminists themselves. 

Feminism began with the religious and conservative social purity movements of the 19th century.  The first agitators for the vote for women were often extremely and openly racist. In fact, many argued that it was necessary for white women to gain the vote as a counter to the enfranchisement of the black male.  It should also be remembered that the first men’s rights activist, Ernest Belfort Bax, was a socialist thinker.  Since the 60’s, feminism has certainly been predominantly left-wing.  But recently, with the likes of Sarah Palin, we’ve begun to see the strong re-emergence of the ‘femiservative’ (a term coined by Ferdinand Bardemu).

Feminists have always changed their political allegiances with the wind.  The only constant is that whichever intellectual or political theory their movement adopts, they do so with the rationalisation and protection of their threatened sexual interests chiefly in mind (consciously or subconsciously).

The feminist focus upon, and exploitation of, anorexia, and the campaign against size zero models, as well as laws such as the recent French ban on ‘digitally airbrushed images of women in the media’, can be explained partly by cultural marxism, but more exhaustively (and more simply) by sexual trade union theory.

Not only do feminists pursue a policy of campaigning against size zero models, as well as digitally slimmed down images of women, policies that will likely cause a rise in general obesity, (something that is a far greater problem for young girls than is anorexia).  They also remain completely silent about the fast food industry, which spends millions and makes billions in persuading young people to eat their unhealthy, fattening products.

 But really, why should cultural marxism, in itself, so clearly lead feminists to confront the fashion industry rather than the fast food industry?  Other ‘liberal progressives’ and Michael Moore Wannabes have.  The fashion industry is dominated by homosexual men who, in the words of one commentator, want their female models to be as sexless and aneroxic as possible, as a kind of substitute for the unattainable boys that they pine for.  Not exactly the usual bogeymen of cultural Marxism. The food industry is dominated by buisnessmen running international corporations that make massive profits from destroying the health of children through obesity…and ruining the sexual attractiveness of teenage girls (something, which of course, feminists want).  The multi-billion dollar male dominated fast food industry is a more logical and honest target for victim and opresser ideology, but attacking the fashion industry, and remaining silent upon obesity and fast food, serves the sexual interests of feminists much better.

The fact is that only sexual trade union theory can explain all feminist behaviour, from particular campaigns such as the targeting of ‘size zero models’, to the broad brush strokes of each successive wave of feminism.  Feminism has always been the story of women being stirred into increasing political activism as new technology threatens their sexual power in a market that continues to open.  Size zero models and digitally airbrushed images are just one of the latest manifestations of this in the history of feminism as a sexual trade union.

Men’s Rights Gets Google PageRank Boost

This week, Google have once again updated their ‘PageRanks’ – an algorithm that awards each website on the internet a mark out of 10 for ‘authority’.  These updates occur once every 6 months or so, and are based upon factors such as the number of other quality and relevant sites that are linking in to yours.  A high Google PageRank is important because it affects your website’s position within their search results.

Two men’s rights sites now appear to have achieved an impressive rank of 5 – and  A PageRank of 5 is very good, and as far as I know had not been achieved by any men’s rights site previously (I think last week Angry Harry had a rank of 3, and The Spearhead one of 4).

One of the things that scores heavily towards PageRank is a link from a highly authoritative website such as a leading news outlet.  For that reason, it’s possible that Paul Elam’s could reach a rank of 6 when the next update occurs, on account of being linked to by the New York Times.  If that happens, it will mean that a men’s rights site will have achieved Google parity with, the leading dedicated feminist website.

My own little perverted and extremist corner of the men’s rights blogosphere did boast a dizzy rank of 4 only a few months ago, but for some reason crashed back down to 1 overnight.  This occured shortly after my YouTube account was banned (Google, of course, owns YouTube).  It is likely that was associated by Google with my YouTube account, and therefore was penalised when my account was ‘terminated’.  A word of warning, therefore,  to those men’s rights bloggers who are also on YouTube – if you have recieved a community guideline warning, then it is probably prudent to delete your YouTube account.  Piss off the Google Monster, and you effectively find yourself banned from the interweb.

A final word of advice.  When linking to feminist sites, always be sure to add rel=”nofollow” within the html link tag.  This prevents your PageRank ‘linkjuice’ from being passed on to the site of your enemy.

*Edit : I did of course forget, which I presume would have, and did already have, a page ranking of 5 – because of the fact that Google trusts it as a news source.  At the moment it’s not showing in my browser so I can’t check.  But, in any case, MND is a little different in that it is a news hub rather than a blog.

Kloo2Yoo and the Promise and Peril of Reddit Men’s Rights

arthur schopenhauer graveHaving returned from my annual pilgrimage to the grave of Arthur Schopenhauer in Frankfurt, I will now write the piece I promised earlier. An important piece, detailing as it does, a development in the course of anti-feminism that has probably had the old misery guts himself turning in his grave, as well as Ernest Belfort Bax, the very first men’s rights activist, not to mention Steve Moxon, and quite a few others, choking on their breakfast cereal in disbelief and dismay.

In the last couple of weeks, there has been a wave of excitement at the prospect of the men’s rights movement finally breaking through to the masses.  In particular, we have had the announcement of both the Futurist’s urls@urinals campaign, and Paul Elam’s proposed men’s rights internet radio station.

But, however inspiring and potentially massive these developments undoubtedly are, they are both arguably dwarfed by another less noticed and talked about breakthrough –  Men’s Rights is now on the default list of Reddit, the internet’s biggest social bookmarking hub.  As a consequence, that subreddit, already the largest online men’s rights community by far, is now attracting over 100 new members each and every day.

It would be impossible to put a monetry value upon that kind of free publicity for our movement.  Businesses would pay thousands, if not millions of dollars for that kind of advertising.  It’s the equivalent of men’s rights flyers being put up in a thousand urinals every day, or HBO dedicating an hour’s programming each week solely to men’s rights issues.

But there is a problem.  Kloo2Yoo, the creator and moderator of a men’s rights community that will probably have over 100,000 members by the end of next year, is either a feminist or an idiot.  This has been discussed previously both here and elsewhere, but recently it’s taken on an even more disturbing and sinister turn.

Kloo2yoo recently submitted a post to r/mensrights linking to the story of a woman who takes her 5 year old son around America on book signing tours and daytime chat shows, with the little boy ‘happily’ dressed in pink skirts and other exaggeratedly girlie attire.  To the title of his post, he added the question as to what name we should invent to encourage other pre-school male toddlers who ‘want’ to escape the patriarchal shackles of their imposed gender, and to dress up as little girls – or circus freaks, for Oprah Winfrey and her like.

Now, I consider myself about as far away from the alpha-male wannabe ultra-conservative patriarch men’s rights charicature that some of our enemies (and some idiots in our movement) want to portray and define all of us as being.  I’ve been a vegetarian since the age of 5.  This is my favourite video on YouTube.  Well, actually, maybe this is.  One of the most beautiful human beings I ever met was a 16 year old girl trapped inside the body of a boy (and mentally tortured because, quite reasonably, in the UK, you have to be 18 before you are deemed mature enough to consent to go through with a sex change operation).  I certainly have nothing against transexuals and certainly nothing against fighting society’s fixed definitions of what it is to be a man (which comes from the sexual needs of women as much as the needs of ‘patriarchal’ society).

But we’re talking about pre-schoolers here, and a woman who is messing with her 5 year old son’s very identity for highly questionable motives.

The other disturbing aspect of this is that Kloo2Yoo then approves a radical feminist troll (thepinkmask or catlebrity) posting tips on how to encourage your own pre-school son to accept that they are really, in actual fact, girls.

Arguing against feminists criminalizing as subhuman paedophiles the 99% of the global male population who will ,at one time or another, inevitably click upon an image of a 30 year old woman in pigtails, whilst surfing for porn, is not men’s rights or anti-feminism (despite what Steve Moxon says), and will get you an immediate ban, yet supporting radical feminists cross-dressing and interfering with the very soul and identity of your little pre-schooler IS men’s rights.

Apparently.  In the world of Kloo2Yoo.

Well, I want no part of it.  But the most important thing is, the men’s rights community should surely want no part in it. But there’s more.  Last week, Kloo2Yoo effectively admitted that he was a feminist.

The fact that has been so spectacularly successful hasn’t got much to do with kloo2 whatsoever.  Rather, it has everything to do with the work and posting of relevant links by the likes of Pierce Harlan and others.  Kloo2, in effect, got lucky, by being the first person to create a subreddit by the name of ‘mensrights’.  But last week’s admission by Kloo2 suggests that, rather than being simply the lucky idiot that he often comes across as, he is in fact a feminist and misandrist and that r/mensrights is, indeed, a veritable attempt at creating a false flag operation against our movement. 

Kloo2’s admission that he had set up feminist subreddits BEFORE creating r/mensrights, was made in a comment to a post entitled something along the lines of ‘I propose that we hereby identify ourselves as being true feminists rather than as men’s rights activists‘.  The post, although massively and typically upvoted by the feminist brigade, has seemingly been mysteriously deleted.  Presumably, because I left a comment calling Kloo2 out on his admission.  Kloo2 also made a comment offering to hand over r/mensrights to the person who made the post.  Again, he did this because either he is simply retarded, or 13 years old as some have claimed, or because he is indeed a feminist trojan horse.

What can be done?

I have set up an alternative reddit that is more open to an array of diverging but genuine men’s rights views, and less tolerant of obvious feminist trolls :, but, to be honest, it has no hope of competing with r/mensrights, and nor should it have to.  As I explained earlier, is a potential Godsend and a certain breakthrough for the movement.  If Kloo2yoo is merely an idiot, rather than being a sinister part of a feminist operation to control the voice and development of the men’s rights movement, then he has a moral duty right now to allow other, more senior and intelligent members of our movement, to become moderators.  People like AngryHarry, Paul Elam, ManWomanMyth, the Futurist, and Pierce Harlan.  In fact, above all Pierce Harlan, as it is his hard work that has made that reddit what it potentially is, in spite of kloo2yoo’s idiocy and betrayal in allowing the place to become infested with feminist trolls and puritanical lunatics ( a recent post by Harlan detailing the way in which sex offenders are forced to masturbate recieved almost as many downvotes as upvotes).

I suggest that some kind of petition, some concrete moral pressure at least, is put upon Kloo2Yoo to allow senior and genuine men’s rights activists to become moderators of r/mensrights.  I would further suggest that the position of that community in shaping the future voice of our movement is so vast and obvious that it may even require that others in the movement offer to purchase ownership of r/mensrights from Kloo2Yoo.

Whatever the solution is, I hope you’ll agree that this is an important issue that needs to be discussed.



The Curse of Child Protection

Apologies once more for lack of updates here, but I’ve been on the road again – this time in Spain.  Getting away from the UK is always welcome, especially when it’s blanketed beneath an arctic weather front.  Spain, in particular, represents two things that my own nation sadly lacks – sun and civilisation.  Unfortunately, while Spain might always have a sunnier climate, the millions of Brits who increasingly flock there seem intent on taking their uncivilised British Sun values with them.   Already, for example, there are fears that the rampant knife culture amongst British ferral youths is being exported to the Spanish coastal towns

Every time I visit Spain, I see less of the civilised world I used to love, and  more of the broken Britain that those thick ex-pat Brits are fleeing from, unaware in their dumbed down stupour, that they are carrying with them precisely what they are escaping from – like the unsuspecting hosts of a virulent and devastating plague. 

Only a few years ago, in one of the main squares of Madrid, I saw a delightful old man, who must have been in his seventies at least, roller skating around full of youthful abandon and genuine love of life.  And whenever a young senorita in a pretty dress caught his eye he would immediately skate up to her, gently take the palm of her hand into his, kiss it adoringly, and tell her how beautiful she was.  The girl, often as young as 13 or 14, usually accompanied by teenage boys, would always smile and be genuinely flattered.  The boys would laugh and gently tease their friend, but obviously found it as endearing as I did.

White Knight elements aside, it was still a sight beautiful to behold, but also tragic and heartbreaking that it could exist at all.  For it was something that would obviously have the wailing of police sirens and social workers descending upon the square within seconds if it took place in London.  Probably armed SWAT teams tasering the old pedo if in an American city – all filmed for the entertainment of burger munching inbred redneck viewers of Dateline USA, as they shout paedophile at each other’s cocks. 

 And it was something that I obviously knew couldn’t continue for much longer even in this last outpost of civilised European values.

Earlier this year, I was in San Sebastian, and witnessed something very similar involving a little teenage puta with her g-string showing.  Only this time, the girl did not smile but shouted an obscenity at him.  As the old man crawled away in shame and disgust, the girl told her friends with malicious self-satisfied pride that he was probably a child molestor.  I genuinely feared the boys would give chase and lynch him.

Until very recently, Spain did not even have a child protection charity.  Now of course, it’s a booming multi-million dollar feminist industry there, just like in every other corner of the globe.  However, it seemed to get by quite adequately without one in all those years before.  The last statistics I checked it had a child murder rate 1/4 the rate of the UK.  Teenage suicide and bullying were also very rare compared to here.  Now Spain learns that your child might soon be knifed to death in the street at any moment, just like in the UK, but at least feminists you can be sure that old men won’t dare glance at your 15 year old daughter, let alone tell her that she is beautiful.  Just like in the UK.

Although Spain now has its own thriving child abuse industry, the British NSPCC still takes the lead, together with the German ECPAT organization.  Most Spanish ‘child protection’ laws, which come thick and fast these days, are based on continent wide EU directives that are the result of lobbying by the two above mentioned feminist/femiservative sexual trade union pressure groups.

Michele Elliot – No Friend of Men

Easily one of the most surreal moments in my men’s rights path was seeing the legendary MRA Angry Harry juxtaposed with the leading feminist ‘child protection’ agitator Michele Elliot in a video by the (excellent) ManWomanMyth.

The point of the video was that men are being victimised because the ‘sexual abuse’ of boys is not taken as seriously as that of girls.  In a sense, this is obviously true, and the discrepency is valid to highlight as a men’s rights issue.  But such highlighting needs to involve a wider context in which the feminist definition of sexual abuse is permitted to be questioned, and why the focus on ‘sexual’ abuse, rather than physical or emotional abuse, is given such primacy by middle-aged feminists.

The same philosophical error, and it is the most fundamental and dangerous error currently found in the men’s rights movement, was committed by the excellent YouTuber ‘Factory‘ in a comment he left beneath an interesting avoiceformen article on abortion :

I personally believe the ONLY ‘official’ MRM position on Abortion is this:

Men’s rights in this regard should directly mirror those of women, whatever those rights happen to be.


No, good sir, you are very, very, wrong, and your position, if accepted as a general principle, would be extremely dangerous for men’s rights.  Whatever the rights or wrongs of abortion, men’s rights is never solely about blindly reflecting, or achieving ‘equality’ with, a morality and value agenda created by feminists and based upon the interests of women

I don’t want to appear to be picking on Factory here.  In fact, I only feel justified in naming him at all because he is obviously an otherwise superb MRA, and one who I supported back in the day when he was crazily stuck on about 20 YouTube subscribers.  As said, this lazy and naieve belief permeates the entire men’s rights blogosphere.  I’m picking him out because he expressed it sublimely in this instance. 

I once jested on this site that, if we weren’t careful, men’s rights activists would soon be demanding the right to an abortion.  Presumably, since men are biologically incapable of becoming pregnant, Factory must either mean that men should have a physical right to abort their babies in the mother’s womb – not very practical – or he is speaking in the rather figurative sense that men should have the same right to absolve themselves of the legal, moral, and financial consequences of having a baby, as women do when they physically abort their babies. 

As a men’s rights supporter, I agree with this latter sentiment. But it’s not a literal ‘mirroring’ of the feminist position, and even if it was, is that the be all and end all for men’s rights?  Aren’t there independent ethical considerations regarding the moral status of the unborn child?  Perhaps Factory would argue that whether or not there are, they are not a question for men’s rights.  But who gets to decide that the unborn child has effectively no moral status independent of  the mother (or Father)?  Why, feminists of course.  Do men have a ‘right’ to abort their babies in some moral or legal sense only if women decide that they need the right to physically exterminate their babies?

Furthermore, who get’s to decide that killing a 26 week old unborn child is a matter of no ethical concern if the mother doesn’t want to cancel that expensive winter ski-ing vacation?  Why, the same feminists who decide that men should be locked away to be beaten and raped in prison if they click so much as once on a picture of a fictional 25 year old Japanese cartoon character dressed in a school uniform.  That’s who.  This isn’t men’s rights.  This is men having the skin ignomiously scraped from their bodies as they are dragged around, clinging to the coattails of a feminist value system whilst blindly proclaiming that they have won ‘equality’.

But back to Michele Elliot.  Even if you want to pretend that you wouldn’t have killed to have had sex with a hot teacher when you were 15, even if you want a society in which children fear that every woman is a child molestor just as they fear every man is, just a few minutes Googling her name will tell you what kind of men’s rights supporter this American woman really is.

Michele Elliot Outrage as Chris Langham is Freed

Dr Michele Elliott, the chief executive of children’s charity Kidscape, slammed the court’s decision.

She said: “I’m almost speechless about this. The original 10 month sentence was derisory and now he has been set free which sends the message that ‘it’s not really so serious.’

“Well, maybe the reason the court doesn’t think it’s so serious is because he is famous.”

She fumed: “He could have got a bigger sentence if he had got caught driving without insurance and a licence. It is absolutely absurd. It’s a real blow for those people who are trying to protect children.” (compare with :

Michele Elliot Outrage at Police Chief re-defining of feminist re-defining  of paedophilia

Mr Grange, who speaks for UK police bosses on child protection, said: “I don’t personally adhere to the 15-year-old being with a 20-yearold being paedophilia – or even if the boyfriend is 30.

“It is much more of an issue for me if the child is under 13.”

Sex with a child below that age is automatically deemed rape.

The officer, head of Dyfed-Powys Police, said the appropriate action depended on the case – even when child pornography was involved.

He added: “You look at the circumstances. It may be nothing, it may be formal warnings, it may be prosecution.”

But his remarks drew furious condemnation from kids’ charities.

Kidscape, which fights child sex abuse, called him “irresponsible”.

It said: “A paedophile is a person sexually attracted to children.

In this country we class this as children under 16.”

Michele Elliot Outrage at 17 year old girls ‘paedo-pop’ that targets ‘dirty old men’.

Last night Michele Elliott, of the child protection charity Kidscape, said: ‘Record executives have targeted the young market and the old market, now they seem to be aiming for the dirty old man market.

‘This latest band really does defy description – it is totally pathetic. Child pornography is not funny and should never be laughed at, it is disgusting. I am very sad this song is going to be No.1.’

But the following is surely the most disturbing…

Michele Elliot Outrage as Man Walks Free After Having Sex with Girl He Thought was 19

A barman who admitted having sex with a 12-year-old girl walked free from court after convincing a judge she had tricked him into believing she was an adult.

Michael Graham, 25, met the girl through a social networking website on which she had posted pictures of herself and described herself as a 19-year-old student and single mother who enjoyed drinking and having sex.

The girl was inundated with offers from men, but only replied to Graham because he was the best looking, Leeds Crown Court was told.

…After hearing the background, Judge Jennifer Kershaw, QC, took a sympathetic view towards Graham and gave him a 12-month conditional discharge.

She said there was a ‘striking’ contrast-between how the girl looked in school uniform while giving video evidence to police and the image she used of herself on her website.

Explaining the sentence to the court, she said: ‘I accept the defendant did not know how old this girl was. I accept he did not know she was under the age of 16, still less did he know she was in fact 12.

It seems to me that this defendant was deceived. He was deceived in a number of material respects, both beforehand and during their encounter.’

…A psychiatrist’s report on Graham concluded he had no sexual interest in children and was not a paedophile.

..After the case Michele Elliott, of the charity Kidscape, said she was surprised at the sentence.

‘I find it hard to believe you would be fooled by a 12-year-old girl into thinking she is 19, especially if you talked to her,’ she added.

She said she had ‘some sympathy’ with Graham if he was tricked, however that was ‘tempered by the fact that all he wanted to do was jump on her, get her drunk and have sex with her’.

In other words stay the hell away from anyone who even remotely looks under 21, otherwise you deserve to find yourself in jail as a paedophile nonce.

Support Angry Harry’s brave expose of the child protection racket – place the following button on your homepage and link to his collection of essays :

Curse of the NSPCC

And just for Michele – the greatest pop video in history :

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 :

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.