Tag Archives: anti-feminism

The Abuse of Language (and real children) Continues

Posted on by
6

“If you define a child as anybody under the age of 30, the number of adults having sex with children rises to a sickening 80%”

The above quote wasn’t actually made by the Daily Mail or the NSPCC, but you’d hardly be surprised if it had been.  In fact, it was taken from the brilliant satire on paedohysteria brought to us by the genius of Chris Morris.  The point being that such manipulative shock language, when made by ‘experts’ such as the NSPCC, could get celebrities, politicians, and the public, to support just about any measures, no matter how insane, in the war against paedophilia.

We may not quite be at the point where a man having sex with anyone under 30 is a paedophile, but we’re fast approaching it.  The British media are currently in outrage at a scandal involoving Prince Andrew and his friendship with a ‘convicted paedophile‘Jeffrey Epstein’.  You’ve probably noticed that the media love the phrase ‘convicted paedophile’.  I can sort of see why.  It’s a manipulative loaded term that suggests that all men are paedophiles, only not all have been convicted yet.  And under their absurd definition of paedophilia, they’re right.  Jeffrey Epstein has not displayed any sexual preference for pre-pubescent 8 year olds.  In fact, his ‘crime’ consists of paying a beautiful 17 year old girl to give him a massage.  And who wouldn’t enjoy a massage from a beautiful 17 year old girl? Only (real) paedophiles, that’s who.

I have to confess that I’m pretty ignorent of American cultural history.  I don’t know what steps America took to get from Elvis Presely representing everything masculine about America in the 1960′s, when his penchant for adolescent girls was well known, to the 21st century, where even admitting that 17 year old girls are sexy will earn you a tag of paedophile notoriety.  Frankly, I’m not really interested.

I do have more knowlege of how it’s happend in the UK and Europe.  Largely because it has taken place before my eyes.  Only fifteen years ago nobody, and I mean nobody, would associate men having sex with 17 year old girls with paedophilia.  In fact, paedophilia hadn’t really even been ‘invented’ then. It was a term largely known only to professionals – a clinical term used to describe adults with a sexual fixation towards pre-pubescent children.  Fifteen years ago men who had sex with even 13 or 14 year olds were jocularly described as cradle snatchers, not paedophiles, and were rarely prosecuted unless the parents of the girl made a complaint.

Only 10 years ago, and British men were still happily staring at the breasts of 16 year old ’children’ in tabloid newspapers.  Yet those same newspapers now speak of men simply being touched by 17 year old girls as perverted paedophiles.  What kind of self-deceit is taking place in the primitive brains of the people who write these things, and the morons who read them?

“She was just 17, if you know what I mean, and the way she looked was way beyond compare…so how could I dance with another,  when I saw her standing there?”

Well actually Sir Paul McCartney, we don’t know what the hell you mean you sick (un)convicted paedo you.

Maybe next week the papers will be screaming fury at the Queen and Prince Philip, for once being seen in the same room as four Liverpudlian paedophiles who sang about the unrivalled beauty of 17 year old girls?

Meanwhile, reader Highwayman brings disturbing news that an appeal court in Canada has upheld the nation’s infanticide law- a law which effectively means that women who kill their children are tried for a lesser crime than murder.   These are laws passed by the same wicked feminists who have defined men’s natural sexual desires as the worst form of child abuse.  Such feminists are worse than paedophiles, and not just because they support child murder.  They are worse because they don’t just exploit children, they exploit child abuse itself – for their own evil, selfish, sexual and financial ends.  The only thing they can really be compared to is the worst type of child pornographers, or perhaps those largely non-existent child prostitution traffickers.

Coming This Week : The NSPCC as a Feminist Organisation

Child Protection Slut Shaming

Posted on by
6

CEOP is one of the leading sexual trade union pressure groups child protection societies in the UK.  Like most such advocacy groups, it is populated mainly by unspeakably ugly middle-aged women, both feminists and femiservatives, together with a sprinkling of Matthew Hopkins/Heinrich Himmler gene spliced Paedo-finder General type wierdos, such as its former chief, Jim Gamble.

The video above, released earlier in the week, purports to be a warning to teenage girls of the dangers of ‘sexting’, of sending their boyfriends sexy self-shot pics taken on their mobile phones.  It seems to me that the message is nothing more than ‘if you show yourself naked you’re a little slut and you deserve everything you get’ type of shaming message.  Of course, teenagers should be taught how to avoid being bullied.  Teenagers can be bullied by their peers for all manner of reasons.  There is nothing in this video that gives the message that the bullies are at fault, as is usual and what you might expect from an anti-bullying campaign.  In fact, it seems only a  more high-tech, ‘progressive’ equivalent of another video I watched recently – that of a teenage couple being stoned to death in Afghanistan for adultery.  Actually, the image of the sexting girl crying whilst being interviewed, with her hoodie top turned up and which then covers her face as she walks out, just before the fat ugly feminist starts speaking, seems almost deliberately intended to evoke the hijab, and to convey an Islamic message.  Attractive girls are only safe if they cover themselves up.   

Many of the reports into the Afghan stoning have claimed that the murdered couple were only 17 years old.  Predictably, there has been little noise from feminists or their obnoxious fake child protection societies.  Perhaps, in  a decade or two, when feminism in Europe has become fully subsumed under Islam, we will see them release videos of teenagers being physically, and not just figuratively, stoned to death, as a warning against sexting, or any other display of sexual power that makes their older rivals so angry.

To futher understand what motivates feminist child protection charities, take a look, if you can stomach it, at the following video that is hosted on a commercial website based in America :

http://www.mentalzero.com/Beastly-Girl-Repeatedly-Stomps-On-Helpless-Chick-s-Face-2850.html

There are dozens of videos like this on that website, and many other websites like them, sites that make money from showing videos of children being beaten and bullied.  I have never once heard any child protection group raise any concern over them.  Whilst the middle-aged fuglies and peado-finder generals jet around the world organising lucrative conferences that discuss ever more draconian laws that will send any man who clicks on a single thumbnail of a sexy teen to months of shower rape, there are no demands for these ‘bitch fight’ sites to be outlawed, let alone the sick people who view them to be imprisoned.  Notice, as you watch (quite legally) this 14 year old girl having her face stomped upon repeatedly, that at one point she makes a rude gesture at the person filming it.  While she is lying on the ground, with the boots of the bully coming down upon her head, she sees that she is being filmed, and clearly realises that her humiliation and pain is going to end up on the internet for millions of people to laugh at and replay for years.

But wait, she’s got her clothes on, so that’s o.k.

Meanwhile, in America, being tricked by a 17 year old jailbait in a nightclub can lead to 10 years in jail for the adult.  As I’ve stressed here repeatedly, and I need to keep repeating it because some MRAs still don’t get it, feminists use draconian applications of age of consent laws not in order to protect young girls from sex with older men.  No, the real reason, or at least the main reason, is to deter men from approaching any girl who remotely looks like she could be under the age of consent.  This is why, in the UK and the USA, the harshest sentances are meted out to men who have sex with underage girls close to the age of consent, and no mercy is shown even when it is accepted that the man believed the girl to be over age.  And when the age of consent is 18, as in many states of America, no sane man should ever go near any woman who even looks under 25, for fear that she might turn out to be a ‘child’ of 17 (bear in mind that in today’s world most girls complete puberty and physical growth by the age of 16).  Feminists have made a political priority of forcing law courts to dismiss as a defence the belief on the part of the man that the girl was of legal age.

This blog is in some danger of becoming an Angry Harry tribute site, but I can’t help quoting his comment regarding this story :

I have no doubt in my mind that the bartender above should not be in prison but that those officials and politicians who are responsible for implementing such a disgusting policy should be.

Sentiments that I agree 100% with, as every honest supporter of men’s rights should.

Human-Stupidity on UN Declaration of the Inflation of the ‘Child’

Posted on by
3

Human-Stupidity has written another classic piece describing the way in which feminists have selfishly manipulated language in order to define our moral and legal ‘reality’..

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/united-nation-manipulates-child-definition-to-persecute-men-17-year-old-children

A few brief points as to why this particular example of the United Nations matters :

  • The age at which society decides childhood ends and adulthood starts has been one of the most essential and critical features of any and every civilisation that we know of.  Every society has had it’s own particular and elaborate ‘coming of age’ festivals and rites of passage ceremonies. Throughout history, the age of adulthood has generally begun around the age of puberty, the only non-arbitary marker of the end of childhood.  Feminists, via the United Nations, have effectively extended the period of childhood by 4 or 6 years, despite the fact that a 14 year old today is significantly more physically and sexually developed than in any previous centuries – as well as, in general, much better educated (and sexually knowledgeable).  Feminists have done this for entirely selfish, brood mare reasons – to increase their own sexual market value and to limit younger sexual competition.  To think that this artificial and selfish extension of childhood won’t have serious, and likely negative, consequences for both society and the development of young people into mature adults, seems incredibly naieve (see the case against adolescence).
  • The feminist extension of childhood into early adulthood, accompanied by similarly feminist generated paedohysteria, has led to a society which could be described as the complete inverse of the greatest civilisation the world has ever known – Ancient Greece.  Whereas in that society (and to a scarcely less extent Ancient Rome), relationships between the old and the young, including physical relationships, were thought crucial to the stability of civilisation, and the development of young people in their transition into adulthood, in the Western world we now have a society in which the old and the young despise each other, where adults (particularly men, of course) are too afraid to go near anybody under 18, leading to a chronic shortage of male teachers and youth workers, and a generation of young people who are taught by feminists and ‘conservatives’ alike, that the only moral value that everybody should agree upon is to see every man over 20 as a probable sub-human – the older, helpless, and more wise white that man being, the more reason and justification to hate him. 
  • The ability of feminists to define 18 as the age childhood ends, and to persuade with ease virtually every nation in the world except America and Somalia to agree to it (and those nations only disagreed because they wanted to continue using boys as cannon fodder, or to execute 16 year old criminals as adults), demonstrates their power, as well as their primary drives.  At the time of the declaration on the rights of the child (1989), only a handful of American states and one or two other nations had an age of consent of 18.  The Netherlands showed hardcore porn featuring 16 year old girls on late night tv.  Newspapers in  Scandinavia and Germany showed topless pictures of 14 year old girls for fathers to drool at over the family breakfast.  Even in the puritanical UK, nobody thought anything of tabloids counting down the day until their 15 year old models could legally strip off their bikinis. Very few people outside of radical feminists and extremist religous freaks objected to such things at the time. Now those same newspapers call for men caught looking at pictures of pigtailed 20 year old women to be executed or tortured as psycho-sexual deviant paedophiles.  And even men’s rights activists who criticise feminists making these laws that criminalize 90% of the male population, or which clearly target men, are denounced as perverts and ostracised.  This could hardly have happened without the United Nations inflation of what constitutes a child.
  • Has the number of genuine paedophiles and perverts increased since the United Nations inflation of what constitutes a child and what defines a paedophile?  Empirically, on an anecdotal level, it seems to me that there are far more cases of babies and toddlers being raped in the UK and the US than I ever hear about in, for example, Spain, where you can still look at a pretty 15 year old bikini clad girl on the beach without being called a pervert.  On an explanatory level, it seems to me to make intuitive sense that if you live in a society which tells you that you are a paedophile for looking at post-pubescent females, who are at or close to the age which evolutionary theory would predict men to find most attractive, and which sees the biological distinction between child and adolescent as unimportant in the defining of perversion, then that you are more likely to define yourself as a paedophile and to go on to develop an unhealthy interest in pre-pubescent children. 
  • We now live under a feminist world government.  Admittedly, the UN still can’t stop war, famine, or disease, the very reasons why it was ostensibly created to put an end to.  But it can reach into your bedroom, and effectively your mind, whether you live in Alberta or Afghanistan, in order to control and castrate male sexuality.  This has only been possible because of the frighteningly effective power of feminists to organise themselves in such a manner to successfully lobby governments.  That is, when their primitive brood mare interests were threatened in an increasingly free sexual market.
  • The current actions of the UN reveal that what we are witnessing, on an international scale, is the merging of the feminist sexual trade union with Islam.  As I predicted a few posts ago, feminists will betray their ‘gay rights’ allies the moment that the pressures of Islam make it convenient for them to do so.  This is already happening at the United Nations : http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/23/un-vote-undermines-gay-rights  Feminists will abandon gay men to their fate, so long as other men will go to jail for so much as looking at a pretty 10 years post-pubescent female.

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

Posted on by
4

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 reddit.com/r/mensrights 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 : http://reddit.com/r/mensrightsmovement, but, to be honest, it has no hope of competing with r/mensrights, and nor should it have to.  As I explained earlier, Reddit.com/r/mensrights 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.

 

 

Chris Brand : Paedophilic Pleasantry to Cost Tax Payer 500K

Posted on by
6

You may not have heard of him, but Chris Brand is one of the greatest of anti-feminist heroes.  Sacked by femi-nazi’s from his position as Professor of Psychology at Edinburgh University in the 90′s (for writing a book claiming that black and white IQ differences are largely genetic, as well as arguing that Nobel Prize winners who have consensual sex with above IQ teenagers should not go to jail to be raped and beaten), Brand can claim to be the owner of one of the oldest, if not the very oldest, regularly updated political blogs on the internet.  Here’s a brief taste of his inimitable writing style, published on his site yesterday :

PAEDOPHILIC PLEASANTRY TO COST TAXPAYER £500K

Showing Britain’s Pakistani youth that paedophilia did not need to involve raping, torture, pimping and (as Labourite Jack Straw put it) ‘treating girls like meat, unmarried affluent graphic design businessman and polo player Giles Cross, then 43, fell for an unnameable-for-legal reasons anorexic fifteen- year-old girl whom he met at stables in Cheshire. Soon the pair were on most affectionate terms (he called her Belle, she called him Beau) and one thing led to another over 15 months in Cross’s ‘Ink’n’Paper’ office.

The pair would talk until 5am on Skype while Cross took thousands of ‘screen shot’ pictures of his beloved in her bedroom. Said the girl [17 by the time of the seven-day 2011 trial in Chester] as Cross was jailed for a savage four years (after her parents discovered the liaison) (Daily Telegraph, 15 i, ‘The predatory paedophile at the polo club’; Daily Mail, 15 i):

“We were kissing, touching and hugging each other. Then he took my jeans off and I was just touching him and kissing. I was OK with that and I didn’t tell him to stop or anything. I trusted him, I thought I loved him. We kept it a secret from everyone.” Defending, lawyer Duncan Bold said that when the alleged victim was being taken to the police station for questioning she was screaming and shouting saying she didn’t want to go. Later on in proceedings the alleged victim’s mother confirmed this.

Another healthy-enough example of age-gapped relations emerged as Italian Duce Silvio Berlusconi, 74, found himself hauled into the limelight of the courts for having a pally and possibly paying relationship with gorgeous flaxen-haired, bee-stung-lipped and –bosomed Moroccan-born belly dancer Miss Karima El Mahroug, 17 – who claimed to have been given jewellery and £6K in cash at one of Silvio’s “‘bunga-bunga” orgies ooops parties.

To prosecute this ‘crime,’ Italian taxpayers would have to cough up at least £1M – and much more if Silvio had to be imprisoned, since his business empire and lawyers would run night-and-day appeals to what was left of Italy’s justice system after years of its being broken by the Mafia.

The Guardian Debates Whether Men’s Rights Supporters Should Be Banned from Comments

Posted on by
6

This is actually the clearest piece of evidence I’ve yet seen that we might actually be having the Femmies on the run…what a week it’s been for men’s rights!

How anti-women is the Guardian? This might seem an odd question for those brought up on the idea that the Guardian has always been associated with a feminist perspective, embodied in the work of Mary Stott, columnist Jill Tweedie and, in the present day, Polly Toynbee.

However, some correspondents feel that the Guardian, in print and online, doesn’t do enough to defend and promote women. “I am writing to complain about the sexism on Comment is free and the failure of the Guardian to acknowledge, or address, the lack of female commenters below the line and the predominance of anti-feminist and sexist male bloggers,” wrote one correspondent who had prepared a spreadsheet with an analysis of the gender of the commenters.

“The article, On rape, the left still doesn’t get it, of 27 December, highlights this. In the first 50 comments, ie the front page, there are 28 identifiably male and five female posters. I have included only those who have stated their gender in profiles or posts. However, unless one looks to the profile archive, the anonymous nature of posting hides this disparity. It is not obvious that there is no substantive contribution to this discussion by women. Many of the posters are habitually sexist commentators … the hostile culture women face on Comment is free must encourage their absence.”

Naomi Wolf’s article on 6 January, which argued that the women accusing men of rape should not have anonymity, brought forth this comment: “It is their fault [the Guardian]. They know this is manna from heaven to the Cif [Comment is free] mob. They are chief cheerleaders for the Daily Mail campaign against rape victims. They are providing a platform for the kind of propaganda that persuaded Dave that rape anonymity for defendants would be such a great first move for his government. And, meanwhile, the rape conviction rate stays exactly where it always was.” Her solution would be to turn off the comments on issues that traditionally attract anti-women comments, such as those that relate to “men’s rights“, and be even tougher on moderating the comments.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/10/dearth-comments-women-print-online

And we won’t be silenced :

….Our community guidelines ban sexism, and sexist comments are removed as soon as moderators are aware of them. “But,” Cif’s editor says, “it can also be important and productive to engage with, debate and challenge views you disagree with, and that is what Cif is about.”

Subscribe to Reddit Men’s Rights Movement for more breaking anti-feminist stories and for a moderation policy that does not promote the abuse of toddlers by radical feminist transexuals.

Anti-Feminist Theory

Posted on by
15

I’ve started to re-load/re-design the site : this was necessitated by a wordpress bug that I couldn’t fix, and also because of a desire to make this place more worthwhile in terms of allowing visitors to quickly find relevant material to combat feminism with.

This site’s primary purpose is to showcase my argument that feminism is, and always has been, a sexual trade union for unattractive women (the vast majority). When I use the term ‘sexual’, I’m referring to a woman’s sexual and reproductive interests, as well as the economic needs that, historically at least, depended on them. Clearly it’s a no-brainer to identify feminism with ‘reproductive rights’. However, this is usually narrowed down to a focus on issues over abortion – and perhaps custody award decisions, right to a divorce and the like. In my eyes, the ‘reproductive rights’ essence of feminism entails campaigns against pornography, prostitution, and raising of the age of consent, just as much as the ‘right’ to an abortion.

A good starting point for those sceptical of this idea, would be to read up on the origins of feminism in the social purity movements of the 19th century. You will learn that ‘feminists’ were campaigning for a rise in the age of consent and for laws against prostitution BEFORE they had even seriously demanded the right to the vote. In fact, it was often clearly stated by leading feminists that the franchise was simply a means to the end of allowing women to dictate legislation on sexual matters.

You should also consider just why did second wave feminism manage to conquer the world in the space of a generation? Can it really be explained as just an extension of the black/homosexual civil rights movements of the 60′s and 70′s? And why have women gone from near zero representation in high government ANYWHERE, to actually LEADING countries like Germany and Argentina, and failing only narrowly to win the presidency of America and France, IN THE SPACE OF LESS THAN A DECADE (3rd wave feminism)?

Seeing modern feminism as simply a Marxist extension of other civil rights movements completely fails to explain these things. It also fails convincingly to explain the deafening silence of feminism over Islam. Seeing feminism as a largely blind and primeval response to technological changes in society that threaten women’s fundamental sexual interests DOES explain these things.

You should also take a look at feminist websites and note the topics that are frequently discussed. One typical such blog I came across recently is Love Letters In Hell (linked here for reference purposes only). It is in no way an ‘extremist’ or ‘femi-nazi’ site. This is mainstream feminism. And virtually every single post is concerned with ‘reproduction’ as I have defined it. You will find angst ridden posts about the sexual threat that female robots pose next to articles that compare the decision to have an abortion with choosing which couch to buy at Ikea. You will find wailing about growing older and losing one’s sex appeal right next to convenient calls for men to be criminalized for having sex with younger women, because young women can’t give meaningful consent. Then in the next post you will read justifications of casual sex for women in their late twenties – when you hit 25, sex suddenly becomes so trivial and uncomplicated that if you want to fuck, just do it. Once your limbic system is fully matured, sex requires less reasoning power than does furniture shopping…or deciding whether to kill your unborn child.

Likewise, visit Reddit/r/feminisms or Reddit/r/mensrights (there are actually more feminists on the men’s rights page than are on the feminist equivalent) and take a look at what other sub-reddits the feminists are posting in. Invariably it will be in the sex and relationships categories. Art? Technology? Sport? Very rarely. How do I deal with my cheating boyfriend? That is where you will find the feminists.

A brief note on the myth that feminists are all lesbians. Whether or not many senior figures in the feminist movement were/are lesbians (by choice, by identity, or through no other choice being so pug ugly?) is irrelevant. Feminism is a blind, primal force that has the anxieties and fears of the vast majority of ordinary women driving it.  In a sense, feminists are just the figure heads and rationalisations for what is a natural and largely uncontrollable force.

Anti-Feminism and the Men’s Rights Movement – Another reason why I have decided to set about re-branding this site, is because of my utter disillusionment with the ‘men’s rights movement’.  I’ve always been an anti-feminist.  A couple of years ago I came across the website of Angry Harry, the leading online men’s rights activist, at least in the UK.  I also found Bernard Chapin on YouTube, another anti-feminist identifying himself as an MRA (men’s rights activist).  Both of these guys are tremendously intelligent (as well as funny and compassionate) and genuine in their committment to rid society of the harm that feminism is doing to it and, in particular, to men.

At this stage, there seemed to be a real brotherhood to the online men’s rights community.  It seemed clear to me that there were apparently irreconcilable philosophical tensions between our members.  Most MRAs are conservative, some of us are liberals.  Some are ‘misogynists’, some are ‘traditionalists’, some believe 100% in genuine equality between men and women.  However, my experience was that most were happy to operate under the maxim that ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’.  And it seemed that intelligent people like Bernard Chapin, a conservative and a libertarian, at least understood that there are tensions between those two positions and that recognising feminism for what it is does involve also questioning traditional tribal political allegiances and categories (and I still believe he does understand that – unlike 99% of others).

Yet only last night, I was flicking through forum discussions at the Spearhead, one of the leading sites frequented by MRA’s (its ultra-conservative owner disclaims a men’s rights site’ classification) and what do I find?  Well take a look for yourself at just how imbecillic men’s rights discussion is becoming (or at least descends into - it starts off quite reasonably) : http://www.the-spearhead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1173&start=100

Amongst other things, you will see the self-proclaimed leader (and policer) of the men’s rights movement calling for another MRA to be raped in prison for merely questioning feminist laws that lead to hundreds of thousands of men being raped in prison…and for calling him a pansy.  Migu sums it up best on page 38 :

Okay what happened here?

Shit ass lick motherfuck cocksuck turdburger cuntweenie fuckjoiter.

I got all that. What else was happening?

Two years ago, it seemed to me that the Men’s Movement was about to explode – in the right way.  Quite soon, I thought, there will be a hundred Bernard Chapins, a hundred Angry Harrys.  LOL!  Actually, when you spend any time reading men’s rights blogs, both the articles and the comments posted beneath, you’ll realise that it’s the same tiny handful of people making any intelligent points, making any kind of sense of the bigger picture of what feminism is and how we can proceed to fight against it.  And mostly, this small handful is being set against each other out of loyalty to the undiplomatic egotists, who claim to speak for the public face of the movement, and yet who delight in vicious, asinine feuds.

Any school boy, studying sociology, or politics, or philosophy, will be familiar with the complexity behind the apparently simple notion of equality.  90% of MRAs, many believing that progress is only possible if we embrace the absurd PC notion that men and women are fundamentally the same, would probably go so far as applaud their government if it handed out free tampons to the entire population - so long as they were distributed equally between men and women. 

This example might seem absurd, but when the majority of MRAs, in the name of equality, are actually prepared to force 17 year old boys to be dragged through courts and to accept victim status, and consequently to have their lives destroyed, for sleeping with an MILF – then count me out of this pea brained ultra-conservative mask of a movement. 

I don’t want to go to hell.

What the site will become : It will mostly consist of constantly worked upon permanent pages/long essays/resource collections.  Pages I have planned include secular arguments against abortion, arguments for the legalisation of prostitution and the paying for sex, a rebuttal of feminist arguments against pornography, a discussion of feminist laws on the age of consent and a reference guide to the harm caused by the feminist (and American conservative) exploitation of the true and historical definition of paedophilia.

I also want to write a detailed and serious history of feminism as a sexual trade union. 

Finally, I want to write study guides for a few of the small handful of anti-feminist books that are in existence.  These will include guides to ‘The Decline of Males’ by Lionel Tiger and ‘No More Sex War’ by Neil Lyndon.  Also guides and essays on the fiction of Michael Houellebecq and perhaps August Strindberg.  Another possibility is to write an essay on the anti-feminism of Arthur Schopenhauer, and to rebut the oft-repeated claim that his wider metaphysical system is entirely separate to his views regarding women.

I will soon be setting up another blog, where I can update regularly and sound off about all manner of topics.  I hope my regular readers will keep dropping by at this site, and perhaps visit my new one too (I will provide the link, as well as a feed, here as soon as I have it up).