Leading feminist bigot Jessica Valenti already appears on the first page of Google search results for her name.

As said, I’ve advocated the use of this type of activism here previously. For example, if you google the name of Valeria Ajovalasit, who made headlines earlier this year for attempting to sue Italian president Silvio Berlusconi for ‘offending all Italian women’, then you will see that there are no less than three pro-male sexuality men’s rights articles on the first page of results :

http://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=Valeria+Ajovalasit

The articles are :

Valeria Ajovalasit (Human-Stupidity)

Valeria Ajovalasit (The Anti-Feminist)

Valeria Ajovalasit (InMalaFide)

Amongst others, this site also shows up on the first page of results (according to my browser) for a certain male feminist and boy rape apologist, as well as Marianne Hester – producer of junk feminist studies into domestic violence, writer of extreme femi-nazi books that outline her view that all sex is rape, and currently earning a no doubt generous part-time salary in her vital role as the NSPCC’s official ‘professor of child sexual exploitation’ (I’m not making this up).

What I’d love is for register-her to include a category for fraudulent feminist researchers, such as Marianne Hester and Kaffie McCullough – the woman who admitted plucking sex trafficking statistics out of her ass, and then presenting them as research findings to congress in order to have Craigs List adult ads closed down (and yes, I am on the front page of Google for her as well).

A final couple of pieces of search engine optimisation (SEO) advice for Register-Her.com :

• It is better for each individuals profile to have their own fixed page and url rather than formed from a php? variable.
• It would also aid ranking in Google to link to the most important individuals from the front page (for example Jessica Valenti).

See also Ferdinand Bardemu’s discussion as to whether Jessica Valenti has a foul smelling vagina.

I found the following academic review of a book she published back in 1992 : Lewd Women and Wicked Witches – A Study of the Dynamics of Male Domination.  If anyone still think that laws that women like this make to supposedly protect ‘children’ from abuse are unquestionable, and never men’s rights issues, consider that it is women like this who are behind the legislative creep that is leading to ever more thousands of men being beaten and raped in prison as sub-humans, and perhaps millions more fearing imprisonment.  All in an atmosphere of medieval hysteria which prevents even men’s rights supporters from speaking out too loudly on these things.  Truly, the revenge of the wicked witches.

Here are a few excerpts from the review :

How do men dominate women, and what light can a fuller understanding of this process throw upon the early modern witch-hunts? Marianne Hester sets out to answer these questions in what are in effect two linked studies. She uses ‘what
may be called a revolutionary feminist approach’. The essence of this approach is that it sees sexual relations between men and women as the key to the latter’s subjection. Male sexuality, as currently ‘constructed’, makes these relations acts of mastery, of colonisation of women’s bodies by penile penetration. It is by focussing its attack on the most intimate area of heterosexual relations that ‘revolutionary’ feminism distinguishes itself from
other analyses of the dynamics of male dominance. Marxism, even in its refined forms, gives men an alibi by emphasizing class and economic roles. Nor do some other feminist approaches, Hester believes, quite get to the heart of the
matter. Women’s reproductive and nurturant functions have in the past been used to justify their unequal position. For this reason the problems they pose have occupied a prominent place in much feminist writing. But Hester believes that
too much emphasis has been laid on the part which reproduction plays in women’s lives. Such an emphasis, along with an evolutionary explanation of greater male
aggression in terms of hormonal activity are, she thinks, unhelpful and ill-founded elements in the ‘socio-biological construction of sexuality’ (pp.81-2).
Males may not be innately aggressive, and male pride in ‘brute strength’ is only once, obliquely, referred to in this book (p. 16). But violence nevertheless lies at the heart of male supremacy: not just indiscriminate violence, but an eroticised violence, central to the ‘socially constructed’ male sexuality of the present day. In a discussion of rape, Hester argues against making any distinction between ‘sex’ and ‘violence’. Rape ‘turns
men on’. What women experience as violence, … ‘is actually normal heterosexual sex: not only do rape and normal heterosexual relations have common characteristics, but they are part and parcel of the same act (sic) of sexual
activities’ (p. 66). ‘The effect of rape’, moreover, ‘is to control women socially, and it is men who benefit’ (p. 68).

…The witch-hunts were a form of sexual violence against women because it was only by ‘constructing’ women as inferior to men in a sexual way that women became primary targets. Any woman might be accused of witchcraft, just as any woman
might be raped today, even though certain types of women were particularly vulnerable. Sexual violence, then as now, was made possible by a certain kind of male supremacy, and served to reinforce that supremacy.

….The picture of male sexuality painted in the first half of this book is a caricature. It takes one section of an immensely varied range of male sexual feelings, attitudes and responses and claims that it represents male sexuality as a whole. Tenderness and consideration are excluded, let alone the idea that
sexual love can give women any sort of mastery over men. Generalisations of breath-taking crudity and boldness are made about heterosexual relationships.
These statements seem to be based in the main on the partisan testimony of militant feminists, the confessions of a few of their would-be allies among ‘anti-sexist’ men, and the theories of a handful of sexologists. The construction of the male sexual stereotype which plays so important a part in
this section of the book is itself deeply sexist. Despite her harshly
androphobic tone, however, Hester leaves males a glimmer of hope. Their behaviour towards women, she believes, is not innate, but learned, their male identity ‘socially constructed’. But how a reconstructed male would behave sexually is never made clear. What are the alternatives which the revolutionary
feminists have in mind? If indeed present male sexuality is a ‘social construction’, under what circumstances was it created? How did it come into being?

…The most fundamental flaw in the book is the lack of any effective link between its account of present day feminist ideas and its analysis of early modern witch trails. Hester clearly believes that the former illuminate the latter, while the latter offer an outstanding example of that male malignity which the former combat. But the attempt to interpret a remote and unfamiliar period through the lens of a militant late twentieth-century ideology is unconvincing. Hester never tries to chart the changing relations of men and women since 1700 in a way which might demonstrate the continuing relevance of the witch trials to feminist preoccupations of the present day. This book is a classic example of the forcing of facts into the moulds of preconceived ideas. It twists evidence to fit theory, and merges categories best kept separate. Bad sociology and worse history, it will convince few save the gullible and those who already share its author’s stand-point. But it would be a mistake to dismiss it with a sneer. It throws little new light on witchcraft, but offers a valuable if chilling view of the closed mind of revolutionary feminism.

R.A. Houlbrooke
University of Reading

Recently on his blog, Harry named and shamed the feminist appointed as one of the NSPCC’s most senior advisors – professor of ‘child sexual exploitation’ no less. The same woman recently published some extremely ropey feminist ‘research’ proclaiming that women are three times more likely to be arrested for domestic violence than men.

This week the NSPCC leant its weight to a huge public outcry over ZaNuLabor’s plans to force all adults having regular contact with other people’s children to PROVE that they are NOT a paedophile. Failure to do so could have resulted in a 5 year prison sentance. Respected authors such as Philip Pullman and even JK Rowling had already spoken out against the proposals, Pullman calling it ‘toxic to healthy social interaction’.

Clearly, the NSPCC is doing nothing more than jumping on the bandwagon, distancing itself from a massively unpopular law through fear that any association might harm the public donations upon which the lifestyles of its staff depend. In reality, no anti-paedo legislation is made in this country without the guidance of the NSPCC and other children’s charities. The NSPCC would have been advising the government at all stages of the planning of this law – why choose to speak out now?

And while we are on the subject of feminist generated paedo-hysteria – an Italian father was arrested and jailed for kissing his 8 year old daughter on a Brazillian beach. Sadly, it is clear that no country is now free of this corrosive and destructive hysteria. Over the last decade or two, feminist sexual pressure groups (such as the NSPCC) have succeeded in marshalling their resources and lobbied every government on Earth, forced the passing of countless laws and treaties, and in doing so, created new moral norms and rules of inter-generational interaction across all ethnic and cultural boundaries – a quite staggering feat comparable only to the most stunningly efficient military campaign imaginable.

Feminists – that is politically active women, are capable of anything…when their basic sexual and reproductive needs are threatened. And once again, to make perfectly clear, the hysteria generated by feminists over paedophilia and abuse has nothing to do with protecting 8 year old children from being molested by 40 year old men. It is about inflating the definition of paedophilia way beyond its historical usage of representing the perverted sexual attraction for pre-pubescent children. It is about ever increasingly stiffining the penalties for ‘paedophilia’ and child abuse to the point that it becomes an attack on the very idea of man’s inate sexual preference for youth and fertility. It is about broadening the definition of rape and abuse so ridiculously that any woman has the power to ‘punish’ a cheating partner with an accusation.

najat m'jid in kinky leather

And to highlight just how such charities have achieved this remarkable feat, here is my Elizabeth Bathory award for October – the delightful Najat M’jid, Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography for the UN. This week she announced that 750,000 paedos (i.e. men) are online at any given moment hoping to prey evil on YOUR DAUGHTER! Not only that, but there are apparently 4 MILLION websites featuring the sexual exploitation of children, a ‘network’ that makes billons of dollars a year (strange, I read only a few days ago that the police were now going to focus their child porn efforts on p2p networks, as all commercial child porn websites had been successfully shut down). I wonder why the hideous Maala, a Morroccon paedatrician, isn’t spending more effort getting the United Nations to influence the Islamic practices of child brides, female circumcision, 8 year old sucide bombers in the Gazza strip, stoning to death of 16 year old girls for adultory in Iran etc? But no, this modern Elizabeth Bathory would rather victimise 17 year old Lativian beauties posing in panties and bras on webcam. Feminist creatures like this, who trivialise and exploit genuine paedophilia and child sexual abuse out of clear motivations of sexual jealousy and insecurity are wicked beyond belief. They are damaging society, criminilizing ordinary men,and poisning relationships between the sexes and between adults, teenagers and children. They belong in psychiatric wards rather than be free to crusade on behalf of some supposedly higher global morality that in fact emanates from their dried up, unwanted vaginas. They need to be stopped, and the duty to stop them is part of the men’s rights cause.