Archive for the ‘men’s rights activism’ tag
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…
Men’s Rights campaigners and activists will gather in Brighton & Hove in November on the eve of the Second National Conference for Men and Boys.
The Men’s Rights Discussion and Networking Event will bring together men and women who are concerned with issues such as:
- Equal rights for dads
- Support for male victims of domestic violence
- Equal pension rights for men
- Tackling misandry and sexism against men
- Tackling negative stereotypes of men
- Protecting men against false allegations
- Improving boys education
- Tackling fatherlessness
The evening will be opportunity to hear from some of the leading voices and organisations in the Men’s Rights field in the UK and connect with other like-minded people. The theme of the event is “Putting Men’s Issues On The Political Agenda”.
Underneath his video response to a ‘Morality in Media’ woman’s hysterical attack on a man she ‘caught’ watching Asian porn on a plane, the Amazing Atheist left the contact page link for that organisation. If you visit that page now, you see the following:
Underneath those two sentences is a third stating that your IP address has been recorded, together with your IP address (although they showed mine incorrectly). You are then re-directed to another of their videos, and another of their hags explaining why pornography is evil (a video that has now over 1,400 downvotes and less than 100 upvotes).
This is the arrogance of the psychotic individuals who make up the myriad lobby groups of the sexual trade union. They want half of the people on this planet to live in a world where any criticism of them, or of their laws on or attitudes to porn, leads you to fear having your door broken in by the FBI at 4 in the morning. And the reality is that their influence is such that they will probably have that power very soon, unless they are stopped right now or in the very near future.
The clock is ticking, time is running out. Do something now by e-mailing your thoughts to :
firstname.lastname@example.org (this is the sister site to Morality in Media)
Please be restrained and try to be reasonably civil, even though these people would have you raped and beaten in prison for simply questioning their assertion that porn is inherently evil.
I’m sure most of you have been following the explosive revelations currently being detailed at A Voice for Men – all as a result of one MRA’s excellent undercover activism in skillfully penetrating a ‘RadFem’ group.
I’ve been dabbling with this sort of activism myself over the last year, and whilst I can’t claim any results nearly as shocking or definitive as ‘Agent Orange’s‘, I have gathered a quantity of information that, when taken together, supports the general ‘sexual trade union’ thesis of this website. I’m not yet ready to publish the results of this activism, as the feminist organisations involved will naturally be more guarded when that happens, and I feel that there is still more water in the well to be drawn.
But regarding the femi-nazis of RadFem – one or two of the individuals exposed are of particular interest to readers of this blog. For example, Kat Pinder (‘AmazonManCrusher’), was (screen)captured as expressing her wish that all of us men be given a special day, in order that we can be ‘raped and battered’, as well as be made to understand how it feels to be ‘purchased from brothels’.
While briefly Googling Kat Pinder, I came across the following blogspot page that has been devoted to her – and it’s certainly not been made by a fan :
Amongst other things, it is revealed that whilst appearing on female porn show ‘Big Brother’, Kat revealed to a (black male) fellow contestant that she had been exploited as a prostitute at the age 16 :
LESBIAN housemate Kitten Pinder has sensationally admitted she worked as a cheap vice girl when she was just 16. She shamelessly revealed how she sold her body to men as she struggled on the breadline.
Foul-mouthed Kitten, 24, stunned another contestant with the confession just hours after triggering uproar with her bad-tempered arrival at the Big Brother house and threatening to quit. Wearing a sailor suit, the brunette weirdo told student Victor Ebuwa she spent a year as a prostitute at a brothel in Forest Gate, east London, in 1996.
She told him: “Yeah, I lived in Forest Gate for a while. I lived there with some other girls and we worked as prostitutes. “It was the worst year of my life. I couldn’t believe I survived. Some bloke acted as our pimp and just took advantage.” Shocked Victor, 23, spluttered: “Really?”
Kitten – real name Kat – told him: “Yeah, I was 16. I had nowhere else to go.” Londoner Victor asked gallantly: “You want me to sort him out?” But she replied: “Nah, it was years ago. I don’t really have secrets, I am very open.”
However, as we know, feminist statements about prostitution rarely go hand in hand with the truth :
She has already proclaimed herself the hardcore Left-wing lesbian of Big Brother. But the father of Kathryn ‘Kitten’ Pinder last night said her tales of being a teenage prostitute are a lie – and slammed Channel 4 for the show’s obsession with sex. Kenneth Pinder, a retired surveyor, said his daughter was in fact at a £12,000-a-year boarding school at 16, the age when she told fellow contestants on the reality show she was working as a child prostitute in London.
She had, however, completed a well-regarded dissertation on prostitution while a university student, so he assumed she must have drawn on that knowledge for her attention-seeking stories on screen. And Mr Pinder, 57, who had to remortgage the family’s detached home to satisfy ‘radical’ Kathryn’s request to go to private school, said the whole family are devastated by her sudden appearance on television.
Meanwhile in Ireland….
A top lawyer claims that men guilty of soliciting for sex could be driven to suicide over naming, writes Jim Cusack
A leading lawyer has claimed that the naming and shaming of men caught propositioning undercover gardai posing as prostitutes could drive some to suicide.
The claim was made as it emerged that €10,000 in fines imposed on 21 men caught in the Limerick garda “honey trap” soliciting operation has been given to a group which is proposing that prostitution be prohibited and men caught paying women for sex prosecuted and publicly named.
Gardai last week defended their actions in bringing 21 men to court and publicising their identities but claimed it was not their intention that their names be made public.
However, one of Limerick’s leading lawyers, solicitor Ted McCarthy, who represented some of the men, said there was a danger that the public shaming of the men could drive some to suicide. There were persistent rumours in Limerick last week that one had killed himself. There was a male suicide in the area but the man was not on the list of those arrested.
This story might have popped up in r/mensrights and elsewhere a few weeks ago, so apologies if you have already seen it :
A new underground movement called “Stóra systir” (Big Sister in Icelandic) has handed over a list to the Reykjavík Police of men who wanted to buy the services of prostitutes through various websites and classified ads offering “massages” in daily newspaper, Fréttabladid.
Iceland passed a law in 2009 which made the purchase of sex illegal.
The group held a press conference in Reykjavík this week – its spokespeople wearing cloaks, hoods and masks to remain anonymous – stating its intention was to ensure that the laws on prostitution were applied by police.
The group decided to take matters into its own hands after police authorities claimed it had neither the funds nor the manpower to fight prostitution which, the group stated, is clearly thriving in Iceland despite being illegal.
The Big Sisters said the list handed to police was the result of three weeks of investigative work.
Here is a photo of the (thankfully) masked feminist vigilantes posing at the ‘press conference’ they held – note the resemblance to burqa clad muslim women :
But it’s not just Big Sister that is spying on men who bring down the market value of the average vagina. Little Brother is at it too :
Four young Chilliwack men who dressed as superheroes to confront potential sex offenders have drawn public kudos but are being criticized by police, who say crime-fighting should be left to the proper authorities.
Police say the vigilantes — two are 17, one is 18 and one is 20 — put themselves in danger by posing online as underage girls to lure men for sexual encounters, only to confront the men publicly dressed as Batman and the Flash. The encounters were videotaped and posted in recent weeks on YouTube, under the title To Troll a Predator.
Police have spoken to the young men and their parents, said Cpl. Tammy Hollingsworth, spokeswoman for the Upper Fraser Valley RCMP, Wednesday.
“Our main concern is their personal safety,” she said. “Those kids told investigators they made a big mistake.”
The-Spearhead’s W.F.Price devoted an article to this last week :
Of course, it’s a bad idea to meet underage girls online, but in most of these stings it is the “girls” who are taking the initiative, which is entrapment. It really isn’t very hard to find men willing to take the bait when sexually mature (i.e. post-pubescent) females offer sex, so there’s nothing heroic about luring guys in such a manner. It’s actually a pretty lousy thing to do, and likely only encourages those who are not caught to make a go of it. It’s akin to offering drinks to former alcoholics.
If you read the article, and especially the comments underneath, then you can have little doubt that we’ve ‘won’ the argument – that middle-aged feminists imposing self-interested draconian laws and punishments on men who are attracted to post-pubescent females is indeed a men’s rights issue. Congratulations to all those (handful) who were brave enough to stand firm. Once more, the present men’s rights/anti-feminist movement can unashamedly and proudly trace its historical lineage all the way back to the likes of Ernest Belfort Bax and Arthur Schopenhaur.
Of course, these teen vigilante heroes are just little cock blockers who are resentful at a relative handful of middle-aged men trying to ‘steal’ their pussy. One comment left underneath the Spearhead article is illuminating and needs highlighting, left by a teenage MRA :
Aaaaand what do you expect young men to do while older men are taking all their women? Sit there with their thumbs up their butts?
This question has been addressed here in the comments section, and it’s not that I don’t have any sympathy with it, and nor do I particularly blame the teenage vigilantes who are only able to do what they are doing because of feminist unjust laws. But how far would you take the logic of this young MRA? Would it be o.k. for men in their twenties to side with middle-aged feminists in making it illegal for men to choose partners more than 5 years younger than themselves, and to excuse any subsequent vigilante action from young men? Of course not, and hopefully any MRA older than 16 would have the maturity to see that.
And I don’t think that ‘scarcity of pussy’ should be a problem in a truly free sexual market, at least if it wasn’t for female hypergamy. In such a society, most people would be having open sexual relationships, and prostitution, including teenage prostitution, would be easily and openly accessible. The young boys might have a point if older men were marrying their female teenage peers and keeping them all to themselves, but that would hardly be the reality in a society sufficiently sexually free to rid itself of statutory rape laws. In short, there would be plenty enough premium teenage pussy available to keep everybody happy (except middle-aged women). And at the worst, it would be a matter of ‘waiting your turn’.
“Clap Your Hands and They Will Run Screaming Into the Desert”
The above is a (mis)quote that I vaguely remember attributed to an Israeli general after the combined Arab armies had suffered yet another humiliating spanking. Vigilantism isn’t now confined to the guardians of the female vagina, and men’s rights activists are rapidly becoming pretty skilled at it as well.
The Israeli general’s words seem to me to be increasingly applicable to feminists, as I follow the devastating impact that the simple social shaming of Register-Her.com has had upon certain individuals, as well as the humiliating and pathetic mencallmethings – a Twitter set up by femi-nazis for other femi-nazis to bitch about upsetting e-mails they recieve from angry pissed off men they are victimising or trying to criminilise for simply having a dick.
I’ve always made it clear that I am firmly of the belief that while the legal and democratic route to change things and to resist feminist evil exists, then the men’s rights movement should fully commit to it. I do not approve of threatening e-mails and the like. I know how these feminists feel. I get about 2 or 3 comments left here every day calling for me to be tortured or executed – most of them leaving their ips behind, and many of them from feminist bloggers (all of which have been collected for future reference).
But I have to say this – if feminists can’t handle a few nasty e-mails now and again, I’d suggest you leave the fight right now and pursue a different means of earning money and protecting the market value of your aging vagina. Because I can only see it getting a lot worse, the more you victimise men and the more we, as a movement, wake other men up to what you are doing to them. And even if the men’s rights movement stays on a purely legal and peaceful path, that’s hardly going to remain the case for muslim radicals, who (to some extent misguidedly) see you as the enemy.
And, as I have stated here before, to interpret this tragic prediction as something that bears any resemblance to ‘inciting violence’ is as stupid as saying that those pundits who correctly feared that the illegal invasion of Iraq would lead to terrorist atrocities in London, were themselves guilty of ‘inciting terrorism’.
Fortunately, the success of legal activism such as Register-Her.com has shown that the illegal variety cannot be justified – at least until such time as the feminists try to block free speech and criticism (‘hate laws’ and the like).
All of these issues have come into sharp relief over the last few days with the exposure of a shocking Swedish feminist made video showing the staged murder of an apparently random man by followers of the SCUM manifesto.
One of my readers posted a link to the video last week, before it had become known in the English speaking men’s rights sphere. I quickly did some research and almost immediately found the names of those responsible for the video. I considered posting an article that same day, but to be honest, ‘bottled out’, and instead simply posted the video to r/mensrights, where of course, it generated a huge reaction.
I knew that the video would be quickly taken up by other and bigger guns anyway. In fact, the moment I watched the video, I was certain that a defining moment for the men’s rights movement was about to come, and it does appear that this may be the case after AVoiceForMen offered a $1,000 bounty on providing the names of the feminists involved.
My reluctance to be the first English speaking men’s rights blogger to cover this was that I wasn’t quite sure, despite a little initial research, as to what the exact background to the video was. There was no doubt that uploading such a video was a vile act, no matter what the context, even it may have been an attempt at satire and even the mocking of feminazis. But given that these may have been daft 16 year olds making a clumsy attempt to satirise the excesses of femi-nazism (it initally appeared possible to me), I decided to hold back.
However, it does seem to be becoming clear that this was a video made by feminists who are most definately sympathetic to the SCUM manifesto – a feminist manifesto that called for the extermination of men and that was written by a woman who would later attempt to murder two men. This isn’t satirising femi-nazis, or even the actual product of ‘femi-nazis’. This video is what passes as mainstream morality, something that is fit to brainwash high-school kids with, in the feminist hell that is Sweden today.
There is no excuse for this video, and I have no sympathy if the evil little feminists behind it suffer a few ‘Google problems’ for the rest of their lives. To try to excuse this video, as a certain male feminist is doing, is as evil as excusing a white nationalist YouTube video that showed skinheads killing a random black man on the grounds that it is simply ‘staged art’, akin to Shakespeare!
This pretty much sums up why the state of affairs for men is what it is, and why, to be perfectly honest, men do not have a prayer of changing their situation in a ‘democratic society’ in which women have the vote, and in which consequently, the vagina vote dictates everything.
David Cameron has concentrated too much on promoting policies that appeal to men and not women, according to a new group of Conservative MPs.
The Tory MPs have set up an informal group to act as a “sounding board” for the Prime Minister to help put a female slant on the Government’s policies.
The news has come after the head of the Women’s Institute told The Daily Telegraph last month that women were being ignored by the Coalition and suffering disproportionately under its policies….
Harriett Baldwin MP, one of the group’s leaders, said: “The Government is doing so much that is positive that it is just a question of us articulating the narrative, and we think we have got a role to play in doing that.”
She said ministers could have emphasised further the increase in the number of rape crisis centres which have opened under the Coalition as part of a way to appeal to women.
She said that the row last year over Coalition plans to give anonymity to men charged with rape would never have happened if Mr Cameron had had more women advising him.
And these femiservatives are perfectly correct. Unless David Cameron makes clear that he will bend over backwards to please the vagina, and that he hates men absolutely and unconditionally, then they will be kicked out of office at the next election by the vagina vote.
And until women start behaving like human beings who can perceive that justice for all might possibly conflict with their brood mare selfish animal interests (in other words, until hell freezes over), then any white knight MRA who thinks my language here is sometimes a tad too ‘misogynist’ can get the f*** outta here. You’re not wanted.
A Facebook campaign is calling for people to boycott a shopping centre after claims a man was questioned by police for taking photographs of his own four-year-old daughter.
Chris White took a picture of Hazel eating an ice cream in the Braehead shopping centre, near Glasgow.
A security guard told him it was illegal to take pictures in the centre.
A spokesperson for Braehead said it wanted to “maintain a safe and enjoyable environment” for shoppers.
Mr White told BBC Scotland he was approached by a security guard after photographing his daughter “looking cute on the back of a vespa seat at an ice cream bar” at about 16:00 on Friday.
He said the security guard asked him to delete any photos he had taken from his mobile phone.
Mr White explained that he had already posted two photos, in which his daughter was the only person in the shot, to Facebook.
The police were called and Mr White was told there were “clear signs” saying no photographs were allowed.Chris White took this picture of his daughter in Braehead
Mr White said that one officer claimed that under the Prevention of Terrorism Act he was within in his rights to confiscate the mobile phone on which the photos were taken.
He said the police officers took his details and he was eventually allowed to leave.
In this case we have the two twin hysterias of recent times carefully being manipulated by the state to demonise men – paedohysteria AND fear of terrorism.
Whatever people might assume, it is not illegal in the UK to take photos of children in public places, whether they are your own children or not. So what does the feminist state do when it has a clear opportunity to create some paedohysteric havoc but doesn’t have the laws to justify it in this particular case? Well they simply fall back on legislation that they have created through one of their other hysterias – terrorism.
This relationship can work in the other direction too. When several British muslims were arrested on suspicion of plotting terrorism a couple of years ago, the police found that they didn’t have enough evidence to charge them with the offenses. So what they did do? They arrested them on possession of child pornography. We know that muslims are amongst the biggest users of porn, especially muslim radicals, so it was hardly unlikely that the recovered trace of one single picture of a young looking small breasted 21 year old woman wasn’t to be found somewhere on their harddrive. And that’s all that is needed for a charge of possession of child porn.
British men have been criminalised to such an extent over the last couple of decades, that if the police want you, they can get you, even if what they want you for isn’t (yet) illegal.
Mr Martin, who is representing himself, said: “The core texts we had to read before each class were typically packed with anti-male discrimination and bias – heavily focusing on, exaggerating, and falsifying women’s issues perspectives, whilst blaming men, to justify ignoring men’s issues. There was no warning of this sexist agenda in the prospectus.”
He added: “They simply refuse to acknowledge the research which contradicts the ‘women good/men bad’, or the ‘women victims/men perpetrators’ storyline.
“Science does not come into it at LSE’s Gender Institute. Like a religion, the curriculum simply insists, by repetition, attempting to drum the anti-male agenda into the students.”
The university’s legal team has asked for the case to be struck out, claiming the core texts were not compulsory, merely recommended readings, and that the texts were equally available for both men and women to read, so therefore did not directly discriminate against men. The team also argues that “any discriminatory effect [against men] was plainly justifiable”.
Of course, given the corrupt nature of the legal system and the way in which it is transparently weighted against men, this brave guy is unlikely to have any success in his action. But as Angry Harry says, legal challenges like this, however much doomed to failure, are sure to bring much needed publicity to the cause. This is the way forward.
A few months ago myself and Human-Stupidity made the bold suggestion to counter sue an Italian feminist – Valeria Ajovalasit – who was threatening to sue Silvio Berlusconi on the absurd basis that he had ‘degraded all Italian women’ through, amongst other things, enjoying ‘bunga bunga’ parties that involved a 17 year old prostitute. A medium resourced European men’s rights group could counter sue this vile woman on a number of grounds – from exploiting child prostitution for personal gain (which presumably is an actual criminal offence) to degrading ‘all Italian men’ by demonising (for financial profit and for personal sexual gain) normal male sexuality.
Whether or not such a legal action would have any hope of success, it would serve two vital purposes. Firstly, it would bring exposure to the men’s rights movement and the crimes of the sexual trade union. And secondly, it might…just might.. make some of those feminist beasts stop and pause to reflect that, one day, they may yet be held accountable for their crimes against humanity.
By the way, if you’re wondering what a genuinely non-discriminatory textbook on Gender Studies would be like, I thoroughly recommend Warren Farrell’s ‘Does Feminism Discriminate against Men – a Debate‘. In fact, it was apparently written for that very purpose, with the book composed of two halves, the first by Warren Farrell superbly putting the case that feminists are indeed discriminating against men, and the second half composed by a mangina professor of philosophy arguing the opposite.