Of course, this event has far wider implications than merely the age and the beauty of the prostitutes gazing out from the windows of the Amsterdam red light district.  Once again, look behind the visage, and feminist laws such as this reveal the entire strategy and truely ugly selfish motivation of the sexual trade union.  Feminists in the Netherlands could just as easily make an outright ban on prostitution as raise the minimum age to 21.  But the attraction of a move like this lies not only in making paying for sex with prostitutes less tempting to men (because young and nubile sex workers are forbidden) -  the greater motive is in setting the bar ever higher in what is acceptable for older women to control the sexuality of younger females, and to rule those younger women out of  bounds as sexual objects for men.

As often detailed on this site, little more than a century ago the age of consent in most countries was 12 or 13.  Contrary to what some conservative anti-feminists have written recently, pre-marital sex with ‘minors’ was not generally forbidden as such, although out of wedlock pregnancy was.  In fact, at this time there were estimated to be over 100,000 prostitutes in London alone, with probably the majority of them being under 18.  Feminism originated in (successful) campaigns against child prostitution.  Laws were passed that were lobbied for almost entirely by feminists (and fought against by anti-feminists, who at that time still had balls) decades before those same feminists had won the right to vote, or even in some cases, even called for the right to the vote.

Nobody could argue against laws preventing 12 year old girls hanging around street corners offering themselves for sex.  But 100 years ago, the deceitful modus operandi of the trade union was the same as it is today.  Those early feminists and suffragettes, such as Emmeline Pankhurst, could have lobbied for simple laws prohibiting under 16s from engaging in prostitution.  Instead, they successfully lobbied for a rise in the age of consent itself.  Again, despite the erroneous historical readings of 19th century social history by certain members of the men’s rights community, there was little support for the idea at the time (outside of feminist self-rationalisations) that 14 or 15 year old girls could not consent to sex.  The justification used by feminists was that an age of consent set at 16 would prevent child prostitution. 

Whether or not it was foreseen at the time (in the UK and USA) that such laws would later prosecute millions of men for having consensual sex with teenage girls, the magical age of 16 as the age of full sexual responsibility for girls was achieved, even in European countries such as Germany and Italy in which the age of consent itself remained lower (but in which feminists likewise had set certain sexual limits relating to the age of 16).

Fast foward to the last decades of the 20th century and the feminist sexual trade union successfully defined 18 as the limit for both prostitution and pornography, enshrined in international treaties that included the United Nations charter of ‘children’s rights’.   They achieved this with the assistance of America’s unique conception of a ‘minor’ (what a disgusting and revealing term) being somebody under 18 (Highwayman made an interesting comment about California’s high age of consent perhaps being specifically responsible for the propagation of this meme, for example through the medium of Hollywood).

Thus, even though the age of consent is still only 18 in a small number of American states and an even smaller handful of backward Islamic nations, the idea has spread around the entire world that there is something ‘questionable’ about having sex with a 16 or 17 year old, even in countries such as Spain and Argentina, free until very recently from the scourge of feminism, and where the age of consent is still 13.  In fact, given the merging of the virtual with the real worlds, there now is a very real danger everywhere in having a sexual relationship with a girl over the age of consent but under 18.  Every country in the world apart from Somalia and the USA has signed the UN charter on children’s rights which defines child pornography as any sexual representation of a ‘minor’ (the USA lobbied for the anti-sex elements of the children’s rights charter, but then refused to sign up to it because it would have also forced them to stop putting 16 year old black kids on to death row).  Therefore it is now still legal to have sex with a 13 year old girl in Spain (if you can avoid being lynched), but if you happened to text her 17 year old sister in any way describing the act, you could be prosecuted for creating child porn. 

The ‘virtual child pornography’ elements of the UN children’s rights charter were an attempt to fuzzy the border between the age of 18 and beyond, ‘childhood’ and adulthood.  But here at least was the idea that the pornographic model had to look under 18.  With this new prostitution law in the Netherlands, the common perception will quickly gain ground that even those aged 18 -21 are now unable fully to consent to sex, and even non-paid for sex with 20 year old women will soon become tainted with connotations of ‘paedophilia’ and ‘child abuse’.

Other countries will no doubt be quick to adopt this law – to bring their ‘child protection’ guidelines up to date with the Netherlands (in fact, it is amazing to consider, and a testament to the power of 3rd wave feminists and their sex abuse industry, that less than a decade ago, the age of consent itself in Holland was only 12).

Feminist shaming language will ensure that other countries will be quick to follow.  An example of this is playing out right now in Switzerland, one of the few places left in which 16 year olds can work as prostitutes.  16 year olds who are perhaps less than 13 months away from being able to serve as cannon fodder, and who in neighbouring Austria are deemed to be intelligent and experienced enough to be able to vote in general elections.

A chain of catch-up is established.  Soon most countries in the EU will have prostitution limits set at 21.  This will then be extended to pornography, and to ’relationships in which authority is involved’ i.e. teacher/student relationships at which the cut off point is presently 18.  Then, finally, the age of consent itself will be revised upwards to 21.  Countries slow to adopt the new consensus will be shamed as ‘kiddy abuse capitals’, and hysteria regarding fears of ‘paedophile sex tourism’ will be whipped up to rouse the mob into forcing their governments to sign up.

And then…well, you can see it coming now can’t you?  A ‘progressive nation’ will revise the minimum age for prostitution and/or pornography upwards to 25..the age of consent and extension of the definition of paedophilia will eventually follow..and the feminists and the ‘men’s rights supporters’ who secretly (or not) wish to have pre-marital sex criminilized will finally have gotten their wish.

Let’s just hope there will still be anti-feminists who can hear the screams of the millions of men being raped and beaten in prison as a result of these laws…men with no other voice to shout against the feminist sexual trade union.

Is Reddit Men’s Rights Getting Better? 

I’ve been a harsh critic of reddit.com/r/mensrights in the past, but lately there does seem to be more genuine men’s rights supporters standing their ground in the comments section over there.  I’ve just returned from my summer hols (apologies for lack of updates and slow comment moderation), but whilst I had a quick scan of Reddit, I came across possibly the best comment I have ever read there.  It was in reply to a redditor’s post asking what percentage of sex offenders were genuine perverts, and what percentage where there for urinating against the wall of a nightclub  :

also a lot of the sex offender terminology is an attempt to demonize the sexuality of men. terms like “predator” should really be applied to gold diggers, but they are reserved specifically for male sexuality by and large. since men are the biological pursuers of women, we can always be demonized as “predators” and “perverts” when in reality, it’s just a natural response to seeing a half naked girl. yet this feminist society shames male sexuality by telling us we are perverted for looking at huge half-covered, surgically enhanced tits. those tits obviously aren’t made bigger for breast feeding. they are made so that males WILL look.

women are really trying to have their cake and eat it too at the expense of men. on every facet women want to be equal to men while ignoring all the responsibility that men have to bear… even in sex offender cases where the woman is a female, the story is portrayed as something entirely innocent and benign, unlike the exact same situation where the genders are reversed. yes, even where sex is concerned, men must bear all the shame and all the responsibility. no longer are we allowed to call women sluts. no longer are we allowed to blame scantily clad women when they get raped. everything is the fault of men. men are bad. women are good. water is wet. case closed.

men need to start learning to say FUCK YOU to feminism. they need to start getting their balls back and learning to say NO to the entitlement mindset of today’s women raised under feminism’s permissive and abusive system. otherwise, men will forever fight a losing battle of trying to justify their natural sexual urges to women.

(rollinon

I’ve changed my mind about Reddit Men’s Rights.  I think that rather than ignoring it or trying to weaken it, the best policy of the (genuine) men’s rights movement would be to submit as many relevant articles and posts as possible, at the same time as engaging in upvoting genuine articles and downvoting those submitted by feminists or closet mangina idiot MRAs.

The Three Graces - Ancient Greek representation of fertility

At what age is the average female most sexually alluring to an ordinary, healthy, uncastrated male?  Is it even possible to ask this question in the climate of today, and expect a reasonably honest answer?  There have been a couple of good tries in the anti-feminist community recently, but such attempts inevitably end up with men playing the ‘I’m less of a paedophile than any other man here – feminists might be reading’ game. Perhaps, on such topics, we should follow the sage advice of Ludwig Wittgenstein, and accept that ‘of that which we cannot speak of, we ought to remain silent’?  At least this way some semblance of male dignity is preserved.

One things for sure.  The mangina respondents to this survey, faced with their scowling wives peering over their shoulders, didn’t remain silent when they clearly ought to have.

Well, I’m going to have a go at a politically incorrect, honest analysis of what evolutionary theory, and not the deluded wishes of 31 year old women, would predict men to find most attractive, age wise, in females.

But not today.  If something so politically incorrect is worth doing, then it’s worth doing well, and I need your help.  I’m asking readers like Highwayman, Frank, RR, and others, as well as other bloggers such as Human-Stupidity and Jay Hammers to give me some suggestions and advice.  Any links and resources would also be most valued.

Hopefully I’ll have the article completed before I allow my wandering eyes to put theory into practice on the beaches of the French riviera next month.  But for now, here is a sketch of some of the points I will be addressing :

The concept of ‘peak fertility’.  A mistake often made is to assume that because a woman reaches peak fertility (number of eggs produced) at age 22 or so, that this means that men will find her most attractive at 22.  False.  You also have to factor in the number of remaining years of fertility into the equation.  Also, the likelihood of the girl being a virgin or not (‘mummy’s baby, daddy’s maybe’).  For these reasons, even though an 18 year old may be slightly ‘less fertile’ than a 22 year old, ET would still predict that men would prefer the 18 year old. (and there are also good ET reasons why a woman would reach peak fertility some time after she has bonded with/attracted a male provider – I will explain these in the finished article).

Evidence through long-term history.  The well-established fact that the norm has been for men to marry girls shortly after the commencement of fertility (the menarche).

Evidence through recent history.  Whatever the situation in America, in Europe both ‘paedohysteria’ and the extension of paedophilia to embrace sex with ‘minors’ (a ‘minor’ itself being an imported American concept), is a very recent phenomenon.  Little more than 10 years ago, the most popular porn franchise in Europe was ‘channel seventeen’ – hardcore pornographic videos featuring 16 and 17 year old Dutch girls (now of course, illegal even to view due to American/’child protection’ group lobbying).  The most popular British newspaper, the ‘Sun’, reached it’s position (after almost folding in the 70′s) through publishing topless ‘page 3′ girls, often aged 16 or 17 (including the most famous of them - Samantha Fox).  Equivalents in Denmark and Gemany, such as Das Bild, regularly published topless photos of 15 year olds.  More risque tabloids, such as the British ‘Sunday Sport’ often held competitions for its readers to have sex with 16 year old pornstars.  In fact, it would often count down the days until one of their glamour models reached her 16th birthday, titilating readers with revealing bikini shots, until it could legally show her topless.  The market does not lie.

In Japan, which until the last few years had absolutely no taboos whatsoever on teenage sex, it was taken for granted that teenage girls were most attractive (and virtually all porn and erotica involved teenage girls). Train stations would have used schoolgirl panty vending machines. In Japan the school uniform is a symbol of male desire, just as the mini-skirt is in America.  Are Japanese men simply perverted?  Or is a more likely explanation that Japan, until the last few years, was free from anglo-saxon christian puritism, as well as sexual trade union feminism? (not to mention being free from America’s teen pregnancy rates, teen obesity levels, youth violence etc. But that’s another article….)

Statistical reasons relating to accepted criteria such as youthful skin, hip/waist measurements etc.  Here it would be most helpful if anybody could provide a link to any relevant charts/tables.

Removing mis-leading modern day factors : the average woman of today has a greater variety of make-up, hair styling methods, and clothes to choose from than even Cleopatra would have had access too.  And the application of all of these articifial enhancements to a female’s looks are ‘skills’ that improve over time.  These are major off-setting factors, but remember, we are talking about raw physical desire.  In the street, I see many sexually attractive 30 year olds.  In the swimming baths, without hair styling, make-up, jewellery, or expensive clothes, I rarely see any attractive woman over 22.

Feminism increases ‘paedophilia’ : Rising testosterone levels, as well as greater obesity, mean that the feminine body found in many 20 year olds of only 50 years ago, would probably be found more often in 14,15 or 16 year olds of today.

Is 14 y.o. Kendall Jenner really 8 years away from peak attractiveness (or 17 years!!)?

Kim Kardashian’s 14-year-old sister Kendall defends bikini photo shoot

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Obviously, one MRA who always has got his finger on the pulse is Angry Harry :

Sympathy For Cop Shooter Downing Street is to contact Facebook to express the Prime Minister’s dismay after hundreds of people left messages of sympathy on the website for gunman Roaul Moat.

The tide continues to turn.

How long will it be before government and government workers dare not leave their houses, eh?

For four decades now, western men have had to put up with a ceaseless onslaught against them emanating largely from government.

And they are also expected to pay for – and maintain – all the luxuries that so many government workers enjoy; despite their own failing fortunes arising from the current economic crisis.

And governments continue to stack all the odds against men when it comes to the law, the benefit system, the health system etc etc etc.

Is it surprising, therefore, to see that people are now actually cheering acts of murder?

Of course, personally speaking, I feel quite sick at the thought that people are pleased to see a police officer being killed or maimed.

But look at how the police treat men.

Tens of thousands of men every year are treated absolutely appallingly by police officers, social workers and the justice system.

So who can be surprised to find that so many people will cheer at the thought of these government officials ‘getting a taste of their own medicine’?

Now, I’m not wishing to have a pop at Spearhead commentators en masse, the best of whom justify that site being an essential place to visit (though perhaps not for much longer).  Also, credit to Welmer, on this occasion, for highlighting a story that obviously had relevance.  It did strike me as indicative though, of the MRM once again failing to ‘seize the moment’.  (you’re entitled to ask why I haven’t mention the Moat case up-to-now. I should have.  But my site is primarily an attack on feminism as a sexual trade union harming and raping men through legislation surrounding pornography, prostitution, and ‘paedophilia’).

However, just in case any men’s rights supporters are still puzzled at the ‘sick’ sympathy for Raoul Moat then please read the following (and, like Angry Harry, I’m in no way condoning Moat’s tragic actions, simply empathizing with what drove him to destroy his own life and that of others).

Raoul Moat’s uncle has accused the killer’s former girlfriend of having “blood on her hands” over his nephew’s shooting spree.

He wrote: “This lady has the blood of two deaths and a maimed PC on her hands, all caused by the lies and the goading on the mobile (phone) prior to the incident.

“A second phone call to Raoul told him that her new boyfriend was a policeman and had a black belt in karate and if he wanted to come to the house, her boyfriend would ‘do’ him.

“She then went on to describe what her boyfriend was about to do to her when they went upstairs.

“She told him this knowing that he was a powder keg waiting to explode after she had previously told him that he wouldn’t see his daughter again.

“I can’t imagine what his state of mind must have been.”

SOURCE : Killer’s former girlfriend has ‘blood on her hands’.

Raoul Moat died after a stand off with police, sobbing as he cried that nobody in his life had ever loved him.  The British police, who have repeatedly killed civilians and then deliberately lied in order to cover their actions up, claimed that he killed himself with his shotgun (after being fired at with police tasars).  This version of events is already coming under suspicion.

Is the Men’s Rights Movement really growing?

However stupid sections of the MRM are, I’ve always taken comfort from the apparently obvious reality that the movement as a whole is growing.  Whatever else, the heretical idea that men might be of ethical concern in themselves, is slowly being raised in the public consciousness.

But is this really happening?  I’ve been considering for a while whether this is simply an illusion given by the increased opportunity for men’s rights supporters to give voice to their feelings via web2.o media such as YouTube.  Five years ago, you only had Angry Harry and a few other dedicated sites to read.  Now, you can watch any number of videos, post links on Reddit, and with the magic of WordPress, even start your own blog in minutes yourself.  But are there really MORE people interested in men’s rights, or is the number of those people expressing their interest merely increasing?

An optimistic way of looking at this graph is that it is simply misleading.  The graph measures Google searches for ‘men’s rights’.  Perhaps people are searching less for men’s rights, not because of less interest, but because there are MORE places they can readily bookmark that, in effect, do the searching for them.  Simply bookmarking a regularly updated site such as Men’s Activism is far more efficient than searching for ‘men’s rights’. 

The graph is still troublesome though, in that it surely indicates some kind of drop in the wider casual interest for men’s rights.  The widely held assumption that the men’s rights movement is growing is questionable.

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).

A real voice for men.

Two excellent essays have appeared, saying much the same as Jay did, except that the authors here avoided making individual attacks.

Angry Harry : http://angryharry.com/esGoingRoundInCircles.htm

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.

But can there really be a men’s rights page that actively denounces as heresy any mere finger pointing at feminists and their role in the decline and fall of the contemporary male?

Yes, incredibly, there is. It’s called Reddit Men’s Rights, and it is the fastest growing men’s rights resource on the web, proudly numbering 8,000 readers and counting. And it’s a place where newcomers to our young movement will ‘learn’ that the likes of Angry Harry and The Spearhead are ‘ crazy extremist sites’ morally equivalent to feminazi blogs that call for the entire male sex to be burned alive (and we shouldn’t post links to feminazi blogs at Reddit because they ‘misrepresent feminism’!).

Reddit, in terms of the comments section and the constant downvoting, is clearly a joke and a travesty to our movement. The question is – is it now becoming a real threat to our movement?

The first thing I should say is that there are a lot of intelligent and genuine men’s rights supporters on Reddit who I respect and admire. A couple of very important MRAs – MGTOW and Pierce Hanlon, of the false rape society, also post important and relevant links there. In fact, between them, they post nearly all of the important and relevant links. Having said that, only Pierce Hanlon and JayHammers are MRAs who participate in discussions there who I recognise from elsewhere in the movement (and JayHammers is also tired to death of what Reddit is sadly becoming).

To those of you unfamiliar with it, Reddit is a social ‘bookmarking’ site, in which members post links in suitably defined categories which are then up or downvoted according to how readers view their relevance and interest. Thanks largely to the hard work of MGTOW and Pierce, Reddit had become an unmatched source for up to the minute stories relating to men’s rights issues. Over the last few months, however, it has become noticeable that perfectly good links immediately get downvoted (they are then automatically removed from the front page and become near invisible). More recently still, it has become apparant in the comments sections below the posts, that there are clearly more feminists now visiting ‘our’ Reddit than genuine men’s rights supporters. And the ‘men’s rights discussion’ at Reddit is becoming proportionately crazier and crazier and out of touch with mainstream men’s rights as a result.

Before I give a couple of brief examples, I should explain why I feel that this issue is important, and why Reddit could become a real danger to men’s rights. As I’ve already said, however twisted the viewpoint there is becoming, it is the fastest growing men’s rights resource on the web. At least in brute numbers. Attracting over 1,000 readers each month is impressive, even if most of those numbers are feminists (and the others don’t seem to hang around). If you google ‘mens’ rights’ you will find that Reddit already appears on the second page of results. With the massive page rank that Reddit enjoys, it probably won’t be long before it sits right at the top of the Google mountain, the unofficial ‘homepage’ of our movement. The demographic of Reddit is also different to most other men’s rights places online. I assume it is a lot younger. It certainly sounds younger. Whichever way you look at it, this subreddit is many people’s first encounter with men’s rights, especially those of young people. A place for men’s rights beginners that is overpopulated (infested might be a better description) with ‘sympathetic’ feminists and chivalrous white knights who forbid even the slightest criticism of feminism, is potentially a threat to our nascant movement if it is teaching those newcomers a completely erroneous view of what most men’s rights activists believe and struggle for.

In a sense the Men’s Rights Reddit is irrelevant in terms of real activism (I’ve tried to set up a ‘call to action’ system there, which was largely ignored). However, in terms of demographic and sheer weight of numbers, there is a very real possibility that it could begin to mould the future agenda and outlook of the men’s movement. And it is an agenda that feminist trojan whorses there, such as CryptoGirl and Inabook, are only too willing to pervert.

Take the following example. A highly relevant post was submitted consisting of a news report stating that over two thirds of murder victims in the UK last year were male. Men’s rights? Of course it is. Just as much as it is accepted that the fact that a disproportionate number of male homicide victims are black is a ‘black rights issue’.

But not for feminist male rights supporter CryptoGirl, who immediately denounced the irrelevance of the post by pointing out that most of the murderers of males were also males. Men killing men is not men’s rights. His/Her comment (‘she’s’ a transvestite waiting for the snip), since deleted, swiftly recieved the customary barrage of upvotes, other MRAs promptly agreed with her, and her position as the independent arbiterer of what is and isn’t men’s rights was further cemented – with a final comment consisting of ‘now, back to equal rights! ‘ . Yes she actually did make that last comment (whichReddit MRAs naturally again upvoted).

Except that men killing men is a men’s rights issue. If men are more than twice as likely to be the victims of murder than women are, then that should at least be a cause to question the feminist dogma that society is better for men than it is for women, no matter who is doing the killing. And you can’t have your cake and eat it. If we have to blame ‘society’ on the need for men’s rights rather than feminists, then we should also be able to blame a society that is unfair to men on such gender imbalances as the likelihood of being a victim of murder. In fact, there is a strong case for arguing that it is women, and not ‘society’, let alone men, who play a dominant role in the greater incidence of male homicide – especially when so many of those murders are the results of gang feuds, typically between young, urban black males, who have had their sense of masculine worth defined and perverted by the grotesque and racist sexual needs of white females.

Another example. Only yesterday another sympathetic feminist (inabook) praised a senate bill that will prevent teenagers from being jailed as sex offenders under feminist created statutory rape laws. Nothing wrong with that you might say. It is indeed a welcome and long overdue initiative to stop a child abusing practice that puts the American justice system into disrepute and was only serving as an increasingly embarrassing reminder that such laws have nothing to do with child protection. But is the following comment really worth 10+ upvotes on a men’s rights page? :

This sounds like an excellent step forward– focusing on age difference rather than purely on age of consent.

So a 16 year old slut can quite happily bang a similarly immature 16 year old boy, but if it happens to be a 25 year old who knows how to put on a condom but is perhaps a little emotionally immature and is attracted to younger girls, then lock him away and throw away the key? If a 16 year old can consent to sex with a boy her own age, why is she mysteriously unable to consent to sex with an older male? Studies have proven time and time again that young people are far more likely to be sexually abused by their peers than by older partners. In fact, it seems that inabook and the asshats who vote her inane comments up don’t even understand the concept of peer pressure…or perhaps just conveniently forget it when it justifies them stopping their boyfriends or husbands ever being tempted by nubile younger flesh.

In fact, surely it follows, if consent only becomes invalid if there is a percieved possible imbalance in power, that crazy feminist laws that lock professors up for sleeping with 21 year old students or that criminilize men as rapists for having sex with tipsy women, are also justified? Well, actually the crazy gang at men’s rights reddit probably think that those laws are justified. After all, only extremists think that men’s rights has any connection with anti-feminism…

As well as illustrating the danger that Reddit has become, the above two examples clearly showcase one of the fundamental errors of the men’s rights movement in general. Allowing feminists to set our agenda by chasing a ridiculously naive and simplistic conception of the notion of equality. As I have stated here many times, equality is not just about the distribution of goods, but about the valuation and selection of those goods in the first place. I keep half-expecting to see CryptoGirl make a post declaring her disappointment that society has been slow to accept the right of men to have an abortion….and no doubt that too would get dozens of upvotes from the simple-minded equality whores at Reddit.

Men’s Rights is about speaking up against the abuse and discrimination suffered by men in an increasingly misandristic society created by feminists and their supporters. Our movement is still very young and still, all too depressingly, very small. Reddit Men’s Rights is one of the few places (and in sheer numbers, the largest) where the future outlook and agenda of our cause is being decided and debated.

We must not let feminists decide what that agenda should be. This isn’t about silencing opposition to our cause (in the expert manner of feminists). It’s about allowing our nascent cause to develop its own true voice. Surely we deserve that dignity at least?

A new Reddit Men’s Rights has been created and all genuine men’s rights supporters are welcome to join and participate :

http://reddit.com/r/mensrightslinks