Organisations like the Labor party, the Fawcett Society, and the NSPCC have become dominated by a militant form of feminism which will condemn Matthew to a lifetime of discrimination…

http://fathers4justiceadvertising.wordpress.com/

See also my article – ‘The NSPCC as an Evil Feminist Organisation‘ to learn just how dominated that ‘child protection’ charity has become by radical feminists.

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) is one of the most powerful brands in the social care field, and is generally regarded by the public as being beyond reproach. In 2005/2006 the NSPCC raised 85% of its funds – around £98 million – from donations, gifts, and legacies from individuals, companies, and trusts, so there’s no cause for concern about the charity’s independence. But the way the charity spends money has proven more contentious, provoking fierce antipathy in some quaters. In 2000 it was reported that 46% of the NSPCC’s expenditure went on fundraising, publicity, policy development and public education, while it spent only 37% on children’s services. In 2003, similar figures were reported, and a leader in the Daily Telegraph argued that ‘the charity spends too much on advertising campaigns and not enough on dealing with abused children’.

The 2006 accounts are presented in a very unhelpful manner, making it difficult to calculate the allocation of funds. Indeed, the NSPCC’s website is outstandingly difficult to navigate for anybody who wants to know anything substantive about the charity. Eventually, one finds that 83 pence in every pound apparently goes on services to children, but there is no breakdown to support this assertion. According to the 2006 annual review and report, fundraising accounted for just under a fifth of total expenditure, and no one is likely to dispute that activities like research, campaigning and fundraising are legitimate. But again the impression of opaqueness is regrettable : while it appears that 51% of the charity’s expenditure goes on child protection and preventative services and projects, closer inspection reveals that a proportion of this is spent on campaigning, which presumably includes television publicity and adverts for its multi-million pound Full Stop campaign, among other ventures. Suspiciously enough, despite repeated attempts to elicit the exact figures from the finance department and the public enquiries desk, no one was prepared to comment. This is more than merely frustrating; it is disturbing that the NSPCC refused to tell a member of the public how it would spend their money.

Ever since the charity’s foundation in 1884 it has engaged in campaigning, though not to the extent that it has in recent years. The involvement in campaigning can raise awareness – thereby hopefully changing attitudes and behaviour – but this is not the same as actually intervening to stop abuse. It would seem that the service aspect has decreased as a proportion of the charity’s overall work. In the past it did more frontline investigative and preventative child protection work, and much of the donating public still percieve this to be the case.

The NSPCC has come in for particular criticism over the years for its methods of fundraising and campaigning. For example, 450 guests were flown out to a charity ball in St. Petersburg, where the party tickets cost $5,000 each – a party that the Independent said ‘even the Tsars might have found a little over-indulgent’ – to raise money for the charity. One former employee, criticising the rise of managerialism and the decline in frontline services, has complained about how the charity has ‘lost its way’ since the early 90′s because it ‘has become more interested in its own percieved status than the service it was set up to provide’. Another said that ‘although the legal powers invested in the NSPCC to protect children have, in theory, never been revoked, the infrastructure necessary to make these of any use in protecting children no longer exists’.

The Charity Commission states that ‘charities should ensure that [research] is properly conducted using robost and objective research methods’, but in 2003 the charity was accused of running a campaign under false pretences. The campaign in question was a £1 million pound effort to criminilize smacking. ‘The NSPCC declared – adducing as evidence a poll that it had conducted – that the majority of parents supported legal reform against smacking. But it turned out that the pollsters had asked what people had thought about “hitting” children, which has entirely different implications.’ The NSPCC has also been arraigned for using rickety research, presented as incontrevertible evidence, in making its case for a ban on smacking. On 4 July BBC 1′s Politics Show broadcast the following statement :

On our programme three weeks ago, we carried an item on the possiblity of a ban on smacking, and in that film we stated that in Sweden where they have a ban on smacking, only 4 children have died from child abuse in 25 years, whereas in the UK the equivalent figure is one a week.

Now, we got those figures from the NSPCC and they are, indeed, startling, but alas they are also misleading. In fact, according to the Swedish Bureau of Statistics and UNICEF, the rate of child mortality at the hands of parents or carers in Sweden is at a comparable level with the UK, and we are happy to correct that impression’.

The NSPCC’s approach to raising pubic awareness is perhaps epitomised by its most controversial effort, the Full Stop campaign, launched in March 1999 at the same time as 88 members of staff were made redundant. The campaign for which the appeal total in 2006 stood at £187 million, calls for an end to cruelty to children – which presumably translates to a call for a universal change in human nature. A number of commentators find this unconvincing, if not manipulative, because, they say, of its almost panglossian scope. According to one columnist in the Guardian : ‘The effacy of these efforts is questionable. The NSPCC has been around since 1884, but the level of child abuse has remained constant. Yet posters in bus shelters, rather than hands-on help, is the charity’s preferred way of tackling child abuse’. Some years ago, a leader in the Community Care magazine said :

when the aim..is arguably unrealistic, questions must be asked when millions are poured into activies whose outcomes for children are far less obvious than for those of the organization’s children’s services. Is the NSPCC carried away with its own importance? It’s not hard to see that the aim of protecting children can be furthered more successfully if the NSPCC is strong and well funded. But that should not make the growth and high profile of the NSPCC ends in themselves.

The author of the Guardian piece concluded with the extraordinarilly strident reccomendation that ‘this avaricious organization inflated by its own sense of self-importance, doesn’t need to be restructured : it needs to be dismantled.’ Whether or not one agrees with these sentiments, the fact that the NSPCC has provoked such indignation indicates that the charity should reconsider both its campaigning practices and the balance of campaigning and service delivery in its allocation of resources.

Many supporters of the men’s movement believe that some of the topics I discuss on this website are not men’s rights issues. I feel that they are because they affect chiefly men, and they do so because they derive from the lobbying of organisations that hate men - organisations such as the NSPCC.  If you are unsure that such organisations hate men, then please read to the end of this article. Once you have done that, please ask yourself whether the laws that these evil feminists create really only become men’s rights issues if they are applied in the courts differently to men and women.

This article kind of takes up where Angry Harry left off, in one of his essays last year.  In that piece, he described how a woman who had just taken up a senior role at the NSPCC, a woman by the name of Marriane Hester, was a committed feminist who had already published some ridiculous research that claimed that WOMEN were three times more likely than men to be arrested in cases of domestic violence!

In fact, as this article will illustrate, virtually ALL of the senior research staff listed on the NSPCC website  have a clear feminist background, and usually have a history of involvement in campaigns against ‘gendered violence’.

Marriane Hester – Professor of Child Sexual Exploitation, NSPCC

Marriane Hester was last year appointed the ludicrous role of NSPCC ’professor of child sexual exploitation’.  She was already professor of ‘gender, violence, and international policy’ at the University of Bristol.  She appears to have earned her salary at that seat of learning by conducting numerous and essential comparitive studies into domestic violence, such as that between China and the UK.  According to the blurb on her Bristol academic homepage, she has also been involved for a long time with the UK Rape Crisis Movement.  But her most infamous contribution to human learning was the above mentioned study which claimed to show (in the words of the Guardian) :

While the vast majority of perpetrators of domestic violence are men, women are arrested in three of every 10 incidents and men in only one of 10.

Lorraine Radford (NSPCC Head of Research)

 The first two of her chief research interests listed are ‘the impact of domestic violence upon children and on parenting, safe child contact arrangements’.  Lorraine was well placed to judge whether Marriane Hester was qualified to earn the salary that a prestigious role such as ‘professor of child sexual exploitation’ no doubt brings.  The two co-authored a book entitled ‘Mothering through Domestic Violence’, published in 2006.

Susana Corral – NSPCC Senior Research Officer

Susana is the first of three senior research officers.  Her speciality appears to be in ‘intimate and dating violence’.  Prior to working for the NSPCC, she had apparently conducted research into the maltreatment of women.  Her bio also tells us that she completed her PHD in violence in dating relationships. 

Are you beginning to detect a pattern?

Alison Jobe – NSPCC Senior Research Officer

The first paragaph of Alison’s NSPCC blurb reads :

Alison’s research interests are in the areas of gender based violence; violence prevention; trafficking; immigration and asylum policy; social exclusion; and children and young people’s rights.

Wouldn’t you expect, on the profile page of a leading staff member of Britain’s official child protection charity, that ‘children and young people’s rights’ would be listed first, not AFTER ‘gender based violence’ and all the other crap?

Alison has apparently had 7 pieces of research published, 6 of which relate to trafficking, and only 1 of which focuses on the rights of young people.

Sarah Gorin – NSPCC Senior Research Officer

Sarah Gorin has published a work looking at the impact of domestic violence upon children. but there doesn’t seem to be any obvious evidence of an overt feminist background or clear misandristic bias in her case.

Silvia Bovarnick – NSPCC Senior Research Officer

Silvia’s research interests are listed as…I hardly need to tell you, do I? Gendered violence, trafficking..blah, blah, blah

Patricia Hynes – NSPCC Senior Research Officer

Patricia earns her salary protecting British kiddies by studying : “forced migration; trafficking; refugee and asylum policy; social exclusion and inclusion; human rights; and the ethics of conducting research with migrant populations.”  I’m sure Sun readers will be pleased to know that their donations are going to such a worthy cause.

Patricia has worked with the women’s refugee movement and completed her PHD from crappy Middlesex  university by writing a billion words on the social exclusion of asylum seekers in the UK.

These are all the ‘senior researchers’, the rest seem to be ‘senior fellows’.  I won’t list them all, at least not now, but suffice to say they follow the same pattern.  I should mention one of them however, as he is only one of two men listed as a member of the NSPCC research team (out of 16).

Simon Lapierre –  NSPCC Visiting Academic (McGill University, Canada)

Simon’s research interests are in the field of violence against women and children, mothering and child protection.

Simon has conducted research on women’s experience of mothering in the context of domestic violence.

He has published a work entitled : “La persistance du blâme envers les mères chez les femmes victimes de violence conjugale“, which according to my ropey french, reads something like ‘the persistance of blaming mothers for the violence they suffer in domestic relationships’.  White knight Simon has also enriched human understanding by publishing work on problems of gender and identity in a multi-cultural framework.

Prelimanary conclusions

So there you have it.  There is no doubt that the NSPCC exists primarily as a feminist organisation and lobbying group. Five of their seven senior research staff are hardcore feminists whose main interests lie in domestic violence against women and/or trafficking.  These are the senior staff members of an organisation which recieves its Royal Charter on the basis that it will protect British children from abuse and neglect.  One of the two token male members of staff is a Canadian feminist whose main area of interest lies in domestic violence against women.  It appears that the NSPCC is a British ‘child protection’ organisation which awards research positions on the basis of strength of support for feminist political world views, and in fact, picks from candidates whose resumes demonstrate a primary research focus upon violence against women, and, to a sightly lesser extent, trafficking and asylum issues.  None of the seven senior research members of the NSPCC listed amongst their interests the problem of teenage bullying, something which by any objective measure, including their own (see below), is the biggest single problem tormenting the lives of British school children today.

The NSPCC is one of the most powerful social forces in Europe, let alone the UK.  It largely defines our understanding of the health and moral state of the British family, in particular the status of the father, and in more general terms, all of us as men.  Furthermore, the legislation that results from its questionable research and incessant lobbying, from Westminster to Brussels, reaches into the homes and lives of men and families across the continent.

And it is indisputably a hardcore feminist organisation that hates men.

I’ll be writing further pieces on the NSPCC and other supposed child protection charities over the next few months. I may also update this article with further information regarding the feminist backgrounds of the rest of its research staff.  In the meantime, you may want to look at Angry Harry’s ‘The Curse of the NSPCC’ collection of essays. 

NOTES 1 : The NSPCC have their own telephone hotline for children who feel that they are being abused, called ‘Childline’.  According the the NSPCC’s own statistics being bullied by other children is the number 1 reason both boys and girls ring Childline, followed by physical abuse and general family problems.  Logically, you would expect the NSPCC to therefore devote a great part of its campaigning to addressing the issue of bullying, followed by the other two concerns.  Instead, it appears to focus the great majority of its campaigning and lobbying towards ending child sexual abuse, primarily that involving teenage girls, which, despite what you read in the media, is not even in the top 3 concerns of British children.   Likewise, you would also expect the NSPCC to give the greatest weight, when selecting research staff, to those candidates who have some experience in the understanding and prevention of bullying.  In fact, not a single one of their senior research team lists the prevention of bullying as a research interest or goal.  On the other hand, as we have seen, if you have a PHD in migrant studies or domestic violence, you certainly appear to have a head start on the rest of the ‘child protection’ candidates.

NOTES 2 : The NSPCC’s website also gives the following interesting statistic - ‘while 37% of girls say their mother is the source of the physical abuse, 25% say their father is’.  Something which completely contradicts their frequent misandristic emotional televison appeals featuring bruised and battered tiny daughters cowering in fear from their physically abusive fathers.

 Also :

http://therightsofman.typepad.co.uk/the_rights_of_man/2010/07/nspcc-advert-emilys-call-that-betrays-fathers-girls-and-their-own-childline-facts.html

Even social workers can see through the NSPCC

Professor Marianne Hester – Professional Liar

If you know of any other articles attacking the NSPCC as a corrupt organisation, please leave the links below in a comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michele Elliot – No Friend of Men

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

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

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

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

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

Period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michele Elliot Outrage as Chris Langham is Freed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But his remarks drew furious condemnation from kids’ charities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But the following is surely the most disturbing…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support Angry Harry’s brave expose of the child protection racket – place the following button on your homepage and link to his collection of essays : http://angryharry.com/es-Curse-of-the-NSPCC.htm?AHMain

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

Girl Get’s Beaten into Coma (NSFW – but safe for feminists)

What on earth is wrong with two girls fighting? Will their wombs drop? Do you think that only boys should fight? You don’t have any real arguments! Absolutely ridiculous. Besides, you can moderate any comments out- so you may have had hundreds of rational, well argued, legitimate comments, but you won’t have published any of them.

I’m not devoting an entire post to this feminist’s comments because they contain any semblance of logic or reason.  Rather, it is because they sickeningly highlight how little feminists care about the indisputably real and graphic abuse of children when it doesn’t limit their own adult sexual interests in a free sexual market.

A young girl, obviously being bullied, being beaten into what appears to be a coma whilst her schoolmates gather round cheering and recording it on their mobile phones, is a clear and transparent case of abuse. At least to normal, healthy, non-feminists. The fact that those children then upload the video to an American website that openly makes money from its millions of morality lite viewers clicking on advertisements from American companies (often including Google Adsense) is indescribably sick.  The fact that child protection societies such as Barnardos, the NSPCC, and ECAP do NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, to stop it, speaks volumes for what they are.  Middle-aged feminist sexual pressure groups that do not care in the least about stopping real child abuse, but which are only interested in 1/ limiting competition to themselves from teenage girls in a free sexual market 2/ making themselves lots of money and 3/ weakening the family unit and demonizing men.

One thing I do want to make clear though is that I’m in no way suggesting that videos of young girls being beaten half to death for video entertainment are in any way worse than those featuring boys.  In fact, if anything good comes out of these videos it is in revealing how infinitely much more evil and vicious girls are than boys and how the greatest threat to the welfare of young girls is not boys, nor even ’online predators’, but other teenage girls.

In fact, on these morally depraved sites, boy fights are much rarer, and most often much less violent.  Boys seem to know when to stop.  Boys don’t seem to actually want to kill each other over who said what about who on MySpace.  Boys don’t seem to gang up and bully and beat into comas smaller, weaker boys.  However, the very worst are just as indescribably evil :

http://www.mentalzero.com/Bathroom-Beatdown-Leaves-Nerdy-Kid-Bleeding-1049.html

I also don’t wish to ignore the fact that most of the viewers of these sites are probably male.  Men are programmed to enjoy watching violence, just as those who aren’t homosexual, or attracted to small children, naturally enjoy looking at fertile teenage girls.  The relevant question is why do female dominated child protection charities focus only on criminilizing men world-wide for merely looking at a picture of a sexy 17 year old girl in a thong, and yet completely ignore websites that make money from showing graphic physical abuse of children (in which the corrolation between ‘the demand feeds the supply’ is far more obvious)? 

If I have to spell out the answer one more time, I may as well give up.

Here is a suggestion to the Men’s rights community.  Let’s make a concerted  campaign of stopping these schoolchild fight video sites.  Let’s show that we, unlike feminists and their fake child protection charities, actually care about putting an end to the indisputable and obvious abuse and exploitation of children.  If they are unwilling to stop the genuine abuse of girls, then we sure as hell will stop the abuse and exploitation of boys.

Hey, wait a moment.  I forgot myself there.  95% of MRAs are too busy trying to prove that as many women break feminist sex laws as do men. And to criminilize pre-marital sex.  And to tell boys (and girls – we believe in equality) that they’ll go to hell for masturbating.

 Forget it.  Let’s crack open the beer and watch two teenage Russian girls go at it – go at it in the sense of beating the other into a coma… obviously. This is the American way. This is the British way.  This is the feminist way. This is the Men’s Rights way.

Insane brutal kicks to the face leave a girl helpless

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.