Torture and the Feminist Corruption of All Human Rights Groups

The vast majority of victims of state sponsored torture are men. This is an obvious truth, arising not simply from the disposability of the male, but the fact that the majority of civilians who take up arms in any form against corrupt and totalitarian regimes will be men. This evident truth was highlighted again yesterday by the release of photographs of alleged torture victims of the Assad regime in Syria.

But despite men being the overwhelming victims of state torture, the leading human rights organizations in the world, such as Amnesty International, and even specifically anti-torture lobby groups such as ‘Redress’, are mere fronts for radical feminist propaganda. These organizations take huge amounts of donations from the public, who presumably believe that their generosity will go entirely towards stopping horrific cases of torture in the Third World, when actually these ‘human rights’ groups are spending the money on lavish conferences spreading the message that even torture is a gender issue that discriminates against women.

For example, ‘Redress’ is a registered UK charity that ostensibly seeks to secure reparations for victims of torture. It spends over £1 millions worth of donations each year, apparently to secure this aim. However, in October 2011 it teamed up with Amnesty International to organize a conference looking at the ‘gender dimension’ of torture. And you guessed it – this ‘gender dimension’ involves only women.


The conference report spends a lot of time focusing on rape as a state sponsored method of torture, but makes clear that the definition of rape used is not going to be the ‘traditional one’ but as ‘an abuse of power, rather than a failure of consent or agreement‘.

Other definitions of state sponsored torture that the world’s leading anti-torture human rights groups appeared to agree upon during the conference were the criminalization of abortion, as well as governments not taking domestic violence seriously enough.

And this is the ‘liberal human rights’ club that the ‘men’s human rights movement’ is so eager to become part of?

Victims of real Syrian torture :





16 thoughts on “Torture and the Feminist Corruption of All Human Rights Groups”

  1. @theantifeminist: the pdf link is dead (or has just been killed?). You seem to have an effect here. Besides that, women simply do not get tortured. Firstly because they’re women, secondly because women spill the beans long before torture even begins.

  2. In the French media, even when no violence or coercion is involved in a major/minor relation, the minor is always called a “victim” of course and the adult, quite often, is called a “torturer” (“un bourreau” in French).
    I don’t remember seeing that word used — yet — in the English-speaking media (?)

    By the way, this “state torture” coverage about Syria is obvious shameless propaganda to oust Assad and put the Islamists in his place…

  3. @Oscar, about the French: “torturer” is “tortionnaire”. “Bourreau” is hangman, executioner. Although you’re right, “bourreau” is often used by the French media as an all-purpose words meaning “victimizer”. Justice is not the only casualty of most modern debates, correct language is as well.

  4. I guess it’s not dissimilar to the myth, the folk legend, of women and children being the (only) civilian victims of war.

    In nearly every armed conflict since WWII (and quite possibly, even including WWII), men have outnumbered women many times over in terms of civilian deaths. We’re talking something like 80 percent civilian men versus barely over 15 percent civilian women (and the rest, children). And that still doesn’t even take into consideration the millions who have died as – male – soldiers in front-line armed combat in war zones all over the planet.

    But what do you keep hearing from feminist-subverted NGOs and supranational bodies like the UN whenever there’s another war? They never tire of attempting to make it look just the other way round. That women and children are the only ones who suffer, plus maybe a few – obviously thought to be expendable – men. Worse even, new U.S. foreign policy statutes even define enemy soldiers as any male above the age of 16, meaning a 16-year-old Afghan boy would be counted as an enemy casualty even if he simply gets shot to pieces by undiscerning U.S. soldiers because they thought the water canister with which he was going to get water from the neighborhood well for his family was a bomb. Hey, you never know, right? While his 17-year-old sister in the same situation would probably make the evening news as a horrible case of human error.

    And yes, it is an unspeakable tragedy when a school building or hospital full of women and children gets annihilated in a missile strike. It is sad beyond words, and should never for one second be played down. But as appalling as these tragedies are, hundreds, perhaps thousands of civilian men still get killed every day by artillery fire, bombs, and other weaponry in Afghanistan and Iraq alone. We never see or hear their tallies on the news. And if we do, more often than not, a news story about yet another attack on civilians will sneakily be worded as something like “50 civilians were killed, including women and children“. Even if, say, 46 men are dead and just four women and children. The take-home message once again: men are utterly expendable and worthless, to the point where a woman or a child is ten times more important than the life of one male.

    Good to have you posting again btw, Antifeminist… don’t let em get you down 🙂

  5. @Jack

    In French “un bourreau” is not only a man who executes death sentences (hangman), he’s also, and mainly in common language, a torturer, a man who inflicts extreme physical pain on his victim. This distortion of language could be compared to using the word “survivor” for a minor of age having sex with an older partner.

  6. Plus, let’s not forget that the reason schools or places “full of women & children” exist at all is because women and children find shelter there while men are out on the field seeking a hole in the head. There wouldn’t be any places “full of women & children” to bomb if the latter were spread out equally among men and exposed to the same dangers. P.S. The Taliban cursing the US for bombing a place full of women shows that even for the Taliban, women are the protected sex, and male the disposable sex.

  7. As we’ve seen in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya evil femihags like Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton purposely inflate the gender torture issue as a political device. It’s a bigger-scale version of the Abuse Industry carried on at home:

    Basically, the femihags scream loudest about female victims in these conflicts. And once half the male population is exterminated and destroyed, they swoop in the on the local females as their ‘protectors’ and try to win their confidence by pointing out how the femihags were looking for their interests all along; how much better it would be with ’empowered’ women &c.

    It’s the very same game played in DV shelters and sex-abuse rehab centers all across the Anglosphere.

  8. Is it possible that the MHRM groups want to become legitimate charities?

    The existing charities are making quite a pretty penny.

    I’d wager a guess that this is not about change – well – yes – it is about change – the kind of change you find in a woman’s purse.

  9. Anyone who wants to bang their head on their desk in despair, have a look at this “Being A Man” festival-

    For the full horror of how bad it is, it’s best to ciick through to the festival’s website and see the detailed schedules of speakers etc.

    With this “MHRA” thing as well, it looks to me like we’re seeing an overt attempt by the Progressive/Feminists to take over and destroy the “men’s movement”.

  10. I agree with you in general: they should focus on the 80-90% of the torture victims not the 10-20%.
    But I think wartime rape cannot be just written off. That’s not the same as the rape histery in today’s peacetime Western civilisations, that’s real thing. (And I think that sentence “an abuse of power, rather than a failure of consent or agreement” was meant to mean just that – that it’s not as in the “anything can be consitered a rape” western definition. Either that or I’m not seasoned enough in PC newspeak.) In the ’90-s Yugoslav Wars the belligerents committed all kind of nasty shit against eachother. Includeing the mass rapeing of Bosnian women by Serbs – as a means of humiliation for them and for their relatives and to make them have Serb offsprings. (And also for fun of course.) In WW II. the Russian forces raped (and sometimes also mutilated) masses of civilian women in the lands they occupied. (And also stole lots of stuff, hauled away people for forced work (not only men) and many other nasty shit, but that’s a different story.)
    So shit like that does happen and that’s the real thing, not the case when she changes her mind in the middle of the act and accuses you the next day becouse you didn’t stop. But yeah, this affects much less women and has much less long lasting effects than the shit that happens to men.
    Also the banning of abortion is really problematic, but I don’t think it should be dealt with in the torture section. It can couse great suffering though, like any bad law. But I don’t think it’s a men’s or a women’s right issue, despite the fect that feminists like it a lot.
    The “government not takeing DV serious enough” and such are pure bullshit ofc. And the very notion that the gender dimensions of torture should be dealt with is absolutely absurd!

  11. But I think wartime rape cannot be just written off. That’s not the same as the rape histery in today’s peacetime Western civilisations, that’s real thing.

    Two things though:

    1) In wartime women get raped because their men (their soldiers) have been defeated. So it’s not that “men can stop rape”. Rather, “men DO stop rape”, if they can. German men were no longer around in 1945 and therefore could not prevent German women from being raped by the Russians.

    2) In wartime women have the OPTION of being raped rather than killed (trading sex for survival). Men don’t have that option: men get killed. On a general note, whenever the plight of females is discussed, the plight males would suffer under the same circumstances should be considered. The picture that emerges is then: women bad —-> men worse.

  12. @ Joska
    ” Includeing the mass rapeing of Bosnian women by Serbs – as a means of humiliation for them and for their relatives and to make them have Serb offsprings. (And also for fun of course.)”

    I thought this place was meant to debunk propaganda and not to present it as facts .
    There never was any such thing as “mass rape” by the Serbs but this legend was instrumental in getting media women inflamed (though these very women were quite indifferent to the real killing of men on both sides) and , consequently, Serbia bombed.

  13. @Jack
    Just a reminder: I do think that the very the notion of gender dimensions of torture is bullshit – especially if it’s made to look like women get it off worse, than it’s totally atrocious.
    I just wanted to note that that for example wartime rape does happen and it is a bad thing. Of course not nearly as bad as killing, mutilation, regular torture or forced work.
    But you’re right that compared to the rest of the atrocities committed this is a marginal issue and should get a low priority.

    “I thought this place was meant to debunk propaganda and not to present it as facts .”
    I actually though it was true. If not then nevermind!
    “though these very women were quite indifferent to the real killing of men on both sides”
    In general, probably yes. But I’m pretty sure they weren’t in the infamous case of the Srebrenica massacre.

Comments are closed.