Fighting the Culture War: Not For the Faint of Heart or Weak of Stomach

So I shared the following post across my minds account.

semen_cooking

Now, unfortunately elite daily apparently doesn’t like archive: so archive was unable to archive it. Gee, wonder why. So I went to the wayback machine and provided a shortlink for the search results where the webpage is saved in the wayback machine. More than one way to skin a cat, as they say.

However, I got a comment and it began a discussion which I thought may be of some importance or consequence for others to see.

Commentator:
“Please don’t share this kind of stuff.”

I responded as follows:
“Gotta keep tabs on what the degenerates are up to.

File it away in the back of your mind, save it on your hard drive someplace for future use, then throw it in the face of a leftist who tries to propagandize about how leftists aren’t degenerates.

It’s future ammunition, never throw away good ammunition.

Do you have any idea how many things like this I have to try and stomach collecting in my brain for the purpose of exposing leftists?

This is NOTHING compared to what I’ve had to dig up and deal with previously. So quit squirming and nut up: there’s a culture war to wage.”

Commentator:
“No I’m not filing this any where I’m trying to forget it as quick as possible.”

To which I responded:
“Pft, wuss. You should see the kind of sickening shit I’ve collected on leftists. Look at this info graphic: this includes first hand interviews with feminists, like Germaine Greer who spoke about boys “having semen that runs like tap water”, on a live show, while DEFENDING her book of pedophilia which contained almost nothing other than images of young boys in various states of nudity.”

And shared the image you see here.

10407691_736417513080399_682946391300814631_n

I then added in my next comment:
“If you want to fight the culture war against these fiends: you better straighten your back, harden your skin and galvanize your stomach.

Otherwise you’re not going to be able to deal with these creatures or the unimaginable depravity they’re capable of.”

What followed was a barrage of posts from me in that minds thread with all of the following images.


**WARNING**

The following images may be very disturbing.

Including depravity, degeneracy, vulgarity and violence that even non-snowflakes may find “triggering”, sickening or beyond their ability to view without becoming psychologically effected negatively.

**WARNING**

To better view any image, click on the image itself. It will open up a new tab where that image is posted on imgur in order to be better able to see and read the details of each image.


pedo2

arfeat1

vaginal_caligrphy

feminism_cult

vagurt

blood_muffin2

bucketoshit

king_is_dead

733216394094583825

beastial_feminists

feminism_don't havekids2

manhating2

manhating2-2

manhating


I followed by telling this person:
“Peruse through. These are just a few examples of the ammunition I’d got stored away.

You can join the culture war: or you can allow those inhuman cretins to win, but if you’re gonna fight – be prepared to find out exactly what the nature of the enemy is.

It’s not pleasant, it’s not pretty.”

So there you have boys, girls, attack helicopters and those who sexually identify as mayonnaise. Waging the culture war can be very trying. Especially if you’re going to, as I do, search through all those dark spaces and spend a concerted effort digging for information.

Think it’s pleasant to read radfem’s chit chatting about what kind of crimes against humanity they want to be permitted to commit against male children who are innocent of any crime? No, it is not.

Think it’s pleasant to read and catalog detailed information detailing feminists who advocate in favor of decriminalizing pedophilia or reading the explicit comments they make regarding the sexual recharge time of young boys? No, it is not.

This is my enemy, I must know my enemy in order to defeat my enemy: and my best means of defeating my enemy is by exposing the repugnant, disgusting and often criminal nature of my enemy.

This is the culture war, if you want to take part in it: follow the advice I gave above.

“If you want to fight the culture war against these fiends: you better straighten your back, harden your skin and galvanize your stomach.

Otherwise you’re not going to be able to deal with these creatures or the unimaginable depravity they’re capable of.”

Feminist Psychologizing

The following article first published March 1971. It not only specifically predicts how wide spread the phenomena discussed was to become: but aptly explains people like John McIntosh, students of highly falsified pseudo sciences which have been infested with ideological bigotry.

The article itself deals with the concept of “psychologizing”, in general and as a whole, to include it’s wide reaching implications. I recommend reading the article in it’s entirety because again, this was first published in 1971 and you can see how the world today was shaped by the phenomena. I will however, when and where it applies to feminists such as #FullMcIntosh, embolden the text in order to highlight those aspects of this article with apply quite specifically to the subject of the above video.

“Today, many people use psychology as a new form of mysticism: as a substitute for reason, cognition and objectivity, as an escape from the responsibility of moral judgment, both in the role of the judge and the judged.

Mysticism requires the notion of the unknowable, which is revealed to some and withheld from others; this divides men into those who feel guilt and those who cash in on it. The two groups are interchangeable, according to circumstances. When being judged, a mystic cries: “I couldn’t help it!” When judging others, he declares: “You can’t know, but I can.” Modern psychology offers him both opportunities.

Once, the power superseding and defeating man’s mind was taken to be predetermined fate, supernatural will, original sin, etc.; now it is one’s own subconscious. But it is still the same old game: the notion that the wishes, the feelings, the beliefs—and, today, the malfunction—of a human consciousness can absolve a man from the responsibility of cognition.

Just as reasoning, to an irrational person, becomes rationalizing, and moral judgment becomes moralizing, so psychological theories become psychologizing. The common denominator is the corruption of a cognitive process to serve an ulterior motive. 

Psychologizing consists in condemning or excusing specific individuals on the grounds of their psychological problems, real or invented, in the absence of or contrary to factual evidence. 

As a science, psychology is barely making its first steps. It is still in the anteroom of science, in the stage of observing and gathering material from which a future science will come. This stage may be compared to the pre-Socratic period in philosophy; psychology has not yet found a Plato, let alone an Aristotle, to organize its material, systematize its problems, and define its fundamental principles.

A conscientious psychotherapist, of almost any school, knows that the task of diagnosing a particular individual’s problems is extremely complex and difficult. The same symptom may indicate different things in different men, according to the total context and interaction of their various premises. A long period of special inquiry is required to arrive even at a valid hypothesis.

This does not stop the amateur psychologizers. Armed with a smattering not of knowledge, but of undigested slogans, they rush, unsolicited, to diagnose the problems of their friends and acquaintances. Pretentiousness and presumptuousness are the psychologizer’s invariable characteristics: he not merely invades the privacy of his victims’ minds, he claims to understand their minds better than they do, to know more than they do about their own motives. With reckless irresponsibility, which an old-fashioned mystic oracle would hesitate to match, he ascribes to his victims any motivation that suits his purpose, ignoring their denials. Since he is dealing with the great “unknowable”—which used to be life after death or extrasensory perception, but is now man’s subconscious—all rules of evidence, logic, and proof are suspended, and anything goes (which is what attracts him to his racket).

The harm he does to his victims is incalculable. People who have psychological problems are confused and suggestible; unable to understand their own inner state, they often feel that any explanation is better than none (which is a very grave error). Thus the psychologizer succeeds in implanting new doubts in their minds, augmenting their sense of guilt and fear, and aggravating their problems.

The unearned status of an “authority,” the chance to air arbitrary pronouncements and frighten people or manipulate them, are some of the psychologizer’s lesser motives. His basic motive is worse. Observe that he seldom discovers any virtuous or positive elements hidden in his victims’ subconscious; what he claims to discover are vices, weaknesses, flaws. What he seeks is a chance to condemn—to pronounce a negative moral judgment, not on the grounds of objective evidence, but on the grounds of some intangible, unprovable processes in a man’s subconscious untranslated into action. This means: a chance to subvert morality.

The basic motive of most psychologizers is hostility. Caused by a profound self-doubt, self-condemnation, and fear, hostility is a type of projection that directs toward other people the hatred which the hostile person feels toward himself. Blaming the evil of others for his own shortcomings, he feels a chronic need to justify himself by demonstrating their evil, by seeking it, by hunting for it—and by inventing it. The discovery of actual evil in a specific individual is a painful experience for a moral person. But observe the almost triumphant glee with which a psychologizer discovers some ineffable evil in some bewildered victim.

The psychologizer’s subversion of morality has another, corollary aspect: by assuming the role of a kind of moral Grand Inquisitor responsible for the psychological purity of others, he deludes himself into the belief that he is demonstrating his devotion to morality and can thus escape the necessity of applying moral principles to his own actions.

This is his link to another, more obvious, and, today, more fashionable type of psychologizer who represents the other side of the same coin: the humanitarian cynic. The cynic turns psychology into a new, “scientific” version of determinism and—by means of unintelligible jargon derived from fantastically arbitrary theories—declares that man is ruled by the blind forces of his subconscious, which he can neither know nor control, that he can’t help it, that nobody can help what he does, that nobody should be judged or condemned, that morality is a superstition and anything goes.

This type has many subvariants, ranging from the crude cynic, who claims that innately all men are swine, to the compassionate cynic, who claims that anything must be forgiven and that the substitute for morality is love.

Observe that both types of psychologizers, the Inquisitor and the cynic, switch roles according to circumstances. When the Inquisitor is called to account for some action of his own, he cries: “I couldn’t help it!” When the humanitarian cynic confronts an unforgiving, moral man, he vents as virulent a stream of denunciations, hostility, and hatred as any Inquisitor—forgetting that the moral man, presumably, can’t help it.

The common denominator remains constant: escape from cognition and, therefore, from morality.

Psychologizing is not confined to amateurs acting in private. Some professional psychologists have set the example in public. As an instance of the Inquisitor type of psychologizing, there was the group of psychiatrists who libeled Senator Barry Goldwater [in 1964], permitting themselves the outrageous impertinence of diagnosing a man they had never met. (Parenthetically, Senator Goldwater exhibited a magnificent moral courage in challenging them and subjecting himself to their filthy malice in the ordeal of a trial, which he won. The Supreme Court, properly, upheld the verdict.) [Goldwater v. Ginzburg et al. 396 U.S. 1049]

As an example of the cynic type of psychologizing, there are the psychologists who rush to the defense of any murderer (such as Sirhan Sirhan), claiming that he could not help it, that the blame rests on society or environment or his parents or poverty or war, etc.

These notions are picked up by amateurs, by psychologizing commentators who offer them as excuses for the atrocities committed by “political” activists, bombers, college-campus thugs, etc. The notion that poverty is the psychological root of all evil is a typical piece of psychologizing, whose proponents ignore the fact that the worst atrocities are committed by the children of the well-to-do.

As examples of eclectic mixtures, there are the psychologizing biographies of historical figures that interpret the motives of men who died centuries ago—by means of a crude, vulgarized version of the latest psychological theories, which are false to begin with. And there are the countless psychologizing movies that explain a murderer’s actions by showing that his domineering mother did not kiss him good night at the age of six—or account for a girl’s frigidity by revealing that she once broke a doll representing her father.

Then there is the renowned playwright who was asked in a television interview why his plays always had unhappy endings, and who answered: “I don’t know. Ask my psychiatrist.”

While the racket of the philosophizing mystics rested on the claim that man is unable to know the external world, the racket of the psychologizing mystics rests on the claim that man is unable to know his own motivation. The ultimate goal is the same: the undercutting of man’s mind.

Psychologizers do not confine themselves to any one school of psychology. They snatch parts of any and all psychological theories as they see fit. They sneak along on the fringes of any movement. They exist even among alleged students of Objectivism.

The psychologizers’ victims are not always innocent or unwilling. The “liberation” from the responsibility of knowing one’s own motives is tempting to many people. Many are eager to switch the burden of judging their own moral stature to the shoulders of anyone willing to carry it. Men who do not accept the judgment of others as a substitute for their own in regard to the external world, turn into abject secondhanders in regard to their inner state. They would not go to a quack for a medical diagnosis of their physical health, but they entrust their mental health to any psychologizer who comes along. The innocent part of their reasons is their failure of introspection and the painful chaos of their psychological conflicts; the non-innocent part is fear of moral responsibility.

Both the psychologizers and their victims ignore the nature of consciousness and of morality.

An individual’s consciousness, as such, is inaccessible to others ; it can be perceived only by means of its outward manifestations. It is only when mental processes reach some form of expression in action that they become perceivable (by inference) and can be judged. At this point, there is a line of demarcation, a division of labor, between two different sciences.

The task of evaluating the processes of man’s subconscious is the province of psychology. Psychology does not regard its subject morally, but medically—i.e., from the aspect of health or malfunction (with cognitive competence as the proper standard of health).

The task of judging man’s ideas and actions is the province of philosophy.

Philosophy is concerned with man as a conscious being; it is for conscious beings that it prescribes certain principles of action, i.e., a moral code.

A man who has psychological problems is a conscious being; his cognitive faculty is hampered, burdened, slowed down, but not destroyed. A neurotic is not a psychotic. Only a psychotic is presumed to suffer from a total break with reality and to have no control over his actions or the operations of his consciousness (and even this is not always true). A neurotic retains the ability to perceive reality, and to control his consciousness and his actions (this control is merely more difficult for him than for a healthy person). So long as he is not psychotic, this is the control that a man cannot lose and must not abdicate.

Morality is the province of philosophical judgment, not of psychological diagnosis. Moral judgment must be objective, i.e., based on perceivable, demonstrable facts. A man’s moral character must be judged on the basis of his actions, his statements, and his conscious convictions—not on the basis of inferences (usually spurious) about his subconscious.

A man is not to be condemned or excused on the grounds of the state of his subconscious. His psychological problems are his private concern which is not to be paraded in public and not to be made a burden on innocent victims or a hunting ground for poaching psychologizers. Morality demands that one treat and judge men as responsible adults.

This means that one grants a man the respect of assuming that he is conscious of what he says and does, and one judges his statements and actions philosophically, i.e., as what they are—not psychologically, i.e., as leads or clues to some secret, hidden, unconscious meaning. One neither speaks nor listens to people in code.

If a man’s consciousness is hampered by malfunction, it is the task of a psychologist to help him correct it—just as it is the task of a doctor to help correct the malfunction of a man’s body. It is not the task of an astronaut-trainer or a choreographer to adjust the techniques of space flying or of ballet dancing to the requirements of the physically handicapped. It is not the task of philosophy to adjust the principles of proper action (i.e., of morality) to the requirements of the psychologically handicapped—nor to allow psychologizers to transform such handicaps into a moral issue, one way or the other.

It is not man’s subconscious, but his conscious mind that is subject to his direct control—and to moral judgment. It is a specific individual’s conscious mind that one judges (on the basis of objective evidence) in order to judge his moral character.

Every kind of psychologizing involves the false dichotomy whose extremes are represented by the Inquisitor and the cynic. The alternative is not: rash, indiscriminate moralizing or cowardly, evasive moral neutrality—i.e., condemnation without knowledge or the refusal to know in order not to condemn. These are two interchangeable variants of the same motive: escape from the responsibility of cognition and of moral judgment.

In dealing with people, one necessarily draws conclusions about their characters, which involves their psychology, since every character judgment refers to a man’s consciousness. But it is a man’s subconscious and his psychopathology that have to be left alone, particularly in moral evaluations.

A layman needs some knowledge of medicine in order to know how to take care of his own body—and when to call a doctor. The same principle applies to psychology: a layman needs some knowledge of psychology in order to understand the nature of a human consciousness; but theoretical knowledge does not qualify him for the extremely specialized job of diagnosing the psycho-pathological problems of specific individuals. Even self-diagnosis is often dangerous: there is such a phenomenon as psychological hypochondriacs, who ascribe to themselves every problem they hear or read about.

Allowing for exceptions in special cases, it is not advisable to discuss one’s psychological problems with one’s friends. Such discussions can lead to disastrously erroneous conclusions (since two amateurs are no better than one, and sometimes worse) —and they introduce a kind of medical element that undercuts the basis of friendship. Friendship presupposes two firm, independent, reliable, and responsible personalities. (This does not mean that one has to lie, put on an act and hide from one’s friends the fact that one has problems; it means simply that one does not turn a friend into a therapist.)

The above applies to psychological discussions between two honest persons. The opportunities such discussions offer to the dishonest are obvious: they are an invitation for every type of psychologizer to pounce upon. The Inquisitor will use them to frighten and manipulate a victim. The cynic will use them to attract attention to himself, to evoke pity, to wheedle special privileges. The old lady who talks about her operation is a well-known bore; she is nothing compared to the youngish lady who talks on and on and on about her psychological problems, with a lameness of imagination that prevents them from being good fiction.

Psychological problems as such are not a disgrace; it is what a person does about them that frequently is.

Since a man’s psychological problems hamper his cognitive judgment (particularly the problems created by a faulty psycho-epistemology), it is his responsibility to delimit his problems as much as possible, to think with scrupulous precision and clarity before taking an action, and never to act blindly on the spur of an emotion (it is emotions that distort cognition in all types of psychological problems). In regard to other men, it is his responsibility to preserve the principle of objectivity, i.e., to be consistent and intelligible in his behavior, and not to throw his neurosis at others, expecting them to untangle it, which none of them can or should do.

This brings us to the lowest type of psychologizing, exemplified by Lillian Rearden.

Though her behavior was a calculated racket, the same policy is practiced by many people, in many different forms, to varying extents, moved by various mixtures of cunning, inertia, and irresponsibility. The common denominator is the conscious flouting of objectivity—in the form of the self-admitted inability and / or unwillingness to explain one’s own actions. The pattern goes as follows: “Why did you do this?” “I don’t know.” “What were you after?” “I don’t know.” “Since I can’t understand you, what do you expect me to do?” “I don’t know.”

This policy rests on the notion that the content of one’s consciousness need not be processed.

It is only a newborn infant that could regard itself as the helplessly passive spectator of the chaotic sensations which are the content of its consciousness (but a newborn infant would not, because its consciousness is intensely busy processing its sensations). From the day of his birth, man’s development and growth to maturity consists in his mastery of the skill of processing his sensory-perceptual material, of organizing it into concepts, of integrating concepts, of identifying his feelings, of discovering their relation to the facts of reality. This processing has to be performed by a man’s own mind. No one can perform it for him. If he fails to perform it, he is mentally defective. It is only on the assumption that he has performed it that one treats him as a conscious being.

The evil of today’s psychologizing culture—fostered particularly by Progressive education—is the notion that no such processing is necessary.

The result is the stupor and lethargy of those who are neither infants nor adults, but miserable sleepwalkers unwilling to wake up. Anything can enter the spongy mess inside their skulls, nothing can come out of it. The signals it emits are chance regurgitation’s of any chance splatter.

They have abdicated the responsibility for their own mental processes, yet they continue to act, to speak, to deal with people—and to expect some sort of response. This means that they throw upon others the burden of the task on which they defaulted, and expect others to understand the unintelligible.

The number of people they victimize, the extent of the torture they impose on merciful, conscientious men who struggle to understand them, the despair of those whom they drive to the notion that life is incomprehensible and irrational, cannot be computed.

It should not be necessary to say it, but today it is: anyone who wants to be understood, has to make damn sure that he has made himself intelligible.

This is the moral principle that Hank Rearden glimpsed and should have acted upon at once.

It is only with a person’s conscious mind that one can deal, and it is only with his conscious mind that one can be concerned. The unprocessed chaos inside his brain, his unidentified feelings, his unnamed urges, his unformulated wishes, his unadmitted fears, his unknown motives, and the entire cesspool he has made of his stagnant subconscious are of no interest, significance, or concern to anyone outside a therapist’s office.

The visible image of an “unprocessed” mentality is offered by non-objective art. Its practitioners announce that they have failed to digest their perceptual data, that they have failed to reach the conceptual or fully conscious level of development, and that they offer you the raw material of their subconscious, whose mystery is for you to interpret.

There is no great mystery about it.

The mind is a processing organ; so is the stomach. If a stomach fails in its function, it throws up; its unprocessed material is vomit.

So is the unprocessed material emitted by a mind.”

Brain-cancer2

No, Not All Women Are Like That

“because you will be stripped of everything that you have”, “the female has been manifested in their life as only the negative archetype” – no professor. This is a falsification. It’s not that all women will or that all women are that negative archetype. It’s that all women can and have the opportunity to be that negative archetype due to the laws written in their favor.

According to the US CENSUS, 97% of all alimony recipients are female and one cannot be the alimony recipient unless one is also the divorce settlement recipient. The divorce rate is just over 50% and women initiate divorce in over 70% of cases.

It’s not that all women will or that all women are that negative archetype. It’s that all women can and have the opportunity to be that negative archetype due to the laws written in their favor.

I will re-state the preceding quote, repeatedly: and hopefully these hyperbolic claims about MGTOW will thereby be put in a clearer context as being a gross miss-characterization about us. It is nothing more than slander to assert that MGTOWs simply out of the malevolence of their black hearts hate women. That is not the case: what we hate is the way in which the legal system has been corrupted by ideological dogma and now enforces legally sanctioned double standards in direct opposition to and violation of the 14th amendment.

We are abstaining from placing ourselves in danger until we have equal representation and protection under the law thank you very much.

mgtow_4_life

What MGTOW points out, and can be objectively verified: is that relationships present the inherent danger to men that if they last long enough; common law marriage becomes available. Prenuptial agreements can be violated by a court order, and even when not, they often have limitations. Janet Jackson, who already had more money than any reasonable person could spend in a lifetime, just months ago, divorced Wissam Al Mana for $200 million dollars. This she did just 2 months after the 5 year agreement on the prenuptial agreement ended.

It’s not that all women will or that all women are that negative archetype. It’s that all women can and have the opportunity to be that negative archetype due to the laws written in their favor.

Any relationship which becomes a marriage, or simply lasts long enough to become a common law marriage carries with it the over 50% chance that you will lose half your liquid assets, quite possibly your own home, and you may even be burdened further with alimony. Paying forth money to someone whom you are not legally responsible for in any way but to provide for them financially.

5175a77606d84s137561

Earning money which is then taken from you and given to someone else who will be benefit from the fruits of your labor: a definition of slavery if ever there existed one.

MGTOW are teaching men that relationships are a game of russian roulette, in the best case scenarios: to say nothing of false accusations of abuse or child custody.

It’s not that all women will or that all women are that negative archetype. It’s that all women can and have the opportunity to be that negative archetype due to the laws written in their favor.

reality

Your simplification, Peterson, is a fabrication of the argument put forth. An argument which is easily verified as being a concrete observation and assessment of reality. Women are not necessarily the problem: it is the corrupted laws, which are the problem. Any ability or wiggle room you provide humans to abuse a system: they will. It is a guarantee, it is human nature. This is why legal documents are so long winded, winding, circuitous and verbose: to intentionally make every possible exclamation imaginable in order to avoid as many loopholes and opportunities for abuse as possible. So much so, that it is often referred to by the vernacular “legalese.”

Rebuttals…

But “all men could be rapists, how is that different?” –

1, it is illegal for a man to rape a woman.

But But 1.A: “Rape is difficult to prove!” – Men have been put in prison for decades on no evidence other than a woman’s accusation, even if that accusation was false. As has been PROVEN time and time again by the Innocence Project’s use of DNA evidence.

But But But 1.B: “False rape accusations are very rare!” – The number of false convictions overturned by being proven innocent, absolutely proven, innocent: by the innocence project, is far greater than the 5-6% statistic quoted by feminists would allow for.

2, It is perfectly legal for a woman to commit extortion against a man, inside a court of law.

Marriage has become legalized extortion.

The Free Dictionary – Legal Dictionary: “Extortion

“The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.”

Invalidation of prenuptial agreements + no fault divorce = seizure of liquid assets + alimony.

Marriage today, in America, is identical to the legal definition of extortion. It is “The obtaining of property from another induced”—”under color of official right.” The legal system has been manipulated to make marriage the legal definition of extortion. No ands, ifs, or buts about it. It is, by strict legal definition, extortion.

Furthermore, Alimony is a multi-BILLION (with a B, BILLION) dollar EXTORTION SCAM which is almost exclusively reserved for women.

U.S. Treasury Department “TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION Significant Discrepancies Exist Between Alimony Deductions Claimed by Payers and Income Reported by Recipients

According to this report by the treasury department, in the year 2010 alone there were $10 BILLION dollars in alimony tax write offs filed. $2.3 billion of this is untraceable, meaning a lot of people were cheating on their taxes by claiming more than what was paid, or claiming they paid that which they did not, and an unknown number of recipients who claimed they didn’t receive something which they -did-.Even, however, if you exclude the $2.3 billion unaccounted for, that still leaves $7.7 BILLION dollars if Alimony payments being claimed on taxes, all with unique individual and verified Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TIN).

According to the last US Census, 97% of alimony recipients are women. So once again I say: Alimony is a multi-BILLION-dollar EXTORTION SCAM which is almost exclusively reserved for women.

“Extortion: The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.”

You PAY your alimony, or people with guns (law enforcement) will show up at your door, or place of employment, put you in handcuffs and throw you in jail – where anyone without noticeable gang affiliations has a high probability of getting raped.

The obtaining of property from another – Check
induced by wrongful use of:
–actual or threatened force – Check
–violence – Check
–Fear – Check
under color of official right – Check

Marriage is an extortion scam: it is indefensibly identical to the definition of extortion. What’s more: even if the woman is successful and extraordinarily wealthy (I.E. Janet Jackson): if you have more than she has – she will still be permitted to legally commit EXTORTION within a court of law.

simple-008

3, It is a less legally punishable crime for a woman to rape a man than the reverse.

According to the FBI, and anyone with two brain cells to rub together, this is rape. This is clearly and undeniably, unabashedly RAPE. You threaten someone at gunpoint and force them to perform sex. That is rape by any reasonable, rational, logical definition of the term, that is RAPE. According to the CDC, that is not rape—that is “made to penetrate,” a LESSER sexual assault than rape.

Detecting the Scope of Rape : A Review of Prevalence Research Methods. Author: Mary P. Koss.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence  Volume: 8  Issue: 2  Dated: (June 1993)Page: 206

“Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.”

Read that again a few times if you need to. Pay attention, “instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders”, so if a woman uses an object or her fingers to penetrate a man’s mouth or anus it is in fact still rape. However: if a woman uses force, threats/coercion (such gunpoint like the Ciera Ross case above) to force a man to put him penis in her or someone else , despite his protestations or forces it in herself such as if he is unconscious from alcohol or date rape drugs… It’s not rape. Why? Simple: “It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.” I think most reasonable, rational, logical people would unanimously exclaim from the rooftops that “unwanted sexual intercourse”, when you have said no, is in fact Rape, wouldn’t they?

Thanks to feminist Mary P. Koss’s work with the CDC, “no means no” no longer applies to men. FEMINIST: Mary P. Koss isn’t just a “Rape Apologist”, she’s a full blown, verified, shameless “Victim Blamer“. She quite clearly in the same sentence, of her own written work, in an official document of the Department of Justice: National Criminal Justice Reference Service, absolves Women of raping men by exclaiming males raped by women are not victims of Rape. In the same sentence she, a feminist, exclaims that the victims “unwanted sexual intercourse” are NOT victims of Rape: provided the victim is male and the perpetrator is female. She does more than simply blame the VICTIM, she absolves the PERPETRATOR. I’ll say it again: If there is a rape culture, feminists are creating it.

This was done strictly so that Koss could publish intentionally tampered with and gender-biased research data on the rate at which female victims are raped. You see, having a number of males victimized equal to that of women doesn’t look good when you’re trying to talk about “patriarchy” and the inherent “rape culture” found in it, which has a narrative that all men are potential rapists and all women are potential victims.

If there was a male-dominated rape culture, rape would have been made legal before women could vote. Feminists, however, have gone through some very shady and underhanded tactics to conceal the rate at which men are raped by women—going so far as to reclassify the definition of terms to exclude men as being able to be raped by women. Just so they could publish altered statistics.

Do you see the difference? The system is rigged, the deck is stacked, the game is fixed.

This article, for the sake of brevity didn’t even touch on the issue of child custody and paternity fraud or double standard domestic violence laws. We know very well Not All Women Are Like That (NAWALT): but all women are given the opportunity to be like that and what’s more their actions will be given a legal sanction. All due to how the law has been rewritten in the past 50 years.

MGTOWs simply decide to step away from the table: and not participate in something so thoroughly maligned against men.

55566f980423bdb8568b4569

Fiamengo File #22: The Doublethink is Palpable!

If Feminists want to exclaim that there are no physical differences between men and women: they have to stop advocating that women be given lower physical standards than men. In the marines, the Army, fire departments, police departments, etc. etc.

Feminists have yowled in response to low pass rates for women. Those occupations and institutions had low (sometimes 0) pass rates among women because women were expected to pass the SAME physical standards and tests as the men. As a result, Feminist lobbied and protested to create lower physical standards for women, because so few women could actually compete and achieve the same physical standards as men.

Recent examples below.

Police departments lower physical standards for women.

The Marines had to lower physical standards for women, because not one woman was able to pass the exact same physical requirements as the men. Who was forcing the marines to adopt lower standards for women? Feminists.

Feminists forced the Fire Department of New York to drop physical requirements for women: because when held to the SAME physical requirements as men – too few women were becoming fire fighters.

The Army Physical Standards for men and women is point evaluative. Based on age group and number of repetitions done (push ups, sit ups, 2 mile run time). Aside from situps: women have significantly lower standards in order to score 100 points in apt: which effects things like the ability to pass or fail, graduate or be held back and even promotions and pay grade.

Peak performance (highest quantitative measure to reach 100 points in most competitive age group) are as follows.
Male pushups: age 27 – 31. 77 pushups.
Female pushups: age 27 – 31. 50 pushups.
Male situps: age 27 – 31. 82 situps.
Female situps: age 27 – 31. 82 situps.
Male 2 mile run: age 17 – 26. 13 minutes.
Female 2 mile run: age 17 – 26. 15:36 minutes.

Furthermore….

The current Olympic (meaning in the entire world) women’s weight lifting champion, in the highest weight division (meaning the athletes are permitted to weigh as much as they like, 75 kg+),

KASHIRINA, Tatiana of Russia lifted 151 kg in the “snatch” event on 05.08.2012 in London.
ZHOU, Lulu of China lifted 187 kg in the “Clean & Jerk” event on 05.08.2012, London
ZHOU, Lulu of China lifted 333 kg in the “total” event on 05.08.2012 in London London

That’s the women’s heaviest weightlifting division – those are Olympic athletes, the winners of the last Olympic games in those events – they’re Olympians, the absolute best athletes the world can produce in a generation. Meaning those two women who won those three events are the strongest women alive.

For male weightlifting athletes – you have to go all the way down in weight classes to the athletes who can’t weight over 69kg.

MARKOV, Georgi of Bulgaria lifted 165 kg in the “snatch” event on 20.09.2000, in Sydney
BOEVSKI, Galabin also of Bulgaria lifted 196 kg in the “Clean & Jerk” event on 20.09.2000 in Sydney
BOEVSKI, Galabin of Bulgaria lifted 357 kg in the “total” event on 20.09.2000, in Sydney

The 3rd smallest, lightest, weakest division of male weight lifters who have to weigh under a specific weight in order to compete – lift more than the women’s biggest, heaviest, strongest athletes who compete in a division which has absolutely no personal weight limit.

Feminism is based on ideology which requires indoctrination, suspension of disbelief, doublethink and irrational denial of reality in order to actively be accepted as being true.

Reality: shows that their ideological beliefs are a preposterously asinine delusion, every – single – time.

To accept as true –

A: If men and women competed together it would show men are not physically more capable.
+B: We have to lobby to lower physical standards for women because they can’t pass the same physical standards as men.

Simultaneously, without experiencing Cognitive Dissonance, or a sudden brain aneurysm: is unequivocal proof of brain washing that one ordinarily only finds present in cults.

The above A+B is a pristine and precise example of “doublethink”.

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” ― George Orwell, 1984

Bullying Should NOT Start at Home

Feminism at it’s finest: ideological hatred bearing fruit.

Abusing one’s own child, for being born wrong.

Making fun of boys totally fair” By Treena Shapiro

“I do want to be able to explain to a 9-year-old boy in terms he will understand why I think it’s OK for girls to wear shirts that revel in their superiority over boys.”

….”revel in their superiority over boys”….

supremacist

n
1. a person who promotes or advocates the supremacy of any particular group
adj
2. characterized by belief in the supremacy of any particular group
su’premacism su’prematism n

Moving on….

“The T-shirts became an issue when my son Corwin begged me to buy his dad an “I beat your mom at Mario Kart” shirt as a testament to my poor video game skills.

Ha, ha, ha.

I struck back and suggested we buy his sister a shirt that said “Boys are stupid.”

So because his dad beat his Mom at an actual activity: she condones buying his little sister a shirt which simply insults him as being stupid. One is the accomplishment of an actual task, the other is simply an insult and denouncement of one’s intellect based upon gender. She’s willing to psychologically and emotionally abuse her own child…. because she lost at mario kart?

“That’s so offensive,” Corwin complained. “Why are they so mean? You have to write about it.”

In general, I support a girl’s right to offend any member of the opposite sex who happens to cross her path. In fact, I’d much rather see a little girl wearing a shirt that mocks boys than one that turns them on.”

Oh, but you seemed to not like the idea of his dad wearing a t’shirt saying he beat you at mario kart. So apparently you don’t support a male’s right to wear a t’shirt which is offensive….

matt_3106913k

For those of you not paying attention….

supremacist

n
1. a person who promotes or advocates the supremacy of any particular group
adj
2. characterized by belief in the supremacy of any particular group
su’premacism su’prematism n”

“That’s not a conversation I’m willing to have with a 9-year-old, though, so I used the equality argument instead.”

“Equality”…..Which you just failed….

“The problem is that even smart boys like Corwin sometimes have a hard time seeing the big picture.”

Ah, you mean they have a hard time comprehending your ideological prejudice towards males because he’s only 9 years old and you’re supposed to be HIS MOTHER! Of course he’s not going to comprehend the fact that you’re a bigot who’s manipulative and abusive to him, you’re his mother – he has nothing in his heart towards you except love.

He would never imagine you abusing him, he doesn’t understand, he doesn’t comprehend what he did wrong. He could not possibly contemplate the fact the person he looks to for love, kindness, compassion, affection and protection would be so endowed with prejudice and hate towards him for no greater crime than his having been BORN WRONG.

The fact that you would treat him with abject disregard is paradoxical to his young mind: he cannot begin to comprehend that you despise him for having the wrong combination of chromosomes. If I sat him down and explained this to him for hours on end into the earliest moments of the next dawn: his innocence would still fail to conceptually understand your ideological hatred for him.

“Mother is the word for God on the lips and hearts of all children.” Children whom you madam, do not deserve to have. You repay your child’s unconditional love, with unconditional hate – and I mourn the fact that this child is within your grasp.

“Maybe tomorrow’s women will be propelled further faster if they obliterate the inferiority complex that apparently persists in some girls, especially when it comes to subjects like math and science. This “boys are stupid” thinking could lead to the obvious conclusion: Girls are smart.”

Yes, dehumanize, degrade, insult and tear someone else down so that you can feel big. We have a word for that kind of person… Bully.

StopBullying.gov Bullying Definition

“An unhappy teen boy walks away from bullying girls. Bullying is unwanted, aggressive behavior among school aged children that involves a real or perceived power imbalance. The behavior is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated, over time. Both kids who are bullied and who bully others may have serious, lasting problems.

In order to be considered bullying, the behavior must be aggressive and include:

An Imbalance of Power: Kids who bully use their power—such as physical strength, access to embarrassing information, or popularity—to control or harm others. Power imbalances can change over time and in different situations, even if they involve the same people.

Repetition: Bullying behaviors happen more than once or have the potential to happen more than once.

Bullying includes actions such as making threats, spreading rumors, attacking someone physically or verbally, and excluding someone from a group on purpose.

“Types of Bullying

Verbal bullying is saying or writing mean things. Verbal bullying includes:

Teasing
Name-calling
Inappropriate sexual comments
Taunting
Threatening to cause harm

“Boys are dumb”, teasing, name calling, taunting. Treena Shapiro, according to stopbullying.gov – you’re a bully and your victim is your own child. More over, you actually ENCOURAGE girls to bully boys. No evidence of prejudiced ideological hatred there, nooo, none what-so-ever.

StopBullying.gov Effects of Bullying

A sick teen in the school nurse’s office. Bullying can affect everyone—those who are bullied, those who bully, and those who witness bullying. Bullying is linked to many negative outcomes including impacts on mental health, substance use, and suicide. It is important to talk to kids to determine whether bullying—or something else—is a concern.

Kids Who are Bullied

Kids who are bullied can experience negative physical, school, and mental health issues. Kids who are bullied are more likely to experience:

Depression and anxiety, increased feelings of sadness and loneliness, changes in sleep and eating patterns, and loss of interest in activities they used to enjoy. These issues may persist into adulthood.

Health complaints

Decreased academic achievement—GPA and standardized test scores—and school participation. They are more likely to miss, skip, or drop out of school.

A very small number of bullied children might retaliate through extremely violent measures. In 12 of 15 school shooting cases in the 1990s, the shooters had a history of being bullied.”

You think it’s completely and utterly appropriate to treat your child in this manner? Not just your child – but all boys should be subjected to bullying by girls. You are a child abuser: You are disgusting vermin. You should not be permitted within 500 yards of children.

“Unfortunately, there was no way for me to bring this home to a boy who lives in a world full of bright and successful women, including his teacher, principal, doctors and even the governor.”

Yes, you see – your ideology has conditioned you to completely ignore abject reality. So of course the child would be confused: he hasn’t been brain washed enough. He looks at reality; and accepts it as being reality.

You look at reality and still believe in a victimhood cult fantasy in which a secret group of overlords, called the patriarchy, have intentionally oppressed women for all of eternity. You can see that your child’s teacher, principal, doctors, the governor of your state and the boss to whom you and husband answer to are all women: and still believe in this exact same society that women are oppressed.

“It’s not fair, he says, because everyone knows that boys are smarter than girls.

Uh-huh … And he wonders why I support a girl’s right to put boys in their place.”

Yes, boys need to put in their place – thanks for pointing that out, Masa! Uppity slaves just aren’t very useful are they? Complaining about you instructing his sister to bully him is unfair. He should should learn his place, right?!

I say again: You are a child abuser – You are disgusting, repugnant and detestable vermin who should not be permitted within 500 yards of children!

Propaganda Level: Goebbels

propaganda_squaredYou may recognize this little nugget of precious rhetoric. This is the list of hogwash the infamous Big Red (Chanty Binx) was screaming at a Men’s Rights gathering. Yes, “Dah Patwyarchy!” “Shut the fuck up for the fiftieth billionth time” oh yes….. We are going to deconstruct this load of horse manure. I see this list crop up every now and again as it’s part of viral women dot com, otherwise known as “Women’s Rights News.” You may want to grab some popcorn and just use the page down button so you don’t get butter on the mouse. I am going to systematically prove that this entire list is the single rankest collection of lies ever told in a single document. I’ll do it with my usual straight forward “Now let me tell you why that’s bullshit” way of doing things.


1286982560414282-700x683


“Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. the assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of the Patriarchy” – no, its due to the tender years doctrine, created by a feminist: Caroline Norton.

Historically the English Family Law gave custody of the children to the father, in case of divorce. Until the nineteenth century the women had few individual rights, most of their rights being derived through their fathers or husbands. In the early nineteenth century, Mrs. Caroline Norton, a prominent British feminist, social reformer author, journalist, and society beauty began to campaign for the right of women to have custody of their children. Norton, who had undergone a divorce and been deprived of her children, worked with the politicians of those times and eventually was able to convince the British Parliament to enact legislation to protect mothers’ rights. The result was the Custody of Infants Act 1839, which gave some discretion to the judge in a child custody case and established a presumption of maternal custody for children under the age of seven years. In 1873 the Parliament extended the presumption of maternal custody until a child reached sixteen years of age.

Furthermore, the national organization for women, the single largest feminist organization in the world, openly opposes shared parenting legislature – as they admit to doing on this own website.

A-00330 and S-291 – Presumption of Joint Custody / Shared Parenting for Minor Children March 2005

You people are terrible at lying.


“Feminists don’t like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.”

I have yet to hear a man complain that men are painted as inept …. at laundry. Plenty of other commercials which are grotesquely sexist against men, inept at laundry….. waaaaaaay down the list. I care more about how many of my socks go missing slightly more than I care about being assumed to be inept at doing laundry. I have a greater emotional response to my favorite cereal…. If you think being painted as inept at doing laundry…. is something men care about a great deal – there is no hope for you. More over, you don’t seem to be oppose, publicly, to anything biased which is said about men. So while you claim you supposedly do not “like” the current state of affairs, you certainly aren’t doing anything about it.


“Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their “traditional” marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.”

Well then – kindly explain that to NOW, who sent a letter to Gov Rick Scott down in Florida demanding that he veto a bill which would have eliminated lifelong alimony and celebrated his doing so.

Florida National Organization for Women
-5/2013 – FLNOW says NO to alimony bill
-5/2013 – FLNOW commends Governor for vetoing alimony bill

You people are terrible at lying.


“Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.”

Oh – really now? How about the feminist push to NOT put women in prison when guilty of the same crime as men?

Jezebel “Should We Stop Putting Women in Prison?”

“O’Brien writes that some members of Britan’s House of Lords are advocating that the U.K. do just that: stop imprisoning women, full stop. It’s a move mainly supported by the House’s female members, including Baroness Jean Corston, who in 2007 put out a report on the ways that English women are made especially vulnerable by the penal system. She didn’t exactly argue that no woman should be in prison, but pointed out that in a system designed by and mostly stocked with men, women’s needs weren’t really being considered.”

Daily Mail “Janet Street-Porter: Vicky Pryce and why we shouldn’t send women to jail”

“Most are serving sentences of less than six months, but almost half will re-offend within a year of release. Not only are they learning nothing from their incarceration, the mindless cycle of self-abuse, petty crime, minor drug offences and receiving stolen goods will continue as before. No lessons have been learnt.

More than half the women in jail have been in care and many have been the victims of domestic or childhood abuse (double the number of men). Over the course of a year, 10,000 women — more than half of whom are mums — will be sent to jail for a short period of time, resulting in 17,000 children being separated from their mothers, causing huge upset and disruption and stigmatising the totally innocent.”

BBC News “Women’s prisons should close, says justice taskforce”

“Women should not be sent to prison and should instead serve community sentences, according to a new report by the Women’s Justice Taskforce. The focus should be on health, housing and treatment for drug addiction to reduce reoffending, its report said. It called for a director of women’s justice to be appointed to provide “clear leadership and accountability”.”

For future references: the reason women serve such small sentences compared to men to begin with: is because they’re rarely held culpable for the crimes they commit. Unless one wishes to argue that women in America are significantly more dangerous than those in the UK: than we should expect to see similar sentencing proceedings of female criminals in the United Kingdom as we do in America.

Michigan Law: University of Michigan “Prof. Starr’s research shows large unexplained gender disparities in federal criminal cases”

“If you’re a criminal defendant, it may help—a lot—to be a woman. At least, that’s what Prof. Sonja Starr’s research on federal criminal cases suggests. Prof. Starr’s recent paper, “Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases,” looks closely at a large dataset of federal cases, and reveals some significant findings. After controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, “men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do,” and “[w]omen are…twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.” This gender gap is about six times as large as the racial disparity that Prof. Starr found in another recent paper.

There are other studies that have shown gender disparity in criminal cases, but not as pronounced as Prof. Starr’s findings. This is because she is looking at “a larger swath of the criminal justice process” in her analysis, she said. The paper states, “Existing studies have typically focused on single stages of the criminal process in isolation”—in particular, the judge’s final sentencing decision. These studies compare actual sentencing outcomes after controlling for the recommended sentence associated with the defendant’s ultimate conviction. The problem with this, Starr explains, is that “the key control variable is itself the result of a host of discretionary decisions made earlier in the justice process”—including prosecutors’ charging and plea-bargaining decisions. Starr’s research incorporates disparities found at those earlier stages, and finds that “more disparity is introduced at each phase of the justice process.”

How about this: you’re supposedly against jokes about rape and don’t want men to be raped in prison. Well how about you NOT make it less illegal for women to rape men?

Honey Badger Brigade “Rape Culture” by Observing Libertarian

“Detecting the Scope of Rape : A Review of Prevalence Research Methods. Author: Mary P. Koss.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence Volume: 8 Issue: 2 Dated: (June 1993) Page: 206

“Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.”

Read that again a few times if you need to. Pay attention, “instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders”, so if a woman uses an object or her fingers to penetrate a man’s mouth or anus it is in fact still rape. However: if a woman uses force, threats/coercion (such gunpoint like the Ciera Ross case above) to force a man to put him penis in her or someone else , despite his protestations or forces it in herself such as if he is unconscious from alcohol or date rape drugs… It’s not rape. Why? Simple: “It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.” I think most reasonable, rational, logical people would unanimously exclaim from the rooftops that “unwanted sexual intercourse”, when you have said no, is in fact Rape, wouldn’t they?

Thanks to feminist Mary P. Koss’s work with the CDC, “no means no” no longer applies to men. FEMINIST: Mary P. Koss isn’t just a “Rape Apologist”, she’s a full blown, verified, shameless “Victim Blamer“. She quite clearly in the same sentence, of her own written work, in an official document of the Department of Justice: National Criminal Justice Reference Service, absolves Women of raping men by exclaiming males raped by women are not victims of Rape. In the same sentence she, a feminist, exclaims that the victims “unwanted sexual intercourse” are NOT victims of Rape: provided the victim is male and the perpetrator is female. She does more than simply blame the VICTIM, she absolves the PERPETRATOR.”

So let me get this straight…. Feminists don’t want men to be raped in prison: but they’ve made it less illegal for a woman to rape a man than for a man to rape a woman and they want men to be the only ones who GO to prison? In spite of the fact that women already serve less than half the time men do for the same crime: and in spite of the fact women are twice as likely to avoid prison terms if convicted?

You people are terrible at lying.


“Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of the patriarchy.”

Well then – would you kindly stop trying to let false accusers get off after being convicted of having intentionally falsely accused someone?

The Guardian “Trainee barrister jailed for false rape claims”

“Sentencing Rhiannon Brooker, 30, to three and half years, the judge Julian Lambert said she had acted in an “utterly wicked” way and argued that false claims made it more difficult for real rape victims to be believed in court.

There was anger from women’s rights campaigners who claimed that such severe sentences would put off rape victims from going to the police for fear they could face prosecution if allegations were not proven. There were cries of “Shame” and “Miscarriage of justice” as Brooker’s sentence was handed down.

Brooker’s former partner Paul Fensome, a railway signalman, was held behind bars for 37 days after she accused him of a string of rapes and assaults. While in custody, Fensome was held in a secure wing after rumours went around that he was a paedophile. He has since received £38,000 compensation.

Alibis, evidence from Fensome’s phone and his work shift patterns undermined Brooker’s accounts. Injuries were judged to have been self-inflicted and the police dropped their investigations into Fensome and turned their attention on Brooker.

Brooker initially told police she had made false accusations. But when she was charged with perverting the course of justice she retracted her confession. She was found guilty of 12 offences relating to false allegations of five rapes, six assaults and one false imprisonment.”

TIME “Cover Stories Behavior: When Is It RAPE?”

“Comins argues that men who are unjustly accused can sometimes gain from the experience. “They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. ‘How do I see women?’ ‘If I didn’t violate her, could I have?’ ‘Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?’ Those are good questions.”

Taken to extremes, there is an ugly element of vengeance at work here. Rape , is an abuse of power. But so are false accusations of rape, and to suggest that men whose reputations are destroyed might benefit because it will make them more sensitive is an attitude that is sure to backfire on women who are seeking justice for all victims. On campuses where the issue is most inflamed, male students are outraged that their names can be scrawled on a bathroom-wall list of rapists and they have no chance to tell their side of the story.”

Catherine Comins, by the way, this same woman who said she would not spare a man from being falsely accused of rape…. she helped draft the Violence Against Women Act.

You cannot -stop- a crime if you actively campaign and lobby against that crime being punished…

You people are terrible at lying.


“Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate “nice guys.” the idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.”

a05fc376bdb91862818b9370d968a39ff74f3278ca96b1d0e8354bed9a15a9ba

…..really….? *blank stare*…. really?

feminspire “Nice Guy Syndrome And The Friend Zone”

“It’s honestly one of the biggest loads of crap I’ve ever heard. Nice Guys are arrogant, egotistical, selfish douche bags who run around telling the world about how they’re the perfect boyfriend and they’re just so nice. But you know what? If these guys were genuinely nice, they wouldn’t be saying things like “the bitch stuck me in the friend zone because she only likes assholes.” Guess what? If she actually only liked assholes, then she would likely be super attracted to you because you are one.”

Feministing “Regarding ‘Nice Guys’ and ‘Why Women Only Date Jerks’- A Critique of a Masculine Victim-Cult”

“We have to separate ‘nice guy’ and ‘good guy’ from ‘submissively polite guy’. You can be assertive and nice, and it seems like some people confuse being a nice guy with being a sycophant or a clingy dude. Have your own thing, do your own thing, but don’t be a self-absorbed douche; this is the essence of being a nice guy without being ‘clingy’. Assertiveness and confidence do not equate to aggression and self-absorption; kindness and respect do not equate to submissiveness and passivity.

It’s also important to realize that being a nice guy doesn’t entitle you to sex. Nothing does. Ever. Being resentful about the lack of sexing for your nice guy persona isn’t cool. In fact, if you have this sense of entitlement, whereby being a nice guy should get you laid, or being a nice guy is a strategy towards getting laid, you aren’t a nice guy. This reminds me of something in this pic that really irks me. This writer acts like being someone’s best friend is an insult. If she’s calling you her best friend, that’s a compliment–not necessarily one that will lead to sex, but if your interest in her as a person is based around wanting to get in her pants, you’re a terrible friend. If you regard being called a ‘best friend’ as some sort of pity prize or second-rate thing, then clearly you don’t value that friendship very much, and if you don’t value the friendship very much, and only see this girl as a source of romance and sex, then you’re probably not really a nice guy to begin with–just a more passive aggressive form of jerk.”

Gradient Lair “Nice Guys™ and Feminism”

“The Nice Guys™ that are passive aggressive and entitled and that many women despise in interpersonal and social contexts seem to get college degrees and then become male feminists in the media/sociopolitical spheres. And then they move into that “progressive” space to get the accolades and attention that they cannot get otherwise. That way, they can finally get the attention they need since because of that same male privilege that fuels their nice guy entitlement in the first place, they usually have to inflict a high level of harm before they are ever critiqued by some feminists. In addition, they can also continue to deride the men that they are intimidated by and whose social power they could not usurp in high school because of patriarchy–the “athletes” and the “jerks” that they think get “all” the women (while they never examine how they themselves are jerks).”

the fatal feminist “Nice Guy”

“On verge of murder, I deliberated whether it was best to retain a steely boiling silence or ceremoniously throw my coffee up his nose. He was of course passively manipulative, hoping to shame me into submission by evoking sympathy. Masquerading manipulation as desirability to engender a potentially sexual relationship is a pattern consistent with both abhorrent Nice Guys and the assholes from whom they claim to differ. This is because they are the same asshole, the only distinction being Nice Guys incorporate themselves into the “nice guy” category to champion the delusion that “women don’t like nice guys”, conveniently avoiding any unpleasant realization that they themselves are assholes: petulant, passive aggressive, and manipulative. In their thinly veiled true arrogance they expect a woman to sleep with them for “being nice” the criteria of which includes but is not limited to opening doors, pulling out chairs, paying for dinner, other shit you never asked for, and not forgetting your birthday.”

WTF (What the Feminist) “Why Nice Guys aren’t actually nice”

“There’s a million and one things wrong with this reaction. First of all, holy entitlement Batman. Like I said before, the act of being nice does not automatically entitle someone to sexual favors or romantic involvement as a result. The woman is not obligated to fulfill those demands. And they are indeed demands, no matter how you slice it. Also, the statement “all women are bitches” isn’t going to get anyone any brownie points; mass generalizations generally do not help one’s case. Neither does telling all women that they’re lying when they say they want a nice guy, and by proxy telling that one woman that she’s lying to them. It’s not that she doesn’t want a nice guy; she doesn’t want you. Which, yeah, sucks completely, but if that’s how you’re going to react I don’t fucking blame her; she certainly doesn’t want a Nice Guy complaining that she’s not fulfilling an obligation that she never agreed to in the first place.”

Page…. after page….. after page …… Feminists complaining about nice guys and saying no nice guy is actually nice. Well guess what: I’m a nice guy and I’m not interested in YOU, because you’re disgusting and repugnant.

You people are terrible at lying.


“Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don’t is part of patriarchy. The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damage part of patriarchy.”

Metro “Why women should never go halves on a date”

“Despite being a feminist and despite being more than capable of affording my own dinner, I still want a man to pay for me on dates.

The first time I realised this was during a date in Islington.
We’d been chatting on Match.com when he asked me out to lunch.
At first it seemed perfect – there he was, waiting for me at the Tube turnstiles, chatting as if we were old friends then leading me to a lovely book shop/cafe.
The barista asked us both what we wanted.
He replied quickly ‘coffee’ and paid for his. I had to buy my own chamomile tea.
No, I did not reply to his subsequent emails.”

You were saying? Oh, you want more? No problem…

Forbes “Men Should Pay on First Dates and That Does Not Undermine Feminism”

“As women make huge huge gains in family medical leave and gaining seats on corporate boards and in Congress, dating expectations barely budge. The status quo is that men pay on first dates. Last week NerdWallet released the results of a survey that found 77 percent of straight people believe men should pay on first dates — a sentiment held by 82 percent of men and 72 percent of women. I am one of those women. I have no financial reason not to pay for my own $29 grilled farm-raised salmon on a first outing with a man. But I really, really prefer if he cooly assumes the bill and slips the server his Visa.”

And by the way:

“A first date is about sex. Whether or not you are open to hooking up on a first counter is irrelevant. We marry for romantic love and date as a means of vetting others for romantic chemistry.”

You said “purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damage part of patriarchy.” – gee…. guess that’s not really true now is it? Well that’s just two examples, those are the opinions of the individual authors, that’s not real feminism…. Ok…. ok…. Fine. You asked for it.

Bustle “Can You Be A Feminist and Still Expect Guys to Pay?”

“I am a feminist. I strongly believe in the social, political, legal, and economic equality of men and women.

Yet, on a first date, I expect the guy to pay for me.

Of course, at the end of dinner or drinks, I’ll make a very convincing slow-motion gesture towards my wallet, which gets progressively slower until he tells me that he’s got the bill. I’ve watched myself do this and wondered — Is this lame charade at odds with feminism? Does this desire undo my other feminist behavior? Do other feminists feel this way?”

Emma Johnson “Feminist fix: How can we expect men to pay on dates then divorce them when we earn more?”

“This time last year when a perfectly pleasant round of beers wrapped up with Kevin (or was his name Sean?), it seemed obvious who would pay the bill. It’s the classic little dance: The woman makes a perfunctory offer to pay, knowing full well that the man will get the check. Instead, Sean (or was his name Kevin?) casually suggested we split the tab, and that’s what we did.

And I was pissed! I mean, dude, I’m totally cuter and younger than you are, and unless I misread something, you found me to be smart and charming. So pick up the damn bill, Kevin/Sean/whatever your name was!

But I hesitate to share that thought here. After all, I fall into the ranks of educated, professional urbanite, left-leaning and moderately feminist. In other words, I make my own money and am looking for a guy who digs my mind and wit. So where do I get off expecting chivalry based on the assumption of my economic inferiority and need to be cared for? Despite plenty of logical explanations of why I should buy my own drink, I still couldn’t shake the notion that the guy pays for the first date. So I decided to find out what’s going on in the dating world—and why we pay (or don’t) the way we do.”

The Date Report “Can You Be a Feminist and Still Let Your Date Pick Up the Check?”

“So where does this leave us? Can a woman allow a man to pay on the first date and still call herself a feminist? The short answer is yes. “Part of the thing about being a feminist is recognizing that we live in a very patriarchal culture and so, it is not unreasonable to expect that your date is going to want to do that,” says Angyal. “I think there’s a difference between expecting them to and wanting them to.”

Hello Giggles “My Inner Feminist vs. My Inner Princess”

“A few months ago I went on my first date with a nice gentleman I had met through mutual friends.

When it came time to pay for the bill, I fought long and hard—as I always do—and to my surprise, he let me pay for dinner. At first I was like, oh okay – that’s kinda cool, I guess he respects my independence and I dig that. About thirty seconds later, I decided there wouldn’t be a second date. No goodnight kiss. Nothing. Ever. It was over before it even began.

I started questioning my identity. Why did I fight to pay for the bill then feel disappointed? In a society where generations have worked so hard to gain equality for women, are there still rules? Can we have expectations? Did feminism kill chivalry?”

Women’s Health “You’re a Feminist… So Why Don’t You Date Like One?”

“I think this phenomenon can partially be explained by how women interpret what it means to be ‘treated,'” explains Kathleen Bogle, Ph.D., director of Women’s Studies at La Salle University and author of Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus. “If a man really likes you, women think: he’ll ask me out, he’ll initiate a text to say he had a great time on the date, he’ll ask me out again. And, if a man likes you a lot, he will take you to a nice restaurant and treat to everything,” says Bogle.
Women in the study echoed this concept, saying they used chivalry as a litmus test for a man’s character. If he was willing to pay for dinner and open doors for her, it was a signal that he was respectful and caring.”

Is that enough yet?

You people are terrible at lying.


“Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. the fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.”

….uh huh…. I have no doubt you don’t want men to be injured in such jobs: because injured slaves aren’t productive slaves.

Staked in the Heart “Do Any Women Work at the Dirty, Difficult and Dangerous Jobs that Men Do? Any Women At All?”

“There seems to be some confusion as to what a “Dirty, Difficult and Dangerous job” is—obviously from people who don’t work at such jobs.

The DDD jobs require hard physical labor in an unpleasant, dangerous environment, like being suspended 1000s of feet in the air or stuck miles underground in an airless tunnel. The conditions are often torturous, like roasting heat or frigid cold. The job itself, the equipment and/or environment is so hazardous there are routine worker injuries or deaths.

The DDD jobs aren’t in offices, beauty salons, at the mall, restaurants, or other climate controlled environments where the most dangerous piece of equipment is the cash register.

Women are 52% of the population. If they were holding their own—like feminists claim they can—we would see equal numbers of men and women working at the DDD jobs. We don’t.

Discrimination based on gender is illegal in the U.S. If a woman applies to work as a logger or iron worker, and is even semi-qualified has a pulse, the company must hire her. Women aren’t working at the DDD jobs because they are being “discriminated against.”

Women don’t work at these jobs because they aren’t applying for them. “

We’ve had anti-discrimination laws for a very long time. Any woman’s who’s qualified and applying for an open position will be hired. Women aren’t applying to such positions. By the way – feminist talk at length about how most elected officials are men: which means the anti discrimination legislatures – were all signed into law, BY MEN. So you can keep your comment about “patriarchy” preventing women out of dangerous professions.

You people are terrible at lying.


“Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower the quality of life of any gander are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy.”

Oh, so that wasn’t a group of feminists protesting a men’s conference specifically about male suicide….

Oh wait, no, it was. It was EXACTLY THAT. That is what feminists did. They tried to prevent the conference from occurring at all. So you know what – when your fellow feminists attempt to prevent and interrupt a conference on male suicide: you don’t get to make the claim that “feminists don’t want you to commit suicide.” Apparently you do, you absolutely, positively, unabashedly do in fact want men to kill themselves. More over, until you collectively condemn those feminists who did this: you prove you DO in fact want men to commit suicide, and apparently as many as possible.

Also, you mean to say that wasn’t you feminists calling men’s rights activists weak by referring to them as “whiny piss babies” all this time?

Huffington post “Why the Men’s Rights Movement Is Garbage”

“Instead, they are crying about feminism, pooh-poohing the idea of patriarchy and generally making the world a sadder, scarier, less safe place to live in. In fact, I would argue that their stupid antics are actually a detriment to the causes that they claim to espouse, because they’re creating an association between actual real issues that men face and their disgusting buffoonery. So good job, MRAs. Way to screw vulnerable men over in your quest to prove that feminism is evil. I hope you’re all really proud of yourselves.

The Men’s Rights Movement is not “feminism for men.” It’s not some kind of complimentary activism meant to help promote equal treatment of men and women. And it most certainly is not friendly towards women, unless we’re talking about women with crippling cases of internalized misogyny.

I believe in equality for men and women, but I also believe that we’re not born with an even playing field. Women still face disenfranchisement, discrimination and a lack of basic freedoms and rights, and although feminism has done a lot of great work over the last century or so, we still haven’t undone several millennia’s worth of social programming and oppression.”

Jezebel “No, I Will Not Take the Men’s Rights Movement Seriously”

“If the manosphere does anything positive for men (I would posit that it doesn’t—that reinforcing gender divides and “traditional” masculinity is as harmful to men as it is to women, and that happiness based on the exploitation of others is not real happiness at all—but that’s subjective to a degree), it does so deliberately and vindictively at the expense of women. This is not a legitimate political or social movement; it is a hate group. And no matter how loud and aggressive it gets, no matter how much mainstream coverage it garners, no thinking person should take it seriously.”

Not Sorry Feminism “MRAs Are The Worst “

“No, seriously, they are the worst. They are the worst for women, they are the worst for men, they are the worst for people of all other genders and those who have no gender. They are bad for humanity in general, and probably not great for plants and animals, either.”

“We don’t want you to commit suicide or anything, we just find it really funny when we abuse you.” Thanks, Jezebel.

Jezebel “Have You Ever Beat Up A Boyfriend? Cause, Uh, We Have”

“According to a study of relationships that engage in nonreciprocal violence, a whopping 70% are perpetrated by women. So basically that means that girls are beating up their BFs and husbands and the dudes aren’t fighting back. With Amy Winehouse busting open a can of whupass on her husband last week, we decided to conduct an informal survey of the Jezebels to see who’s gotten violent with their men. After reviewing the answers, let’s just say that it’d be wise to never ever fuck with us.

One Jezebel got into it with a dude while they were breaking up, while another Jez went nuts on her guy and began violently shoving him. One of your editors heard her boyfriend flirting on the phone with another girl, so she slapped the phone out of his hands and hit him in the face and neck… “partially open handed.” Another editor slapped a guy when “he told me he thought he had breast cancer.” (Okay, that one made us laugh really hard.) And lastly, one Jez punched a steady in the face and broke his glasses. He had discovered a sex story she was writing about another dude on her laptop, so he picked it up and threw it. And that’s when she socked him. He was, uh, totally asking for it.”

Or how about when feminists interrupted a forum about battered husbands?

How about when you try to make it impossible to charge women with rape, never mind if they actually commit the crime – make it impossible for a woman to even be charged!

The Jerusalem Post “Women’s groups: Cancel law charging women with rape!”

“The Knesset Law Committee on Tuesday decided to postpone a vote on second and third reading of a bill to add the crime of rape by a woman to the statute book after women’s organizations warned that it would lead to a situation where women would be afraid to charge men with rape.

According to the proposal, an amendment to the Penal Law, a woman who causes or makes it possible for a person to insert his (or her) bodily organ or an object into her sexual organ will be charged with rape, forbidden intercourse by consent, sodomy or sex offenses within the family, depending on the circumstances of the act.

The law applies to women who perform the above on adult men and women, as well as on minors of either sex.”

Toy Soldiers “A Sad Day For Male Rape Victims In India”

“Several weeks ago, I wrote about the Indian government’s reaction to lobbying for changes to their rape statutes. I noted in the piece that women’s groups in India opposed changing the statute from “rape” to “sexual assault” because it included women as potential rapists. Their argument was that rape is an expression of patriarchal power, therein making it impossible for women to rape men, and that men accused of rape would simply accuse the women of rape, both of which are typical feminist arguments against acknowledging male victimization.

It appears the Indian government bowed to the women’s groups demands:

Bowing to pressure from women activists, the government has decided to restore the term rape in criminal law that states only men can be booked for committing the offense against women. It has also decided to lower the age of consent for sex from 18 to 16 years. These are fresh changes proposed by the Centre in its criminal laws (amendment) bill, which will replace the rape ordinance issued on February 3. […] The [JS Verma] panel — set up to look into rape laws after the December 16 Delhi gang rape — had recommended that the offense be kept gender-specific and the age for consensual sex be retained at 16 years in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In its ordinance, however, the government replaced the term rape with sexual assault, stating that any ‘person’ can commit the offense.

Honey Badger Brigade “Rape Culture” by Observing Libertarian

“Detecting the Scope of Rape : A Review of Prevalence Research Methods. Author: Mary P. Koss.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence Volume: 8 Issue: 2 Dated: (June 1993) Page: 206

“Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.”

Read that again a few times if you need to. Pay attention, “instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders”, so if a woman uses an object or her fingers to penetrate a man’s mouth or anus it is in fact still rape. However: if a woman uses force, threats/coercion (such gunpoint like the Ciera Ross case above) to force a man to put him penis in her or someone else , despite his protestations or forces it in herself such as if he is unconscious from alcohol or date rape drugs… It’s not rape. Why? Simple: “It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.” I think most reasonable, rational, logical people would unanimously exclaim from the rooftops that “unwanted sexual intercourse”, when you have said no, is in fact Rape, wouldn’t they?

Thanks to feminist Mary P. Koss’s work with the CDC, “no means no” no longer applies to men. FEMINIST: Mary P. Koss isn’t just a “Rape Apologist”, she’s a full blown, verified, shameless “Victim Blamer“. She quite clearly in the same sentence, of her own written work, in an official document of the Department of Justice: National Criminal Justice Reference Service, absolves Women of raping men by exclaiming males raped by women are not victims of Rape. In the same sentence she, a feminist, exclaims that the victims “unwanted sexual intercourse” are NOT victims of Rape: provided the victim is male and the perpetrator is female. She does more than simply blame the VICTIM, she absolves the PERPETRATOR.”

“Oh, we don’t want you to commit suicide, we just want to make sure it’s legal for us to rape you, beat you and make sure you don’t talk about or accomplish any kind of support network which would make it easier for you to seek help. Then we’ll say it’s the patriarchy preventing you from seeking help.”

You people are terrible at lying.


“Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined withe the idea that it’s unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.”

Oh really? Well the Feminist slogan and nation wide campaign “Teach men not to Rape” and “teach boys Not to Rape” *REQUIRES* one act from the very premise that “that men are insatiable sexual animals”. And that, by the way, is -your- slogan that -you- carry on signs at protests all over the goddamned place.

And let’s visit the ghosts of feminists past shall we?

“Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” ~ Susan Brownmiller

“In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” ~ Catherine MacKinnon

“Sex is the cross on which women are crucified … Sex can only be adequately defined as universal rape.” ~ Hodee Edwards

“Compare victims’ reports of rape with women’s reports of sex. They look a lot alike….[T]he major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it.” ~ Catherine MacKinnon, quoted in Christina Hoff Sommers, “Hard-Line Feminists Guilty of Ms.-Representation,” Wall Street Journal, November 7, 1991.

“The fact is that the process of killing – both rape and battery are steps in that process- is the prime sexual act for men in reality and/or in imagination.”. ~ Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 22..

“Man’s discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to generate fear must rank as one of the most important discoveries of prehistoric times, along with the use of fire, and the first crude stone axe.” ~ Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, p. 5..

“AIDS education will not get very far until young men are taught how not to rape young women and how to eroticize trust and consent; and until young women are supported in the way they need to be redefining their desires.” ~ Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth, p. 168.

“Romance is rape embellished with meaningful looks.” ~ Andrea Dworkin in the Philadelphia Inquirer, May 21, 1995..

“All men benefit from rape, because all men benefit from the fact that women are not free in this society; that women cower; that women are afraid; that women cannot assert the rights that we have, limited as those rights are, because of the ubiquitous presence of rape.” ~ Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 142..

“We have long known that rape has been a way of terrorizing us and keeping us in subjection. Now we also know that we have participated, although unwittingly, in the rape of our minds.” ~ Historian Gerda Lerner in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women, p. 55..

“As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women…he can sexually molest his daughters… THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE.” ~ Marilyn French

“All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.” ~ Catherine MacKinnon

“The media treat male assaults on women like rape, beating, and murder of wives and female lovers, or male incest with children, as individual aberrations…obscuring the fact that all male violence toward women is part of a concerted campaign.” ~ Marilyn French

“Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it “Her”. Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination. ~ Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women

“I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.” ~ Robin Morgan

“And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference.” ~ Susan Griffin, Rape: The All-American Crime.

“(Rape) is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear”. ~ Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will p.6

“When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression…” ~ Sheila Jeffrys.

…..oh yeah, no – feminists are totally and completely against the idea that “men are insatiable sexual animals” – yeah, ignore the academic feminists who’s books are researched as required reading in every gender studies course the world over, ignore the academic feminists who have tenured professorships in major in universities… Yeah, forget all that was never written after I’ve listed the pages and books in which they are found for many of those quotes…. Forget any of that exists: the idea that “men are insatiable sexual animals” is entirely part of patriarchy….

Also, again I have to state “the idea that it’s unnatural for men to care for children” is not part of some imaginary illuminat- wait, ancient ali, no, hold on I know it. The Free Maso… dammit, what was it? Oh yeah, the Bilgerber fuck that’s not it either. There’s just so many conspiracy theories these days it’s hard to keep them straight. Let me scroll up and come back…. Oh yeah, patriarchy, that’s the one. Now where was I. Ahem, right. It’s not part of some imaginary patriarchy! It comes from the Tender Years Doctrine, written by Caroline Norton and put into law by the women’s suffrage in England.

Not to mention what Feminists publicly state about men…

“I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.” ~ Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan

“The newest variations on this distressingly ancient theme center on hormones and DNA: men are biologically aggressive; their fetal brains were awash in androgen; their DNA, in order to perpetuate itself, hurls them into murder and rape.” ~ Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 114..

“One can know everything and still be unable to accept the fact that sex and murder are fused in the male consciousness, so that the one without the imminent possibly of the other is unthinkable and impossible.” ~ Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 21..

“In everything men make, they hollow out a central place for death, let its rancid smell contaminate every dimension of whatever still survives. Men especially love murder. In art they celebrate it, and in life they commit it. They embrace murder as if life without it would be devoid of passion, meaning, and action, as if murder were solace, still their sobs as they mourn the empitness and alienation of their lives.” ~ Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 214..

“You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs.” ~ Catherine MacKinnon (Prominent legal feminist scholar; University of Michigan, & Yale.)

“I was, in reality, bred by my parents as my father’s concubine… What we take for granted as the stability of family life may well depend on the sexual slavery of our children. What’s more, this is a cynical arrangement our institutions have colluded to conceal.”. ~ Journalist Sylvia Fraser

No – feminists are totally and completely against “the idea that it’s unnatural for men to care for children”. Yeah, ignore the academic feminists who’s books are researched as required reading in every gender studies course the world over. Ignore the academic feminists who have tenured professorships in major in universities… Yeah, forget all that was ever written….. after I’ve listed the pages and books in which they are found for many of those quotes…. Forget any of that exists: “the idea that it’s unnatural for men to care for children” is entirely part of patriarchy….

You people are terrible at lying.


“Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay at home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.”

…..really? Well, in Switzerland in 2014 they voted on whether or not to keep conscription for men. This means women were able to vote on whether or not military service is compulsory for men. Despite not having to participate in conscription themselves, the majority of women voted to keep conscription compulsory for men.

By the way, the Equal Rights Act – which has come up for vote several times and was opposed by feminist groups: would have made women eligible for the draft.

Upon its introduction, the Equal Rights Amendment stirred up debate about the direction of the ideology and tactics of the women’s movement. The National Woman’s Party supported the amendment, arguing that women should be on equal terms with men in all regards, even if that means sacrificing certain benefits given to women through protective legislation, such as shorter work hours. However, opponents of the amendment believed that these gender-based benefits protected women as they entered new spheres, such as the work industry, and that the loss of such protection would not be worth the supposed gain in equality. In 1924, The Forum hosted a debate between Doris Stevens and Alice Hamilton concerning these two perspectives on the proposed amendment.

Esther Peterson, a feminist and the highest-ranking woman in the Kennedy administration, publicly opposed the Equal Rights Amendment which she thought might weaken protective labor legislation.

And let’s not forget the Suffragettes publicly shaming young men into joining the military so that they could be pressured into fighting in WW I. The original white feather campaign. Where suffragettes would approach any young man in publicly who wasn’t in uniform and present him with a white feather as a sign of his supposed cowardice.

The Libertarian Republic “When Feminists Sent Men Off To Die”

“In 1914, British feminists and suffragettes conspired together in the Order of the White Feather to shame men into going off to be killed.

The White Feather traditionally has been a symbol of cowardice in the U.K. since the 18th century. In 1914 Admiral Charles Fitzgerald founded the Order with Mrs. Humphrey Ward in order to shame men by persuading women to give them a white feather if they were seen without a uniform. They also lobbied for the draft, demanding men be conscripted even if they lacked votes due to being too young or not owning property.

The group was so effective that the Home Secretary Office began to issue lapel badges to public service employees reading “King and Country” in order to prevent them from being shamed in public and indicate they served the war effort.

The Silver War Badge was distributed to service personnel who had been honorably discharged to prevent war veterans out of uniform from being shamed by women. The campaign was very unpopular with men at the time due to fathers who stayed home with their children being constantly mistakenly shamed by the Order.”

Oh my yes, it is awful when the ghosts of feminists past bite you in the ass isn’t it?

You people are terrible at lying.


“Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution of legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and complaint and that victim-hood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy”

I’ll just reiterate…

Jezebel “Should We Stop Putting Women in Prison?”

“O’Brien writes that some members of Britan’s House of Lords are advocating that the U.K. do just that: stop imprisoning women, full stop. It’s a move mainly supported by the House’s female members, including Baroness Jean Corston, who in 2007 put out a report on the ways that English women are made especially vulnerable by the penal system. She didn’t exactly argue that no woman should be in prison, but pointed out that in a system designed by and mostly stocked with men, women’s needs weren’t really being considered.”

Daily Mail “Janet Street-Porter: Vicky Pryce and why we shouldn’t send women to jail”

“Most are serving sentences of less than six months, but almost half will re-offend within a year of release. Not only are they learning nothing from their incarceration, the mindless cycle of self-abuse, petty crime, minor drug offences and receiving stolen goods will continue as before. No lessons have been learnt.

More than half the women in jail have been in care and many have been the victims of domestic or childhood abuse (double the number of men). Over the course of a year, 10,000 women — more than half of whom are mums — will be sent to jail for a short period of time, resulting in 17,000 children being separated from their mothers, causing huge upset and disruption and stigmatising the totally innocent.”

BBC News “Women’s prisons should close, says justice taskforce”

“Women should not be sent to prison and should instead serve community sentences, according to a new report by the Women’s Justice Taskforce. The focus should be on health, housing and treatment for drug addiction to reduce reoffending, its report said. It called for a director of women’s justice to be appointed to provide “clear leadership and accountability”.”

For future references: the reason women serve such small sentences compared to men to begin with: is because they’re rarely held culpable for the crimes they commit. Unless one wishes to argue that women in America are significantly more dangerous than those in the UK: than we should expect to see similar sentencing proceedings of female criminals in the United Kingdom as we do in America.

Michigan Law: University of Michigan “Prof. Starr’s research shows large unexplained gender disparities in federal criminal cases”

“If you’re a criminal defendant, it may help—a lot—to be a woman. At least, that’s what Prof. Sonja Starr’s research on federal criminal cases suggests. Prof. Starr’s recent paper, “Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases,” looks closely at a large dataset of federal cases, and reveals some significant findings. After controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, “men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do,” and “[w]omen are…twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.” This gender gap is about six times as large as the racial disparity that Prof. Starr found in another recent paper.

There are other studies that have shown gender disparity in criminal cases, but not as pronounced as Prof. Starr’s findings. This is because she is looking at “a larger swath of the criminal justice process” in her analysis, she said. The paper states, “Existing studies have typically focused on single stages of the criminal process in isolation”—in particular, the judge’s final sentencing decision. These studies compare actual sentencing outcomes after controlling for the recommended sentence associated with the defendant’s ultimate conviction. The problem with this, Starr explains, is that “the key control variable is itself the result of a host of discretionary decisions made earlier in the justice process”—including prosecutors’ charging and plea-bargaining decisions. Starr’s research incorporates disparities found at those earlier stages, and finds that “more disparity is introduced at each phase of the justice process.”

The Violence Against Women Act was created to deal with domestic violence against women…. in spite of the fact that men are more likely to be victims of domestic violence. More over, under VAWA many states have put into place Mandatory Arrest Laws – which lead to an increase of female arrests. Feminists didn’t like that: so the Duluth Model of Domestic Violence was created. This “model” ignores all evidence of reality collected by the CDC, FBI, IPV surveys, etc. etc: Which all state unequivocally that women abuse men more often than men abuse women. Ignores all of that and proclaims domestic violence is a man beating a defenseless woman.

Now you may want to question me about that: however – lets get the answer directly from the horses mouth. The Duluth Model – Frequently Asked Questions. Scroll down to the second from the bottom “Is the Duluth Model evidence-based?”. Their answer….

“The Duluth Model approach for intervening with men who batter is the most widely-used approach in the world. It has influenced and shaped much of national and state-level policy around batterer intervention and domestic violence work. The effect of intervening with complex social problems is very difficult to evaluate. Click here to read some of the research supporting the Duluth Model.”

It is not evidence based: the research they present doesn’t even go into one critical study on gender of offenders. Their list of research articles doesn’t have a single example to show which suggests men commit domestic violence more often than women: yet the entire duluth model does absolutely nothing but pitch men as being abusers and women as being victims. It’s a piece of propaganda devoid of reality, and feminists used it to lobby for “Predominant Aggressor” policy. By using “Predominate Aggressor” policy, law enforcement could neglect to arrest women in dual arrests even if they were in fact the offender. If both parties are being violent, even if the woman is the abuser and the man the victim – Predominate Aggressor policy says (according to the Duluth model) that men are abusers and therefore the man should be the one who is arrested.

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Volume 98, Issue 1 Fall of 2007. Article 6.
Domestic Violence and Mandatory Arrest Laws: To What Extent Do They Influence Police Arrest Decisions

“In some cases, dual arrests may be the result of legislation, department policies, or both failing to require officers to identify the primary aggressor.In addition, when such provisions are present, police may lack the training or information needed to identify the primary aggressor when responding to a domestic violence assault. This situation may be compounded by batterers who have become increasingly adept at manipulating the criminal justice system, and may make efforts to “pre-empt” victims from notifying police in order to further control or retaliate against them.23

Current political and organizational pressure may discourage officers from arresting women as aggressors, and, unsure what to do, the officers may arrest both parties. This observation is supported by some of the existing research. A 1999 study conducted in Boulder found that male victims were three times more likely than female victims to be arrested along with the offender.24 Similarly, a study of three Massachusetts towns revealed that male victims were five times more likely than female victims to be the subjects of a dual arrest.”

VAWA in conjunction with the Duluth model are tools being used to put political pressure on police departments to arrest men for domestic violence: even when they’re the victims. Are 82% of women (all non-feminist) signing petitions to repeal The Violence Against Women Act? No. There are female men’s rights activists, and there are women in various groups which speak out against VAWA excess. Such as W.A.V.E. Women Against VAWA Excess. I would never make the assertion that there are NOT women who fight against this kind of organized and intentional unjust persecution. They are however, the minority. Wonderful people that they are, compassionate humanitarians: they are still the minority, a very small minority. Most importantly to this discussion: they’re female MRA’s and anti-feminists. No feminist groups are working against this situation, quite the opposite: they lobbied FOR this state of affairs.

Florida State University College of Law “DISABUSING THE DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC ABUSE: HOW WOMEN BATTER MEN AND THE ROLE OF THE FEMINIST STATE”

“How is it that our general legal understanding of domestic violence as defined by the male abuse of women is so squarely contra-dicted by the empirical reality? Honestly answering this question re-quires tracing the history of both the theory and practice of domestic violence law. Undertaking such an exploration, one quickly finds that the “discovery” of domestic violence is rooted in the essential feminist tenet that society is controlled by an all-encompassing patriarchal structure.8 This fundamental feminist understanding of domestic violence has far-reaching implications. By dismissing the possibility of female violence, the framework of legal programs and social norms is narrowly shaped to respond only to the male abuse of women. Fe-male batterers cannot be recognized. Male victims cannot be treated. If we are to truly address the phenomenon of domestic violence, the legal response to domestic violence and the biases which underlie it must be challenged.

Through an open discussion of domestic abuse, Part I of this Arti-cle endeavors to expose the fact that domestic violence is committed by women. In so doing, I introduce to legal literature the first exten-sive account of the Family Violence Surveys and various other stud-ies completed over the last twenty-five years which have repeatedly found that men and women commit violence at similar rates.9 After exploring the tendency to deny, defend or minimize the violence of women in Part II and then arguing that female violence must be ad-dressed, I assert in Part III that today’s refusal to react is a product of the feminist control over the issue of domestic violence. Female violence presents both a threat to feminist theory as well as to the practice of domestic violence law. Notwithstanding such concerns, today’s myopic understanding of domestic violence has serious impli-cations. Limiting this examination to the criminal justice system, Part IV considers how the feminist definition of domestic violence has skewed arrest and prosecution philosophies, resulting primarily in having only male batterers criminally pursued. The Part also re-views how rehabilitative programs are geared toward treating do-mestic violence as the byproduct of a patriarchal society, thereby only producing programs which address male violence. Similarly, the services for domestic violence victims, in particular, the availability of shelters, have also been shaped by the feminist definition of do-mestic violence. In conclusion, Part V calls for challenging the exist-ing gendered definition of domestic violence and thereby demands changingour norms and institutions so that we may honestly work toward addressing and eliminating domestic violence. “

Not only do Feminists “want women to escape prosecution of legitimate domestic violence charges” , but in an article written by Murray A Straus, he details 7 methods academic feminists in the field of domestic violence has used to ensure that the Duluth Model is not challenged. By controlling what studies and material enters the public view, they can promote the narrative of domestic violence being a man beating a woman even though HUNDREDS of studies on domestic violence show that women are responsible for more domestic violence than are men.

Murray A. Straus “Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence”

“Method 1. Suppress Evidence
Method 2. Avoid Obtaining Data Inconsistent with the Patriarchal Dominance Theory
Method 3. Cite Only Studies That Show Male Perpetration
Method 4. Conclude That Results Support Feminist Beliefs When They Do Not
Method 5. Create “Evidence” by Citation
Method 6. Obstruct Publication of Articles and Obstruct Funding Research That Might Contradict the Idea that Male Dominance Is the Cause of PV
Method 7. Harass, Threalen, and Penalize Researchers Who Produce Evidence That Contradicts Feminist Beliefs”

“nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped” – Well how about you NOT make it less illegal for women to rape men?

Honey Badger Brigade “Rape Culture” by Observing Libertarian

“Detecting the Scope of Rape : A Review of Prevalence Research Methods. Author: Mary P. Koss.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence Volume: 8 Issue: 2 Dated: (June 1993) Page: 206

“Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.”

Read that again a few times if you need to. Pay attention, “instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders”, so if a woman uses an object or her fingers to penetrate a man’s mouth or anus it is in fact still rape. However: if a woman uses force, threats/coercion (such gunpoint like the Ciera Ross case above) to force a man to put him penis in her or someone else , despite his protestations or forces it in herself such as if he is unconscious from alcohol or date rape drugs… It’s not rape. Why? Simple: “It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.” I think most reasonable, rational, logical people would unanimously exclaim from the rooftops that “unwanted sexual intercourse”, when you have said no, is in fact Rape, wouldn’t they?

Thanks to feminist Mary P. Koss’s work with the CDC, “no means no” no longer applies to men. FEMINIST: Mary P. Koss isn’t just a “Rape Apologist”, she’s a full blown, verified, shameless “Victim Blamer“. She quite clearly in the same sentence, of her own written work, in an official document of the Department of Justice: National Criminal Justice Reference Service, absolves Women of raping men by exclaiming males raped by women are not victims of Rape. In the same sentence she, a feminist, exclaims that the victims “unwanted sexual intercourse” are NOT victims of Rape: provided the victim is male and the perpetrator is female. She does more than simply blame the VICTIM, she absolves the PERPETRATOR.”

The Jerusalem Post “Women’s groups: Cancel law charging women with rape!”

“The Knesset Law Committee on Tuesday decided to postpone a vote on second and third reading of a bill to add the crime of rape by a woman to the statute book after women’s organizations warned that it would lead to a situation where women would be afraid to charge men with rape.

According to the proposal, an amendment to the Penal Law, a woman who causes or makes it possible for a person to insert his (or her) bodily organ or an object into her sexual organ will be charged with rape, forbidden intercourse by consent, sodomy or sex offenses within the family, depending on the circumstances of the act.

The law applies to women who perform the above on adult men and women, as well as on minors of either sex.”

Toy Soldiers “A Sad Day For Male Rape Victims In India”

“Several weeks ago, I wrote about the Indian government’s reaction to lobbying for changes to their rape statutes. I noted in the piece that women’s groups in India opposed changing the statute from “rape” to “sexual assault” because it included women as potential rapists. Their argument was that rape is an expression of patriarchal power, therein making it impossible for women to rape men, and that men accused of rape would simply accuse the women of rape, both of which are typical feminist arguments against acknowledging male victimization.

It appears the Indian government bowed to the women’s groups demands:

Bowing to pressure from women activists, the government has decided to restore the term rape in criminal law that states only men can be booked for committing the offense against women. It has also decided to lower the age of consent for sex from 18 to 16 years. These are fresh changes proposed by the Centre in its criminal laws (amendment) bill, which will replace the rape ordinance issued on February 3. […] The [JS Verma] panel — set up to look into rape laws after the December 16 Delhi gang rape — had recommended that the offense be kept gender-specific and the age for consensual sex be retained at 16 years in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In its ordinance, however, the government replaced the term rape with sexual assault, stating that any ‘person’ can commit the offense.”

Jezebel “Have You Ever Beat Up A Boyfriend? Cause, Uh, We Have”

“According to a study of relationships that engage in nonreciprocal violence, a whopping 70% are perpetrated by women. So basically that means that girls are beating up their BFs and husbands and the dudes aren’t fighting back. With Amy Winehouse busting open a can of whupass on her husband last week, we decided to conduct an informal survey of the Jezebels to see who’s gotten violent with their men. After reviewing the answers, let’s just say that it’d be wise to never ever fuck with us.

One Jezebel got into it with a dude while they were breaking up, while another Jez went nuts on her guy and began violently shoving him. One of your editors heard her boyfriend flirting on the phone with another girl, so she slapped the phone out of his hands and hit him in the face and neck… “partially open handed.” Another editor slapped a guy when “he told me he thought he had breast cancer.” (Okay, that one made us laugh really hard.) And lastly, one Jez punched a steady in the face and broke his glasses. He had discovered a sex story she was writing about another dude on her laptop, so he picked it up and threw it. And that’s when she socked him. He was, uh, totally asking for it.”

“nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused.” Really? Cause there’s a Feminist article on a feminist website which absolutely is ridiculing men for being abused…. You were fuckin saying?

You people are terrible at lying.


“Feminists hate patriarchy, we do not hate you.”

…. anyone who’s read any of the books which are required reading for gender studies courses – many of which I quoted from above…. can see through this.


“If you really care about those issues as passionately as you say you do, you should be thanking feminists, because feminism is a social movement actively dedicated to dismantling every single one of them. The fact that you blame feminists – your allies – for problems against which they have been struggling for decades suggests that supporting men isn’t nearly as important to you as resenting women. We care about your problems a lot. Could you try caring about ours?”

… where to start….

“you should be thanking feminists, because feminism is a social movement actively dedicated to dismantling every single one of them” – As I have so clearly shown, you have done nothing but either actually be the ones to create these problems – or you’ve been working tirelessly to put gas on the fire to make them worse. Literally, not figuratively, literally. Feminists actually created a fair number of these problems…. and the others they have done nothing supportive in the slightest imaginable degree, they have only ever advocated to make these things worse.

“The fact that you blame feminists – your allies – for problems against which they have been struggling for decades” – You’ve been struggling for decades to lobby for laws which unjustly persecute men, deny them their civil liberties and slander them as being inherently deviant monsters. That’s what you’ve been doing, for not just decades – over a fucking century. First wave feminism extends all the way into the 1800’s when the tender years doctrine was written into law at the behest of feminists/suffragettes.

“We care about your problems a lot” – Than stop slandering us and lobbying for gender biased laws with which to persecute us.

“Could you try caring about ours?” – We already do, that’s WHY all the laws you lobby for get passed. Men care about women – we’re the ones who’ve been busy marching into the ocean one by one, not the other way around. The elected officials who vote to pass laws are largely men, so you’ve been able to get whatever you wanted no matter how gender biased it was. That’s why there is a Violence Against Women Act: for the protection of women because men care about women.


reality


I’ve come across multiple examples of “Things feminism has done for men” and started laughing half way through, because they tell a lot of out-right-lies. Just bold faced lies in which they either pretend they advocated for something: of which they conveniently never provide evidence for relating any noted feminist ever advocating what said page claim feminism has advocated for.

Or they tell complete and utter lies like one page I was reading “NO, feminists don’t want you to lose your children. the idea that women are naturally better caregivers is a result of patriarchy”. Which – is a fucking lie. An Outright, complete, utter, unequivocal, unabashed lie. It was a Feminist, Caroline Norton, who CREATED the “Tender Years Doctrine” which was adopted into British common law, which was then used as the basis for Law in the United States and continues to be the basis now. Which is why custody of children is most often given to women: it was not the patriarchy who made it that way – it was a fucking feminist: Caroline Norton.

And on that point: the National Organization for Women, by the way – advocates AGAINST shared parenting laws, which would create equality in that custody of the children would NOT automatically go to women.

A-00330 and S-291 – Presumption of Joint Custody / Shared Parenting for Minor Children March 2005

There ya go, an official NOW page, where you can read it straight from the horses mouth. They oppose shared parenting – a law which would create legal equality and not give custody of children to women by default. That’s not the fucking patriarchy – that’s feminists. NOW is the single largest feminist organization in EXISTENCE. Bar none. They have publicly stated – they oppose shared parenting – they oppose legal equality.

Yet on more than one “Things feminism is helping men with!” page – they always claim they’re advocating for father’s rights and that men don’t have their children taken away from them: and they blame it on the patriarchy. Never-the-fuck-mind “Tender years doctrine” was created by FEMINIST Caroline Norton, and continues to be entrenched in law today because the single largest FEMINIST organization on the planet opposes shared parenting.

They say da patwyarchy is responsible for thinking women are more suited to take care of children: feminist Caroline Norton wrote, advocated and initiated the tender years doctrine. Not some imaginary boogeyman patriarchy – no – a feminist you LIARS.

They say they are working for father’s rights against the evil patwyarchy: No – the single largest feminist group in existence opposes shared parenting – not promotes it: you fucking LIARS.

It’s shit like that – they have all these pages filled with item, after item – after goddamned item where they PRETEND Feminism cares about men: and they’re lying through their teeth – TERRIBLY. It’d be one thing if you could at least obfuscate or dissemble your statements so that they were at least ssslllllightly dishonest but not eeeeeeentirely incorrect….. but no, they tell out right lies. They’ll make the claim that they’re advocating something in men’s favor: but you go and look it up – and it’s not just untrue that they’re doing anything beneficial towards men – it’s the exact opposite. What they actually lobby for – what they actually do in practice: is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they claim they are doing.

You say feminists do not want men to lose their children and that women being better caretakers is because of the patriarchy: while opposing shared parenting laws and a feminist wrote and initiated the tender years doctrine…… It’s so obscene it’s hard to put into details that level of two faced, snake tongued lying….

It’s like…… it’s like a public service announcement…. in which the camera is only looking at a drug dealers face. The drug dealer – is making a “hand off” selling crack to a 12 year old, with his hands – but his face on camera is *saying* “Keep kids away from drugs.”

That’s what it’s like. That is an accurate analogy. That’s doing one thing and saying the exact opposite. That is an accurate analogy. It should literally be classified as it’s own mental illness. This kind of behavior is not ordinarily witnessed in any kind of sane individual, it’s utterly pathological.

This is what “cognitive dissonance” looks like. Cognitive Dissonance is the ability to contemplate two contradictory and antithetical concepts, exclusive to each other, and accept both of them as being true: simultaneously. It is only -possible- to do: through brain washing. A normal, well adjusted human being is not capable of this feat, this sanity defying level, of mental double think.


However…. you know why they put these pages out there right? Even if they are complete and absolutely verifiable lies….

“If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.” ~ Adolf Hitler. Mein Kampf (1925), volume 1, chapter 6.