Do Women make better soldiers ?

Absolutely, they cause less damage, do not have to carry as much as their male counterparts, thereby being more environmentally enhanced and leave a smaller carbon footprint, dontchaknow..

Women are the Enemy..

Are Women Better Managers: Err..NO..

Yeah, I know. I obviously have better use of my time but I could not resist this..

Like, Women are better managers, riiighhhht...

NEVER, EVER ,BUY A FREE DRINK for any female..

Don't tell me that I do not give you the know..

Buy a drink for any female and YOU ARE A LOSER..

What can I say about his article apart from the fact that you just do not listen or learn..

Buy another female a drink and I am going to kick your arse....

Do not fu*&^g EVER..

A Girl’s Tricks For Scoring Free Drinks

from Citizen Renegade by Chateau

Some chick has posted (as of last week) a how-to guide for, presumably, cute girls to score free drinks from suckers betas heedless horndogs virginal aspies men. (Ugly girls have to buy men drinks to get any attention.) It is reposted here with accompanying Chateau editorial comment. Men need to know how to identify these mooches and turn the tables on them.
It’s hard to fault these unscrupulous whores for taking advantage of willing dupes. You’d do the same if you were a hot chick in her prime surrounded by buffoons. So it is in your interest to know the enemy and her tactics, and to surprise her with your deft defiance of her expectations.

Scoring free drinks is easier than you think. Give these fail-proof ways a try, and enjoy night after night of free drinking. Just remember, picking the right guy is crucial. You can’t go for a guy who is there with his girlfriend.

It’s not that uncommon to see beta herbs buy drinks for all his girlfriend’s bitchy friends, and even occasionally female interlopers. That’s how HHHwhipped and fearful they are. (Fear is the path to the beta side. Fear leads to sycophancy. Sycophancy leads to abasement. Abasement leads to grinding dry spells.) So she shouldn’t rule out taken men.

Pick a guy who is chilling near the bar. You can always count on “bros” because their frat bothers will usually be there cheering them on to get chicks.

Nice. But times are changing. If these frat brothers had any sense they would mercilessly mock their bro for buying a drink for a girl he’s not banging. Are we seeing more of that kind of very special in-field bro tutelage? General impression: yes. But still a long way to go.

1. Use intense eye contact. (The most obvious and most important) As soon as you walk in, start by making seductive eye contact with the bouncer to get started. The bouncers are friends with the bartenders, so this can help for next time. Sit by the bar, and look around until you make eye contact with a cute guy who catches your glance. Soon enough, he’ll come over to you, and get you a drink.

She’d do better making eye contact with ugly guys. They would be more grateful for the female attention and thus more amenable to getting thieved. “Cute guys” (and it’s a loose term that when used by women usually translates to “alpha guy who looks more cute than he really is because he behaves in a way that presses all my limbic buttons”) are likely to have more experience with women and their wiles, and won’t be as easy to manipulate with these crassly novice female ploys.

2. Look hot, but innocent. You know the drill. Show off your best features in a sexy outfit and work your stuff. Sadly, batting your eyelashes and flipping your hair still works as well as it did when your Mom was in college. Don’t forget the cleavage.

Any man who has an ounce of pride and self-control (a male trait which is very attractive to women, btw) can stare at a bodacious rack all night without feeling a compulsion to open his wallet and buy drinks for the biological package scaffolding the tits. If you are a man who can’t manage to pass this banal free drink shit test, you need to go back to day one and read through this entire blog. Sadly, you may be a lost cause.

3. If a guy opens up a tab next to you and only orders one drink, casually say, “Isn’t there a $10 minimum?”He knows he’s going to have to spend the money anyways, so he might as well buy you a drink, and possibly get your number.

Her post is interesting for a glimpse into the sheer number of shit test permutations that women can wield. If you get this line, acceptable shit-test busting answers are: “Are you the IRS?”, “I found a loophole”, “You’re right. Can you cover me?”, “That’s what she said”.

4. You’re dancing with a guy on the dance floor and he has a drink in his hand. You say, “What are you drinking?” while casually taking the drink from his hands and taking a sip. Keep dancing and then walk away. He won’t have the balls to ask for it back.

Any girl who grabs for my drink like a spoiled child is going to get disciplined like one. Viable answers: “Pussy juice”, “Dunno. A chick bought it for me”, “Shirley Temple”, “Gasoline”. If she manages to get her hand on your glass, push it away and ask her if her parents raised her to be a grub.

5. Go up to the bartender, point to some random guy, and say, “That guy over there spilled my drink.” Then give him puppy eyes and “remind” him of what drink you had. He’s going to make you a new one.

Do bartenders really fall for this? They tend to be a savvy lot, so it’s doubtful many girls get away with this. Anyhow, this is a risky move for a girl at her regular bar. If the bartender calls her out on her lie, she could be kicked out.

6. Befriend an older man at the bar. Um, hello… old fashioned manners. He’ll have to offer. And you will graciously accept.

Older men are wising up to this as well. Game knows no age limit. But as a personal observation, it seems younger men are more prone to fall for the free drink ruse. Horniness tends to cloud judgement.

7.  You’re sitting down and mingling with a friend, and a guy comes and talks to you. You smile, and say, “Aren’t you going to buy me a drink before you start hitting on me?” He will take this as flirting and will  always agree.

Another permutation of the same old same old shit test. Good answers: “I don’t buy drinks for strangers”, “I didn’t know I was planning on hitting on you” (very subtle neg), “That’s small potatoes. Ill give you a thousand to hit on you for a week.”
The idea is to undermine her free drink angling with the insinuation that she’s not far removed from a common street whore, without coming right out and saying it.

8.  If you have already flirted with the bartender, and he’s already made you a drink, you can try this. After you’ve finished the drink and he’s pouring a drink for someone else, flirtatiously tilt your glass and say, “You know where to put the extra.” If he doesn’t do it right away, give him a few minutes and he will.

Again this is horrible. Any bartender who falls for this is not worth his mixology license or his badboy tattoos. Good answer if she’s a bitch: “On your head?”. Good answer if she’s slightly less than a bitch: “In her glass?”, while pointing at a cuter chick.

9.  FLIRT. Never forget what using your mojo can get you. Talk to a guy for 5 minutes. It’s surprising how little it takes. If he’s looking for some action, he’s going to ask you if you want a drink.

Remember the fundamental law of gender relations: The road to victory is through penis in vagina. Flirting should lead to it, or it’s nothing but ego stroking for attention whores. And as any man who’s lived a day knows, buying drinks for girls is counterproductive to the goal of getting laid. No woman in the world has slept with a guy because he bought her a drink, unless he had compensating alpha factors that nullified the betaness of buying the drink.

10. At midnight, when your buzz is getting low, order yourself a glass of water at the bar, while staring at a guy drinking next to you. Lean in, and wait for the guy to say, “Is that all you’re drinking? You’ll say, “Yeah, but a vodka sprite sounds better.”He will order it for you.

A lot of these grrlpower tips rely upon abject betas setting the traps for themselves. If you have a lick of dignity and a smidgen of understanding about women’s sexual processes, you won’t be asking a girl if “that’s all you’re drinking?”.

11. Tap a guy on the shoulder who is ordering a drink.  Say “how about you order me a drink, and I’ll leave the tip?” He’s not going to make you leave the tip.

Good answer if you just want to have a laugh at her expense: “How about we screw, and I’ll leave the tip?”
Good answer if you prefer the more understated approach that explores the possibility of a pickup: “The bartender’s my friend, so you’d better be ready to leave a twenty”.

12.  Pretend it’s your birthday. If you’re really going for it, wear a crown.  You will probably get a drink “on the house” from the bartender or a guy you talk to will offer.

Never buy drinks for girls. That rule goes double for girls in birthday or bachelorette parties. Or you could put her on the spot and ask what gifts she got for her birthday. It’s fun to watch predatory girls squirm.

13.  Sit down by the bar and take on a bet that you know you will win. After a few minutes of conversation, switch to the subject you want to bet on. Then you can make the bet. Winner buys the drink. Ask him a guy question that a “man” would think he knows the answer to like a question about the 1991 Super bowl. He’s not going to know that you have planned the question.  And you’re talking to him, so he’s not going to care.

The way to counter this tactic is to offer a “best out of five” suggestion. Example: “How about we do best out of five, but I get to ask the last question.” Few girls know much about the hobbies of men. Ask her a question about tube amps or Call of Duty.

It’s not hard to get free drinks; guys just can’t help themselves (the poor schmucks).  Try these techniques, strut your stuff, and you’ll be set. Don’t feel bad; they want to talk to you. And hey, maybe you’ll end up going for them.

The irony in her tricks for getting free drinks from suckers lies in the fact that, although presented as a way to make a possible love connection, free drink buying will actually spoil a woman’s budding attraction for a man. Buy her a drink and you will go home the celibate monk you arrived as. But pass her shit test and don’t buy her a drink, and her eyes will sparkle with growing attraction for your demonstrated alphaness.
No, literally, they will sparkle. It’s weird.

Feminism is dying and only the Vultures Are Interested..

I can feel the heat, the rage and the ongoing evidence withering away from that feminist hegemony. If it were a "stock Issue" it would have died years ago, but it exists due to government subsidy and gullible cretins that feel that it may have some merit, any merit,..

And what is the feeling now ??

Does it not stink to high heaven and does it not have the stench of a rotten carcass, ready for the vultures ?..

Violence Behind Feminism’s Humanist Masquerade

By John Hembling

Several months ago, I wrote an article addressing a public statement by the radical feminist Jessica Valenti. The Washington Post [1] published an article authored by Valenti on December 12 2010 in which she argued for the reversal of the burden of proof onto the accused, in criminal trials for the crime of rape.

For the sake of clarity, I will copy the paragraph in which Valenti states the case for presumed guilt.

It reads: In fact, some activists and legal experts in Sweden want to change the law there so that the burden of proof is on the accused; the alleged rapist would have to show that he got consent, instead of the victim having to prove that she didn't give it.

The deliberately obtuse will claim that Valenti is merely commenting on somebody else's position, with her vague attribution to “some activists and legal experts in Sweden”.

What experts? Valenti doesn't name them. She does directly quote a Swedish feminist, Johanna Palmström, but doesn't attribute the argument for presumptive guilt to Palmström. Wherever Valenti got this idea, she owns it now, and it's Valenti arguing in its favor in her Washington Post article.

She is, of course not the first feminist to push the perverse idea of presumptive guilt.

Linda Bourque argued for presumptive guilt in rape accusations in her 1989 book Defining Rape. Susan Caringella, a sociology professor at Western Michigan University, called for the dismantling of what she calls overzealous protections for men in her 2008 book Addressing Rape Reform in Law and Practice.

No such overzealous protections exist, in fact, women accusing men of rape are commonly protected with a legally mandated anonymity, while men accused are smeared in the news prior to any legal or evidentiary inquiry.

I previously suggested that Valenti, in her advocacy of presumed guilt, recognized that by striping the right of habeas corpus from half the population, she understands and seeks a much more violent society; a society in which individuals cannot settle disputes through the courts, but must fall back on vendetta and violence because the system of law has become one of apartheid.

This is the outcome which logically follows the transformation of criminal law into a law of privilege for one group, and presumed guilt for another, based on sex.

Some critics of my analysis jumped to the absurd conclusion that I was actually threatening personal violence if this trend towards apartheid continues. The rhetorical contortions necessary to transmute a prediction of increased violence into a threat of violence is not unusual for opponents of men's rights.

Having experienced substantial violence in my life, I can say with certainty that a society in which justice take the form of personal vendetta is a prospect I find abhorrent. The knee jerk attempt to characterize my analysis as if it were threat might be charitably seen as an honest but stupid misunderstanding. Or, the reading of my prediction of a more violent society as threat can be more realistically interpreted as a personalized straw man attack, pursued with the complete understanding that stripping away habeas corpus will leave many individuals with no options but violence in the settlement of disputes.

When the law is corrupted into a tool of wealth appropriation, apartheid, and privilege for one social class at the expense of another, I can see no possible outcome except a dramatic increase in brutal and deadly violence. If anybody still chooses to interpret that prediction as a threat, then I can only conclude that they're deeply stupid, or wildly dishonest.

I still say that Jessica Valenti wants women to be killed. The alternative is that she is too stupid to understand what she’s arguing for. But that possibility must also encompass every single feminist arguing in her camp; too stupid to understand what they're pushing for.

Feminism, the ideology to which Valenti, Caringella, and Bourque all subscribe has been variously described by its critics, including me, as an ideology of female supremacy. I now think this is only partly correct. It encompasses the deeply bigoted notion of supremacy of one biological demographic over another, but it is more accurate to consider feminism as a doctrine of violence.

If you'd like a few examples of this, consider mandatory arrest and primary aggressor laws. These laws mean that in cases of domestic violence – police have no discretion about whether to arrest somebody. Because domestic violence public service announcements and other propaganda universally depict men as aggressors – a portrayal wildly at odds with the stats on DV, [2] This means that the police act as feminist enforcers. Women can and do use the police as muscle to remove male spouses based solely on the woman's discretion and say so. [3]

A report paid for and prepared on behalf of the US department of justice called “Violence Against Women: Synthesis of Research for Law Enforcement Officials” discusses domestic violence police intervention, and identifies only women as victims, and men as perpetrators, despite the large body of publicly available research [4] indicating gender symmetry in Intimate Partner Violence.

In cases where men are the victims of DV and calls for help from the police, it will likely result in that male victims arrest[5], rather than help. If you think this isn't violence because it's done through state funded enforcers, you're delusional.

Another example is the funding and enforcement of the Violence Against Women Act; a set of laws providing extra protection for women, and fast track conviction for men, in spite of the well documented fact that men are far more likely to be victims of violence overall[6], and roughly coequally victims of domestic violence.

A policy to reduce violence against the group already least impacted by it, through the abrogation of legal rights of the group already most affected is tantamount to a policy of increased violence against the latter group; men.

Another example of systematic violence perpetrated by a violent ideology is the popularization of the foolish and hateful idea that every adult man is a potential pedophile. It’s social convention, and not legitimate research which brands men the offending demographic in the sexual abuse of children [7]. Because of the perpetuation of this falsehood, men must curb their normal, healthy, natural inclination to enjoy interaction with children.

To illustrate the point, consider the previous sentence. Did you picture something lurid when I mentioned men enjoying interactions with children? If you did, then you've at least partly bought into that poisonous lie. [8]

The reality is that women are the overwhelming majority of abusers and killers of children. The lie of ubiquitous masculine predation on children forces men to sequester themselves away from them out of self-preservation. That is inarguably violence done against men, and violence done against children.

How about workplace deaths? Organized feminism never ceases to remind us that women earn less than men. They'll imply, or sometimes claim this is actually women being paid less to do jobs men are paid more for. [9]

This is false. In fact, on average, women choose jobs which afford them greater flexibility and access to friends and family[10].

Men, by contrast, tend to select jobs based almost exclusively on income. Because in our society, income is what men are valued by. However, as many times as the proponents of Big Feminism will argue for equalization of income outcome, you never hear an argument for the reduction of the percent of men who die doing their jobs. [11] 93 percent of workplace deaths are men.

The continued willful ignorance of this fact, while whining/ lying about income, is violence.

The National Organization of Women, one of the most prominent feminist organizations in the world has. on the landing page of their website, a list of their top 5 “issues,” one of which is stopping violence against women. According to the Bureau of Justice statistics, men are overwhelmingly more likely to be the victims of violence,[6] but the NOW is only concerned with stopping violence against women, not with stopping violence in general.

In light of the DOJ stats showing men as the principal victims of violence, doesn't a focus on violence reduction for the demographic least affected translate to an implicit support for violence against men?

Yes it does, and quite explicitly.

The redefinition of the physical expression of love between a man and a woman, as a crime, is, itself, an act of violence against those who would give physical expression of love. “All heterosexual sex is violence” – said Andrea Dworkin, whose writings are still a staple of women's and gender studies classes at universities in the United States and Canada. Dworkin doesn't represent mainstream feminism, I hear somebody complaining?

Why, then, is her writing still used to teach university students to hate men?

Now, to avoid this becoming a tedious recitation of the forms of violence, I'll limit the list to what I've mentioned. The complete list could extend to hundreds. Feminism, to be sure, is a doctrine of violence. We are simply bamboozled into thinking otherwise because the most obvious feminists do not themselves beat people with their fists.

Their violence is considerably more varied, and indirect.

One of the most remarkable features of this poisonous ideology of violence is the lengths to which it's proponents will go to delude the laity, and delude themselves. This is illustrated in a Ted Talks lecture [12] given by feminist author Hannah Rosen, in which she publicly excoriates her own son, in front of her daughter, with the help of her husband, telling her baby boy that due to his masculinity, he is a lesser person than her daughter. She played the video of this humiliation of her little boy to a packed Ted Talks audience. Hannah Rosen performed this amazing act of cruelty thinking that she was actually doing good; that her actions were ethical.

Does some part of Hanna Rosen's mind recognize the deliberate, calculated harm she's doing to her son, and to all men in herself congratulatory preening lectures on feminism's dominance of the public zeitgeist? I don't know. I hope so.

Does anyone debate that this damage inflicted on her son is not violence?

How about the use of shaming language by proponents of feminism to silence any criticism or dissent? This is so common that a [13] bestiary of the most frequently used ad hominem arguments specifically targeting dissenting men can be found cataloged in a document called the anti-male shaming tactics catalog.

Is the silencing of debate through personal attack and shame not a form of violence? [14]If it's not, then a vast majority of what feminists claim as violence against women must be summarily discarded without examination. Or maybe we live in a universe where that knife only cuts in one direction. Men can't actually be victimized, because of the unique position of power they occupy. This is a clever piece of agitprop from feminist ideologue Marilyn Frye designed to de-legitimize any man's expression of pain, and to validate any verbal or physical violence done to a man.

We also have the difference between depictions of rape against a woman, and depictions of rape against a man. In our mass produced entertainment, a woman raped is a horror, a shock, and an outrage, as it should be. Rape is a horrible violent crime. If our media depicts or describes rape committed against a man, it's comedy.

Rape, when the victim is a man, is comedy, because feminism is a doctrine of violence.

Speaking about entertainment, why is it that almost all male figures used in advertising are depicted as buffoons, idiots, cretins, and infantilized boy-men? Women are portrayed as beautiful, clever, patient, wise, and in every way that matters, superior.

Can you imagine the consequences to an advertising agency who cast any other biological demographic as naturally inferior, used that for comic effect to sell car insurance, golf clubs or prescription drugs?

As long as its men portrayed as stupid, everything is Kosher, right? After all, the majority of the television audience are female[15].

In spite of the endless fraudulent claims by feminists that the real lifetime earnings imbalance which exists between men and women is the product of women's oppression, women control 65% of the disposable income spent by individuals in the world. Regardless of who earns it, women spend it. This disparity is increasing, and by 2028, women are expected to control 72% of discretionary spending.

So denigration of men, violence against men, even killing of men is all just fine in feminism-land. Women are the majority of voters[17], entertainment consumers, and disposers of disposable income.

Women are in charge, and the violence of feminism's doctrine is done indirectly, at once removed, or hidden behind language. It’s easy to be fooled into thinking feminism is something other than a doctrine of violence.

So, faced by 40 years of escalated violence against the male sex through media, through the courts, through the family courts, through the education system, have Men, the proclaimed great oppressors and rapists responded with escalated violence against women?

The unthinking, knee jerking response from proponents of feminism would probably be a shrill and hysterical yes. But I'd prefer to consult the statistics of the department of justice.[6]

The statistics collected by the United States Department of Justice indicate steadily declining rates of violent crime victimization for both women and men, but a consistently higher rate of violent crime committed against men.

So in light of the knowledge that men are far more often the victims of violent crime than women, why do media messages about stopping violence always focus on women as victims?

Are the producers of these messages unaware that men, and not women are subject to the majority of violent crime. Ignorance is implausible. What's more realistic is that our society doesn't actually care about violence done to men, we have no sympathy, and the agencies seeking funds are far more concerned about rent seeking than solution seeking. So they focus on a victim demographic more likely win emotional support and funding. Actual rates of violence don't really matter, as long as there is enough damage being done to photogenic female victims to keep the money flowing.

Are you paying attention?

Damage to women is at the core of the victim industry's business model. Damage to men is incidental. Well, almost incidental, it serves another purpose, and that’s to drive a wedge between men and women, setting them against each other. I’ll talk about that in greater depth in another article.

Also, let us not delude ourselves; the violence done by the violent ideology of feminism isn’t always against men. [18] Women are the world's champions at killing children. Now in hearing that item of uncomfortable truth, some halfwit will likely screech that I'm saying women are all child killers. No, I'm saying that the US Department of health and Human Services show mothers abusing children at more than double the rate of fathers. How is it that with these stats so readily available, rescue organizations and non-governmental organizations running on a feminist ideology never seem to stray from the narrative that men are the problem full stop.

Are they incompetent? Confused? Or are they wholly unconcerned with actually reducing violence? Or do they simply produce a palatable message that the bad men must be curbed, because that message coupled with real violence done in the real world – never mentioning women as perpetrators – that’s the fastest and easiest way to secure funding and sympathy.

Feminism is an ideology of violence. After 40 years of feminist pre-eminence in policy making, education, the courts, and government, anybody still denying this may be beyond the reach of rational thought.

Now i'll conclude with one more point. Feminism is an ideology. It's not a biological demographic. Who listening to this is already fuming that I, a men’s rights activist must surely hate women. This is a favorite straw man argument against anyone arguing in opposition to.

Women and feminists are not the same thing, and opposition to violent ideology doesn't mean hatred of women. I'm actually rather fond of women, when

they're not lying to me, or calling me a potential rapist, or lobbying for policy to define my masculine identity as criminal.

John Hembling is an MRA residing in Canada, and is the owner of the Youtube channel John the Other.

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121002571.html

[2] http://www.fredoneverything.net/yyNOWCops.shtml

[3] http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/198372.pdf

[4] http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

[5] http://www.dewar4research.org/DOCS/PlightOfMaleVictimsSummaryMay08.pdf

[6] http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/vsxtab.cfm

[7] http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5006569130

[8] http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm08/figure3_6.htm

[9] http://consad.com/index.php?page=an-analysis-of-reasons-for-the-disparity-in-wages-between-men-and-women

[10] http://www.swlearning.com/economics/policy_debates/gender.html

[11] http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf

[12] http://www.doublex.com/blog/xxfactor/watch-hannas-fabulous-end-men-ted-talk

[13] http://www.womenshealth.gov/violence/types/emotional.cfm

[14] http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

[15] http://www.bizreport.com/2007/08/adults_watch_but_do_kids.html

[16] http://www.womenwantmorethebook.com/press/septermber9.aspx

[17] http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/research/topics/documents/genderdiff.pdf

[18] http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm08/figure3_6.htm

[3] http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/research/topics/documents/genderdiff.pdf

[5] http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf

Gillard, the Female LIAR..

I have posted many times in the past about "women in Charge" and here is a prime example as to why they should not be..

Gillard is a blatant and substantiated liar, just like a women (lying is part of life, see blog posts just in case you have not had that education)

Have a peruse here..

We have a Prime Minister who was not voted in twice..

One - as she shafted Rudd, the Prime Minister at that time..
Two- She conned the independents to join her side with bribery and capitulation..

Gillard is a real class act..Ahhh! Women in Charge..

Tim Blair

Saturday, February 26, 2011 at 05:48am

Dominant Greens push their minor governmental partners into a corner:

As alarm grew within Labor ranks about the backlash against Julia Gillard for breaking her election promise not to introduce a carbon tax, Greens deputy leader Christine Milne turned petrol into a flashpoint for Labor by insisting the transport sector should be included in any carbon pricing regime …

As Ms Gillard tried to take control of the debate, Senator Milne said the climate change committee behind the carbon plan had been the Greens idea and the party had ownership of the scheme “because it’s the one we put on the table ourselves”.

And there’s plenty of room for it, because who can afford food?

She said while negotiations on the details of the carbon price package had yet to begin, the point of putting a price signal on carbon into the economy was to “drive changes in behaviour”.

Great. We’re now being bossed around by Christine Milne, thanks to Labor’s lie:

I have been resisting blogging about Libya until there is some outcome and now we have the end of that lunatic Gaddifi, we now witness the misandry in the feminist main stream media concerning the fate of the privileged princesses who took no part in that action or just a little time as their arses are more important than anyone else and we never see or witness a SINGLE female being up at the front line or involved in the area where the action is really at..

Leave it to the Men is their general methodology. So much for the "strong women" the feminists keep raging about..

Women are always absent from these type of actions for the cowards they really are..

We even know that it is more men than women that are killed, for it is after all, men that are leading this revolt (as men have always led such things in their eternal attempts to improve the lot of their families).

It's men who have the courage and conviction to ensure change while women just sit back and claim victory..

Libya: There are Even Women Among the Dead

By

mwm

Published: February 23, 2011Posted in: MisandryTags: female-centrism, Heroic men, libya, misandry in news reporting, war, women and children

This brief article was prompted after a message I received via my YouTube channel. For privacy reasons I won’t link to the man, but I hope he doesn’t mind if I quote a part of his message here:

“Ever since I saw your video on the way the existence of men in the media is almost swept away, I’ve been noticing more and more of it as I use various media. However, the worst example I’ve seen today is from the Metro, a free paper distributed on trains and buses relating to the Tripoli revolution”.

He then quotes from the article in the London newspaper:

“There were reports of a massacre in two suburbs, with armed men firing indiscriminately, leaving women and children among the dead.”

I searched on the quote and came up with a few other news items and this line, reported from an eyewitness in Tripoli, caught my eye:

“What happened today in Tajura was a massacre. Armed men were firing indiscriminately. There are even women among the dead”.

There’s more like this but I’ll just look at these as they are fully representative of the international journalistic effort. Female-centrism at it’s best (or worst).

The use of language both frames our thoughts and also reflects them in a complex and often uneasy relationship that I have explored in video here, here and here.
Journalists are trained to be adept at using language as a misandric device in what must be described for what it is: a ceaseless campaign against men and the very image of men. Indeed, a War on Men.

Women and children, women and children, women and children…

As with all disasters, natural or otherwise, and with all massacres, riots and tragedies, our journalists look for the angle that always seems to matter above all else: how badly are women and children affected?
Note in the quotes above, how it is “armed men firing” and “women and children” killed. There is clearly no problem with the use of the word men when they are perpetrators of violence, the problem only appears to be in the use of that same word when men are victims.
Of course, we know that men are killed as well, even though they are not deemed worthy of mention.
We even know that it is more men than women that are killed, for it is after all, men that are leading this revolt (as men have always led such things in their eternal attempts to improve the lot of their families).
We are also aware that it is men who were undoubtedly targeted to be killed and that women and children almost certainly count as incidental and accidental killings, “collateral damage”, as it were.
But how many of us are aware that these truths are never stated? How many of us are aware that the deaths of men are simply rubbed out of our consciousness, deliberately removed from our concern?
Well, I’m aware. And a growing number of other men are becoming aware as evidenced by this man’s message and others I’ve received.
Awareness is the first stage of any change and indeed, of any revolution.

I replied to the message I received on YouTube as follows:

“It is, I’m afraid, a never-ending phenomenon. Men simply do not rate a mention.

The fact of that matter, is that in Tripoli, and all other places now experiencing determined popular overthrow, the ones doing the actual deed (that we will probably look back upon as brave and noble revolution) are overwhelmingly men. It therefore stands to reason that those that are killed will be overwhelmingly men. It also means that men are the ones who will have achieved this great change. However, this will simply go unmentioned whilst the wreckage is sifted for those that matter.

Headlines should read: “The brave civilian men of Libya, risking their lives for change!”.

However, our suitably edited history – being written as we speak – will record the “people” of Libya that fought for change and it will be the “women and children” that suffered most. It’s what the person sitting next to you wants to read and so it will go on.”

Contemporary misandry like this in the form of female-centrism, will lead inevitably to historical revisionism.
Putting it another way, Feminism largely exists on a foundation of misinformation, half-truths and outright lies about our history, coupled with ignorance of history in the populace. After all, if you don’t know your history, you don’t know when you’re being lied to about it. And Feminists are telling a great number of lies.

Are Women Really Worth The Hassle..

Another post from The Spearhead but bear with me on this one..

This is another one of those empyrean moments where one realises that the spoken word finally sums up an inevitable outcome..

Bugger, now I have to have a think..

This is just another type of emotional porn for women.

And it is, it is precisely that. Women thrive on emotional anything. Whether it be "choosing a dress" to " what type of hair colour should I choose" to " should I shag him" even though he is a gangster ( I apologise for that assumption as I really don't think she give a damn to him being a gangster as long as she likes the tattoos and the mistreatment)or whether or not her future "atm" good boy really cares whether or not she has been spooning Harlem, just for the thrill ( Another over statement, Uhm!!, Harlem would probably take too long and she would be past thirty nine by the time she is finished)..

The object of the exercise would be that female journalists as well as women generally, get a rise from men and that is their fix, their cocaine and we have to resist that impulsive reaction by just pittying them with a shake of the head and a knowing look that indicates that you do not expect superior behaviour from women only the standard inane-ness we have for so long, witnessed..

No wonder they are so sad, we have finally decided that life without them is a lot less complicated and we can actually do what we want to do without the ongoing, brain numbing interpretations, discussion and endless condemnation that women specialise in..

The Game is Getting Worn Out

by W.F. Price on February 25, 2011

Yesterday, I noticed a comment zed wrote that reflected my thoughts on the matter of this unending stream of vapid, clueless and/or provocative articles we’ve been seeing from female journalists for years now. Forbes, The Atlantic, The New York Times, and now even the Wall Street Journal are publishing them regularly.
Here’s an excerpt from zed’s comment:

I would be slacking on my job as wingman and coach if I didn’t point out to a guy when he had been hooked by a neg and his hamster was going like it was having an epileptic fit.
If she and her publisher make money on this book, they will put out another one. If that one makes money, they will put out another one after that.
This is just another type of emotional porn for women. It makes them all tingly in anticipation of all the attention they are going to get from it.
Would men with options waste one second of their lives responding to a woman who treated them this way in real life?

It’s a good point, and one that’s been going through my head recently. I used to think they were simply writing this stuff to make a buck, but it seems that there’s more to it than that. As zed points out, these women really get a kick out of our responses. And in the meanwhile they are getting paid a lot of money to pleasure themselves by pushing our buttons. There’s no doubt that they are paying attention to the men’s blogosphere, and one can only imagine the happy little feelings they get from seeing us worked up and indignant — over them! Women, particularly of the exhibitionist type that characterizes female journalism, absolutely love it when someone makes a fuss over them.
A friend sent me another horrible article published in the WSJ a couple days ago that followed close on the heels of Hymowitz’s disingenuous article about how men are refusing to grow up. In this article, a youngish woman writes about how she had a great honeymoon because her new husband couldn’t find his passport and was stuck behind for a few days. She lustfully describes the Italian men she met, and suggests that she’d love to do it again, hinting at a divorce before she’s been married for even a season.

I took a water taxi to my hotel and the driver, a gorgeous man named Davide, insisted I take command of the boat, although I explained that I was from New York and didn’t even know how to drive a car. “I teach you,” he said and sort of slapped my butt and also touched my stomach while shifting gears. He gave me his number on a scrap of paper.
“I’m married,” I said for the first time. “I’m on my honeymoon.” He thought this was very charming and American and pretended to look overboard in the murky brown water for a groom. “Call me,” he said.

She goes on to describe the shopping, the food, the joys of being without one’s husband, and of course the men again:

The next day I bought five hand-tooled leather journals from a bookbinder named Ustino and began writing in one of them at Locanda Cipriani, a restaurant in a quince orchard on a tiny island called Torcello. I ordered cannelloni again and wrote, “I’m eating cannelloni all aloni.” I wandered that night over bridges and bought a silk jacket with rats painted on it for $500.
[...]
I had dinner that night at Vino Vino on Calle de la Rotonda where you order from three dishes at the counter. It would have been perfect except for the waitress ignoring me during my lemon cake—and oh yeah, I remembered, my husband not being there.
Waiting for him, I took gondola rides and drank wine with beautiful men. I soaked my feet in the bidet, listening on the phone to my husband complain about how he’d taken Metro-North to the county clerk’s office in White Plains to get his birth certificate. I went to the Peggy Guggenheim Collection and the Accademia, lounged on my king-sized bed, got chocolate on my trousseau.

She ends the piece with a little line she probably thinks is guaranteed to upset men:

The scrap of paper with Davide’s phone number on it is still on my refrigerator. In case I ever want a second honeymoon.

We could get indignant, point to this woman as another example of a naughty wife, and make a fuss over her. But the thing is, this kind of bad behavior is no longer shocking. These Cosmo-style themes are so common and pervasive in every form of mainstream media that they’ve begun to dull people’s outrage, and now it’s just starting to look embarrassing — like a national shame of some sort. Our women are acting out in public to such a degree that I wouldn’t be surprised if other societies felt some pity for us, just as one would pity the family who had to deal with a mentally-ill daughter who repeatedly exposed herself in public.
But despite how bad it makes us look as a society from the outside, the most important matter is the change within. The reason this shamelessness has gone on for as long as it has is that it has been effective. The women have succeeded in getting our attention. But it’s reached a saturation point, and now the question is what’s next?
It seems that men are approaching a psychological tipping point where they will no longer respond to each new outrage with much more than knowing resignation. The women of our society have invested so much effort into provoking and testing us that we’re developing a cultural immunity to it, which is unprecedented in the history of modern Anglo civilization. For a couple of generations, our women have been unraveling centuries of carefully constructed myths and facades built around the feminine, and from all indications it appears that they will not stop until the job is entirely complete. Perhaps we should consider that although there have been a lot of bright guys far ahead of the curve in recent years pointing to the gaping holes and craters on the facade, the real credit for its destruction should go to women themselves. In all likelihood, without the wrecking ball of feminism, men would have plodded on and on in blissful ignorance, accepting all the pretty lies without a second thought.
Some conservative women may be nervous about the implications, but Hymowitz and the like are no different from their less circumspect sisters in the most important matters. These conservative women crave the same attention and fuss as Lady Gaga; they simply go about securing it in different ways. Even if they were the only ones making noise the end result would be the same, because they are all looking for the same thing.
We can’t predict exactly what the effect will be of the vanishing of these illusions built around women, but women have certainly sown the seeds of their own disempowerment. When enough men react to these provocations with nothing more than a roll of the eyes – and that time is almost upon us – it’s going to take the steam right out of this aging feminist movement. In a way it’s too bad, because when women were mysterious and venerable, they had a certain charm about them, and it’s going to take a long time for that to come back.

Women Ain't Happy...Sniff.Sniff,Sniff..Blaarrrpppp..

Fallen Angel

The feminist's funeral is not that far away and I would predict, going by the amount of dissent that has surfaced against feminists and their ongoing hate agenda..

Maybe over the next couple of years, women will finally get around to realising that feminism failed it's end goal of submitting all and sundry to their Marxist doctrine and also realise that, Sniff, No...you look at it, Sniff, it's, it's just ghastly..

Tissue Issue One..

Tissue Issue Two..

And the original study of the Tissue Issue..
Sniff, Sniiifffff" Why women are sad"..
Tissue Issue Three..

Now you may be of the opinion that I am not "in touch" with women's feelings or care about their endless hand-wringing issues and you would be totally correct. I am not on this planet to make someone else's life better. Just like everyone else, I will help if it is required, maybe even be the hero when necessary to avert suffering or disaster, just to demonstrate that I am a human being capable of it. But as far as treating women like they actually deserve special treatment, forget that..

Do that your damn self. I am not here to make your life "happy". Fellow Man exempted ofcourse, cheers, here's to your good health and well being bro....

So we come to this excellent article from The Spearhead and it's worthy of total exposure..

The Future After the Death of Feminism

by Delusion Damage on February 25, 2011

Feminism is going to die.  Soon.

After the sun has set on feminism’s final day, the world that’s left for us will look very different – whether it’s a decent place or not will depend on the methods we use to get there. Some of feminism’s most enthusiastic opponents are of the mind that “winning the war” is all that matters right now and rebuilding can be figured out later. I hold that “the war” will win itself in any case, and that now is the time to look to the future and plan for it, because an ounce of preventing undesirable side effects of the impending transition to a non-feminist society is worth a pound of cure after the fact.
Interestingly, the possibility of feminism ending within any time frame relevant to currently living people has never been spared a thought in anything written by a feminist that I’ve ever come across.
Also among those opposed to feminism, the fear that it could go on forever is widespread. Comments have even been thrown about to the effect that current anti-feminist action is “not good enough”, that the fact that it’s getting worse means that it will keep getting worse. However, as alluded to by The Futurist in his call to activism, a transition to non-misandrist society will happen no matter what, and the impact the men’s movement can make is not on “if” but “how”:

I remain as convinced as ever that The Misandry Bubble will correct by 2020 no matter what due to the Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation.  However, there is much to lose if the correction is turbulent, rather than orderly.  Millions of innocent men and women can be saved from wrenching misfortune if we act now to fight the culture of misandry that is cancerously pervading the entire Western world.

I’d like to highlight a different set of four factors that will bring feminism to an end: four methods men are using to dismantle it, which will shape the world we’re left with once feminism is gone.

1. Educating Men – A noble effort is being made by men of various backgrounds to educate other men about the evils of feminist society through whatever means their particular circumstances provide.
2. Leaving Women to Fend for Themselves – A number of men are “going their own way”, refusing to foot the bill for the feminist gravy train and distancing themselves from feminist society both for their own protection and to withdraw support from a destructive system.
3. Violence – Still relatively rare but growing in number are those men who, pushed far enough into disillusionment and despair, decide to push back with full force and embark on a murder-suicide shooting rampage as their final protest against the society that made their lives unlivable. We may yet see some Western men take it upon themselves to punish feminist behavior in our streets and public spaces on a day-to-day basis. What with the oversensitivity of our cultural climate to misinterpreting any mention of violence as a call to it, I feel a need to state unequivocally that I am not encouraging violent action against feminists here, but only stating as fact what is happening today and making a prediction regarding what may happen in the future.
4. Educating Women – Little effort is currently being made by men to educate women about the error of their feminist ways, and very few women are inclined to listen. As women come to face more and more abandonment and violence from the growing number of disillusioned men, more and more of them will be forced to look beyond feminism for solutions, and this approach will become more effective and very important for the building of a better society.

Feminist society is inherently unsustainable because it functionally encourages all of these strategies, and therein contains the seeds of its own destruction. A sadly forgotten fact among today’s generation of women is that they survive only on the good humor of men, who, whether in the guise of husbands, fathers, taxpayers or police, have always been and will likely always be the only thing standing between women and a swift and brutal death. The fundamental contract between the sexes is based on women making themselves worth the trouble by giving men something in return for this favor. It might be possible to conceive of a society in which women could enjoy a decent standard of living even without the willing help of men, but any sequence of events that could lead the Western world to such a state of affairs in the near future appears astronomically unlikely. The fact is that quality of life for women, as a group, depends to a great extent on men’s kindness, and that kindness is predicated on the women not pissing the men off too much. Until recently there’s been a healthy buffer of male goodwill towards women keeping society in balance. It’s been known by names like chivalry and gentlemanly conduct, and expressed in myriad written and unwritten rules like the ubiquitous “never hit a girl” we all learned as children, but the major portion of it doesn’t have a name and can only be described as an overarching tendency to always treat women a bit better than other men. The now aging generation of women has used up a major chunk of that collective male goodwill – they’ve partied with abandon on credit, leaving the bill to their daughters. At the current rate, the amount of kindness-reducing behavior among the female population is fast approaching “too much”, and when it reaches that point where the male population as a collective entity has had enough and “general public male opinion” switches from being pro-feminist to being anti-feminist, things will change very rapidly indeed.
Most men are by default more than willing to discuss things and find cooperative solutions that benefit everyone, but faced with someone who refuses to do that and is intent on getting her own way no matter who gets hurt, most men are also perfectly willing to control such a danger by force. The unwillingness of feminists to engage in rational cooperation is eventually going to lead men to give up on trying to talk to them as equals and instead unilaterally decide that the party is over and it’s time for feminists to shut up and cook dinner. It is in the best interests of both men and women to shape a future in which women voluntarily let go of feminist stubbornness and cooperate with men for the greater benefit of all involved, rather than be forced to submit. When women realize that these are the only two options and that the feminist utopia they’ve been taught to expect is a practical impossibility, they will fall in line very quickly.
The future holds many exciting possibilities:

1. Western society weakens under irrational feminist policies and its population is absorbed into a culture with stronger values, such as Islam.
2. As a result of withdrawn male support in the form of labor and economic production, the economic safety net collapses and women are forced to abandon feminism and learn to please men in order to be provided for. With no working social security system, we get to join the third world with skyrocketing crime rates, consequent rampant corruption and a reduced standard of living for all but the most ruthless robber barons.
3. Men in law enforcement professions become disillusioned with increasingly irrational feminist rape and domestic abuse laws and start turning a blind eye, consequently also removing the sensible protections women have enjoyed by law since the dawn of civilization and effecting de facto legalization of forceful control of women. The protection of women falls to the men in their lives, private citizens now forced to arm themselves and fight sexual competitors for women conquered as war trophies. Like the wild west, but a lot more crowded.
4. Women influenced by feminism realize their mistake and agree to cooperate in building a new system that benefits both sexes. Needless to say, this would be the best option for all involved, and the best we can say for the alternatives is that they have to exist in theory and, I fear, to some extent as examples before a major portion of feminists will realize the necessity of cooperation.

It should be the concern of any man or woman not wishing to live under Islamic law or in a new wild west on the ruins of a collapsed civilization to make sure that feminist women realize their mistake and are offered a cooperative solution out of the pit they’ve dug as soon as possible, before our society has descended into lawlessness. If the societal breakdown is allowed to happen, it will cause a lot of unnecessary suffering to all of us and be very hard to fix. To this end, I advocated reducing feminist ideas in women through peaceful and cooperative means in my previous article, The High Road. While a minority of readers expressed their appreciation for my suggestions in the comments, a much more vocal contingent of commenters criticized my approach as too moderate and voiced their own opinions to the effect that no communication should be had with any woman influenced by feminism. Given the ubiquity of feminist indoctrination in our society, I am mighty curious as to whether these men ever speak with their mothers, sisters, daughters or colleagues, and if they do, whether their behavior does justice to the positions they express with such gusto when safely behind their keyboards. If there is a man among them who has never talked to a feminist-influenced woman twice, he’s got my respect, and as for any who don’t meet the criterion upon which they found it appropriate to base their criticisms, they are cordially invited to give themselves a healthy slap in the face.
Feminism is everywhere, it cannot be avoided. Many of those very same men who would criticize polite disagreement as too soft can frequently be found sitting around offices and dining tables silently bearing witness to all manner of feminist chatter. This is a problem in the men’s movement – there are no signs of movement from the men who count: brothers, husbands, friends, etc. As long as the only opposition to feminist ideas a woman gets is from a keyboard halfway across the world while the men close to her shut up, smile, and direct all their own frustrations toward other computer screens on the other side of the world, the chances for her to change are not great. Someone on the internet may disapprove of her treatment of men, but all the men in her life seem to be accepting it without so much as a peep! Who would you believe?
Speaking our minds to feminist-influenced women only when we’re sitting at our keyboards or boycotting feminism only in those people who are so unimportant to our lives that we cut them out without a second thought is shamefully, pitifully, laughably insignificant. It is in our personal lives where our efforts count. If you are ever going to effect an involuntary change in anyone, it will be in people who absolutely cannot ignore you, because all those who can, will. If you are willing to tell your mother and your daughter to pack up the delusions they picked up in college and leave your life forever, I have no issue with that, but I doubt men who would do this are many even in these circles. If instead you stay quiet and let them broadcast their delusions unopposed and unanimously reinforce each others’ superiority complexes, you are behaving like less than a man and should feel bad. If you are like most of the audience here – just a guy, just disappointed, not ready to wreck your life even for a good cause and yet not content with standing idly by doing nothing while injustice is rife all around you – for you, there is The High Road. No apologizing, no hiding of your views, no fighting with your friends and family, just realizing that your goals are ultimately best for everyone and repackaging your true cause as a concerned appeal to her self-interest. For best results, the men’s movement needs both good cops and bad cops. Someone has to raise the cost of being a feminist, and someone has to offer women an enticing opportunity for defection.
The basis of feminism is unabashed selfishness, and women will hold onto it exactly as long as they perceive it to be their best option. If we let them believe that it’s “us vs. them” and we’re not taking prisoners, they can hold onto it until no woman is left standing and maybe they can take freedom of religion, social security and/or democratic rule of law down with them. This would obviously be bad for everyone. While a better option for women to defect to is not being made widely available, desperate women are going to cling to their sinking ship.
Where we end up is our choice to make, but we have to start making it now. The law of Islam, the law of the jungle, or a new law for men and women to peacefully coexist in a society that recognizes, understands and fulfills the different needs of both. Feminism will go down, and peacefully, cooperatively, violently or indifferently, you will be involved in burying it. There will be educators and rebels, agitators and bystanders, there will be objectors, defectors, killers and mediators. All will play their parts in the inevitable disassembling of feminist society, but what we really need are those who can help us build a decent future after it’s gone.

---

The author took care in writing this piece, considering its implications and limitations, and hopes that those who might disagree in the comments make a similar effort .

Send a note to Tom Leykis, Score 4 Bucks For AVfM Radio..

I need you to just pursue this small request from Paul Elam at the "A Voice for Men" site and contact Tom Leykis so 4 dollars will be donated to the cause. Paul will commence the AVfM Blog Radio program from 1 march 2011 at 9pm EST (US) and it promises to be a major event on the MRA calendar and timescale..

After completing that request, please paste a comment stating it, onto Paul's site here.. in order to collect the funds..
Or better still, DONATE ten bucks..

Paul Elam
February 25th, 2011 - 21:20

No, FOUR dollars will be contributed in your name. Cumbria has offered to match all of KARMA’s donations.

Send A note to Tom Leykis, score 2 bucks for AvfM Radio.
By Paul Elam

The ever resourceful and persistent KARMA has once again pitched in with more than his share of help for A Voice for Men. This time, he has pledged to ante up two dollars for every message sent to Tom Leykis about the new AVfM Radio program set to debut Tuesday night at 9:00 EST on Blog Talk Radio.
And here is the deal.  After buying a $2,500.00 BTR membership, a new laptop dedicated to the show, condenser microphones, filters, voice modification software, backups for everything, and quite of few other related expenses, we DO need the continued funding.  So let me ask you to help us out here by FLOODING Mr. Leykis with messages. It just takes a minute, and you can do it by simply clicking

Tom Leykis Contact adress here

I just sent mine, as follows:

Hey Mr. Leykis,

Ma boys and me are firing up a Blog Talk Radio show called A Voice for Men. I’m the host, Paul Elam, founder of avoiceformen.com and former Editor-in-Chief for mensnewsdaily.com. avoiceformen.com is tracking toward 1 million hits a year; steadily growing.

Suffice it to say that almost all of my readers, and future listeners, are huge fans of yours.  We’re hated by pretty much the same people, too. I've been dogged by the New York Times, CBS News and Ms. Magazine.

My readers were more than generous, donating a nice bag-o-cash to help me get things started.  And the fundraising continues in some very creative ways. A reader just now offered two dollars a throw for every message sent to you regarding the new show. This is my two bucks worth for the million dollar man himself.

That would be you.

Please keep up your great work, and if you get a chance visit blogtalkradio.com/avoiceformen any time after Tuesday, March 1, 2011 and give us a listen.

Kind regards,

Paul Elam

A Voice for Men Radio, avoiceformen.com

Thanks again to KARMA who never stops working for this movement.

Global Warmists Suffering the "King Canute Syndrome"..

Gotta confess to being a "Global Warming denier" or in their words " a flat earth denier". Penny Wong ( Lesbian, feminist (ofcourse) and former Climate Change Minister) lives and breathes the global warming hysteria like a child demanding that she has to play too. Lunacy and hysteria in following a false religion does not rest far from feminists either. Both loosing credibility and will inevitable be buried along side that grand joke like the K2 bug and the useless wind power generators, the alternative mains power replacement option..

She was shafted from that position more due to incompetence and the lack of ability to convince the Australian public of the grand lie..

Both these women below demonstrate their total ignorance while they wallow down that dead end alley..

Hippie of the week is Australian politician Penny Wong. Wong is currently Finance Minister to Julia ‘the whine’ Gillard, but was the first Aussie to hold the position of Minister for Climate Change. You can call it the Canute file, I do. Although Wong has had no official part of climate since her shuffle to the bean counter room, she retains an interest in advancing the global warming debate by engaging hearts and minds. Which is why she called skeptics ‘flat-earthers‘. Oh wait, nevermind.

The Daily Bayonet, aptly named site has been demonstrating clearly why everyone requires a constant reminder of at least checking the facts for yourself less you too, suffer from the "King Canute Syndrome"..

Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Feb. 24th 2011

from The Daily Bayonet by dailybayonet

CSI: NOAA fingerprints a snowstorm, mercury causes bipolar disorder at the EPA and the world can finally buy the cardboard computer it craves. The hippie of the week is a Aussie and the hottie of the week is a Texan.  Life doesn’t get much better than this. Part One: Hippie of the Week Hippie of the week is [...]

Not only does the Daily Bayonet disclose the facts but it also display the current "hottie" of the week and who doesn't mind a bit of eye candy ?

Rape is EVERYWHERE..

Rape Seed Crop, Rape is everywhere

Rape is everywhere according to feminists and their determination to keep the money flowing to their hysterical and financially beneficial self-created industry..

We have ongoing and endless accusations that anyone wielding an appendage including your six month old son is, or will be or is going to be or is planning to be or will eventually without doubt rape someone within the next sixty minutes and half of the population of the world (THREE BILLION women) will be affected if they fail to warn all and sundry of these well established and totally discredited fallacies..

Personal Safety Survey ( First national personal safety survey released: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Latest ISSUE Released at 11:30 AM (CANBERRA TIME) 21/08/2006 )..

It keeps the abuse industry happily rolling down the road to billions more in funds..

Now we have some exposure concerning the male-haters and hopefully clear up a few if not all misconceptions the feminists hegemony have been keen to foment to their benefit ofcourse as it has nothing to do with women, only their doctrine..

This article from The Spearhead..

Why Men Don’t Rape

In case there are still any doubters, Raype Culture – the notion that all men are rapists by the fact of their birth, is well and truly upon us. The only defense I feel any compulsion to offer against this abomination is that the overwhelming majority of men who live, have lived, and will live, won’t, have never, and will never, have sexual intercourse with a woman against her will. That is, they’re not, have never been, and will never be, rapists. If you want to know why men who rape rape – that’s r-a-p-e, I’m sorry but I can’t help you – I’m not a rapist. Nor, as the odds overwhelmingly suggest, are most men. This essay is about men, not rapists.

The other thing to establish from the outset is that just as non-rapists are not rapists, men are not women, so one needs to separate masculinity from femininity, and both from the sexual politics that keep them in healthy tension. Any indictment of all men as potential rapists is automatically eliminated from the discourse because it can only be held in tension with the equally incorrect assertion that all women are potential cuckolds. Since referring to both men and women monolithically is equally unreasonable, when I refer to women in this essay, I mean most women.

And another from AVfM..

Scourge of Rape. Yeah, whatever.

By Paul Elam

I want to have a T-shirt made. “I Survived Rape Hysteria,” it will read. It will come with a special ribbon the color of bullshit that can be pinned on other clothing or put on the bulletin board at your local grocery store. Then I will pass them out to every man, woman and child in the western world.

We’ll have all sorts of fundraisers and political events so we can make more T-shirts and ribbons. We can start with a rape PSA marathon. You can ask donors to pledge a given amount of dollars for every hour you sit tied up in a chair, forced to watch an endless stream of public service announcements designed to spark your outrage at the oh so egregiously violated victims of rape. Perhaps they can pay by the tear, whether you’re crying over the victims or over their screeching and caterwauling.

We’ll make posters and bumper stickers of little baby feminists and caption them with “Rape Hysteria Begins with Her.” And we will appeal to the psychiatric establishment for a new diagnosis, Sexual Assault Whining Empathy Disorder, maybe give it a catchy acronym like SAWED and take that to the media and raise money for the victims of the pernicious and debilitating newfangled disorder.

And then we’ll take every biased, shamelessly politicized study and book on the subject of rape and have us a bonfire. We’ll gather round the flames and chant like Hare Krishna’s. We’ll do shots and howl at the moon; maybe watch a few careers go up in smoke while we are at it.

Male Feminists 4: Lunatics Running the Asylum..

Anyone having had the experience of visiting any male feminist's site would not only be disgusted and appalled but must wonder where the hell they derive their meme from. Why are they so possessed by the feminist mantra and why do they attack their own sex without actually comprehending that they are making a laughing stock of themselves..

As I stated in my MP3's, it's beyond my comprehension, maybe you can figure it out if it really requires any conscious thought that is..

So here we have examples of those lunatic activities while they promote themselves as heroes of the hate movement that is feminism but meanwhile behave in precisely the same fashion that they claim all men behave..

Feminists really need to remove the cancerous affect they have on this already lunatic doctrine. They are not helping in any way, shape or form. They plunge the hate doctrine into an even deeper chasm that it wallows in already..

Supporting male feminists is not only stupid but hypocritical..

Hat tip to Johan
After our members posted comments about how to analyze the psyche of male feminists (mF), let me expose the life-style of some of them. MRAs face critiques from male feminists (mF) cheered by radical feminists every day on the internet.

I do not link to them, but we all know about whom I am speaking.

----------

mF K. (USA)

K. was a rape crisis advocat, his aggressive blog was accusing MRAs to be violent assholes and into pornography.
He was sentenced to jail for sexual assault 2008, and out on parole jailed again for owning child pornography 2010.
His male feminist blog is still up, but no new postings seen at this moment. A single man, outsider.

----------

mF H. (USA)

H. was sent 6 times against his will to the loony bin and forced to calm down using strong medication, he is divorced 3 times and gives advice what men can do for a happy marriage and men not accepting his advices are plainly stupid.

----------

mF A. (USA)

He is overweight, nothing is known about him which can be considered as family life, has a major in women's studies, is totally out of money because of his worthless studies, is drawing comics and near to bankruptcy he sold his pro-feminist website to a pornographer.

----------

mF J. (USA)

Divorced, 1 child, under medication, ADHD (Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) writes derogatory articles claiming MRAs are promoting rape and assault, suffering of prostate cancer, but thinks only women need medical care - for example abortion - free of charge.

----------

mF D. (USA)

Newcomer from somewhere, nothing known about any family life, sexual orientation unclear, hates MRAs and generally everything related to men, signs up with fakeIDs in several MRA related forums, considers himself as self-appointed AMRA (Anti-Men's Rights Activist)

Last but not least. Here we have the "Man boobz" clown which I exposed in earlier posts, responding on his blog as follows..

Hat tip to Coldfire "He made the incredibly stupid decision yesterday to vouch for Amanda Marcotte and defend her vicious libel of the Duke Lacrosse players AFTER the charges against them were dropped. Then he made the even stupider decision to assert that Marcotte based her assertion on actual evidence and wrote about that evidence. Naturally I demanded that he link to the post in which Marcotte discusses that supposed evidence, and he couldn't produce it because he was full of shit".

Link 1..

Link 2..

Link 3

Where have All the Good Men Gone II..

I do come across some rather funny and interesting comments to articles and posts on the vast range of sites I visit..

One particular comment came along the lines of "Divorced Women should carry a warning sign" and one even suggested that it should be in the way of a tattoo akin to the much lauded "barcode" on the back of the neck, like in the "movies"..

But as sure as "our birth certificate carries a use-by date", this will not happen ofcourse even though it may even be practical as well as useful..

I am surprised though on the amount of women who claim to have married anywhere up to eight times and ofcourse increased her assets every time she filed for divorce. Hey, why not, it's worth the effort..

The other issue that rises from these shredded marriages is the fact that men will line up just to be screwed again(Is this the line to get screwed, oh look it's moving). How many "famous" people have you read about lately who are quite willing to head down to the alter after being screwed in another nasty divorce, there must obviously be some type of automatic "forget the pain" response as the "this one will be better" attitude flotates or is it imprinted on our DNA chip which obviously excludes any memory function..

This ofcourse leads me to this topic from the WSJ (Wall Street Journal

Where Have The Good Men Gone?

Kay S. Hymowitz argues that too many men in their 20s are living in a new kind of extended adolescence. Link..

As usual, whenever any woman, be it journalist or not, goes off into another rant about how "women are doing it so hard",  it's always them menz fault, you notice! Meanwhile, and I was surprised to see this article on the Huffypost in response to Hyperwitch..

Hymowitz says young men should wake up and realize that "marriage is a financial arrangement, not just about finding a soulmate." Certainly. But evolutionary psychology tells us this is a colder splash of reality for women's faces than for men's.

As near as I can tell, 1965 was the last year in which the Average American Woman thought, "Joe is kind of dorky and he's a little overweight, but he's really sweet and he cares about me. I think he'd be a good provider for a family. And I'm 23 already and I certainly don't want to be the last single girl in my circle."

1965 was also the last year that Joe, the Average American Male, figured he needed to put on a clean shirt and buy a wedding ring in order to get laid.

Once a woman didn't need a man to provide for her and once a man didn't need marriage to get sex, everything inexorably changed. But are any unpleasant side-effects for women truly the fault of men?

She has the temerity to claim that her article is here to advantage men but all I can see is another male bashing article written by another victimhood queen..

Other bloggers are in on the act as well, such as the following one which appears to be quite reasonable but again, another female and another "women are really the victims here" line although I question the sense or reality of this comment..

For the women who unquestionably adhere to what society has for so many decades expected of them..

That comment has more holes than any colander I have used. I wonder how she would explain the behavior of Paris Hilton, knicker-less Spears and associated copycats, female drug addicted actors or fellow shoplifters setting the tone for today's shallow party addicts and hookup girls. Anyway, her post is worth a read if you possess as certain level of patience..

The Men's Movement is Unstoppable..

A very good expose on the Men's Movement per se. In this article we have a position and explanation on how the Men's Movement has become a force to be reckoned with and no longer to be ignored, not just a band of malcontents deciding that yesteryear was perfect but recognising the obvious fact that men are angry, appalled and disgusted with the way we are being treated and the continual and ongoing capitulation to "all things woman", add to that the total capitulation to feminist doctrine by law makers and politicians, ignoring our basic fundamental rights and freedoms. We demand to be treated according to the basic rule of law and no longer be classed as third class citizens (women first,children second and men last)..

There are so many biases in action they are too numerous to mention here at this moment but they are a reality even though they have been ignored but are legitimate even though constant denial and misinformation surfaces claiming the opposite..

Look back 10 years ago and you would have assumed that the Men's Movement was just a screaming toddler in nappies, refusing to stop screaming about injustices but now we emerge as the thinking and planning young adult, planning his future and that action and plan is not going to be waylaid by any opposing force or the so called "good intentioned" indoctrinated false teachers determined to waylay our inevitable outcome by trying as they have for years to discredit us in every way possible..

We are coming of age and nothing, even possible Armageddon will reduce our focus..

Christianity, Patriarchy and the MRM

from The Spearhead by Novaseeker

There has been quite a bit of nonsense written recently around this corner of the internet regarding the relationship between Christianity, and its patriarchal value system, on the one hand, and the men’s rights agenda, on the other.  Specifically, claims are being made here, for example, to the effect that because the men’s rights activist community (MRAs) is a diverse group which includes many secularists who embrace various aspects of the contemporary “liberal” (classical or progressive) scene, it is therefore to be shunned as worthless, and traditional Christians, at least, should avoid participating in it.
This is an understandable, yet fundamentally misguided view, for the following reasons.

• MRA is neither a religion nor a political party. The MRA community is not organized around a specific ideological agenda or religious belief or identity system.  It is organized around one basic idea: improving the lives of men in the here and now real world, in brass tacks terms.  What does that mean?  It means that MRAs are all over the map in terms of ideological disposition, religious affiliation (or none), and political engagement.  What unites MRAs is a common sense that men are not being given a fair deal in the real world, and that men need to share ideas about how best to rectify this situation.

• MRA is about practical issues facing men. This means that the MRA world is primarily focused on the following:  what problems men are facing in our society currently and what can men do, collectively and individually, about these problems.  It is a pragmatic focus, and one which, of necessity, transcends ideological and religious convictions.

• MRA does not offer “one size fits all” solutions to men. Because the MRA is a diverse group, the solutions that men within the MRA community come up with for the various problems facing men are also diverse.  In other words, MRA does not propose that all men do “X”.  Rather it offers varied solutions to men based on their own personal situations, and personal ideological/religious commitments, all with a view to alleviating or mitigating the problems that all men face in the current social, legal and cultural environment.  It’s claimed by some in the traditionalist and Christian communities, for example, that MRA is insistent that no men marry.  There are certainly some MRAs who are insistent about that, but this kind of blanket statement about MRA as a whole overlooks the many married MRAs who propose no such thing, and instead propose other solutions for men who are inclined, for religious or other personal reasons, to seek marriage with a woman.  Again, the MRA is a clearinghouse of strategies for men given the current social, cultural and legal situation that we face – it is not a one-size fits all “programme” which advises all men to follow the same path.

For a Christian who is engaged in the MRA community, it’s clear that there are things that are expressed in the MRA community that are not Christian.  But this should be no more surprising to a Christian than the fact that what he might encounter in a political party, or other non-religion-based group, may also be inconsistent with Christianity.  That’s because neither MRA nor a political party is a religious organization, but rather is something that brings people together, regardless of their religious commitments (or none) around common ideas or problems.  In the case of political parties, this commonality is increasingly a political ideological commitment.  In the case of MRA, the commonality is the shared experience of the difficulties men face in the current environment, together with the conviction that by banding together to share ideas, experiences, and strategies, we can enhance the ability of all of us to avoid some of the worst pitfalls the current environment throws at men, while nevertheless pursuing whatever goals any particular man may have in life, be they based on religion or something else.  The specific ideas, strategies and solutions offered, however, are diverse – as one would expect in any group which draws people around an idea or an issue, rather than around an identity.
So, the solutions offered in the MRA community run the gamut from “men going their own way” (which can either be secular or religious, by the way), to “pick-up artists” (which, again, can be used in various ways), to “running married game” (the idea being to maintain happy marriages and avoid divorces) to political activism (changing the laws that impact male/female relationships to be more fair) and beyond.  These solutions are inherently contradictory because no man is expected to pursue all of them!  The idea is to be a clearinghouse for different kinds of approaches based on what a particular man seeks to get out of life – which in turn will be informed by his own ideological, cultural, personal, and religious orientation, something he brings to the MRA and keeps with him thereafter.
In reality, this is not very different from the experience of belonging to a political party.  I know many Christians who are Republicans and many Christians who are Democrats.  I don’t know very many of them who, despite their political ideological commitments, agree with everything either party stands for, or who agree with everything every other member of their party says or advocates.  Yet they remain in their political parties because that kind of diversity of views does not obscure what holds them in common – and it isn’t religion (Christians being represented pretty well in both parties).  This kind of “well I don’t like what some people in that party say, therefore I can’t be a member” isn’t something that most Christians – whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox – really consider very much when picking a political side.  It’s taken as a given, rather, that much of what each party holds will be, to some degree, inconsistent with this or that aspect of Christianity, because these parties are, after all, broader coalitions of people who are Christian and not Christian, and are not organized around Christianity as such (at least not normally).  The MRA is similar to this in that a certain amount of what is advocated in terms of personal solutions for men is not consistent with Christian teaching, in the form of specific solutions, but these are not the specific solutions Christians will generally pick from the clearinghouse.  Instead, Christians will pick other solutions that generally suit their own life goals and orientation, based on their faith, from the MRA clearinghouse of strategies.  And they will not feel alienated from other MRAs who pick other strategies because what binds them together is not the individual coping strategies that they select, but, again, the underlying, common conviction that men face daunting and novel difficulties in the current social, legal and cultural environment, and that all men can do better in this life, in practical terms, by sharing experiences, ideas, and strategies.
Therefore, the notion that Christians, or traditional Christians (or what have you), should shun MRA is not only wrong, but is terribly bad advice for the men who are Christian or traditionalist Christian and yet are suffering in the current environment.  No traditionalist Christian church is really going to give a man advice as to how to maintain his marriage, in brass tacks rather than pie in the sky terms, given the cultural messages that even his devout Christian wife is constantly bombarded by, for example.  No traditionalist Christian church is going to tell men what actually attracts women in the current climate (yes, including traditionalist Christian women).  No traditionalist Christian church is going to lobby the state governments to change the family law, as Glenn Sacks and his group do tirelessly on behalf of all men (oh gosh, Glenn is actually politically liberal, which I guess to a traditionalist means he is undeserving of their support despite all of his hard work on behalf of all kinds of men, including traditionalist Christian men).   Rather traditionalist Christian men could benefit greatly by participating in the MRA community, in pragmatic ways that their churches are simply not in a position, or even inclined, it would seem, to provide.
One final note.  It’s often claimed by traditionalists – Christian and otherwise – that the MRA is a tiny, insignificant group compared to the robust, fecund traditionalist community.  I think this is a big misperception.  MRA is growing by leaps and bounds these days, especially among younger men.  It isn’t an “organized movement”, but rather a set of ideas that is now in quite wide circulation.  Just 5-10 years ago, the kinds of memes addressed by the MRA community about the current situation and environment were not widely present to any significant degree in the public discourse.  That has changed to a substantial degree, a recent example being the interesting comment thread at Kay Hymowitz’s Wall Street Journal op-ed this past weekend, where a huge number of the comments reflected MRA memes to one degree or other.  In fact, MRA memes are catching on to such a degree that it’s clearly bigger than the very small traditionalist community, despite the latter’s presumed fecundity (often overstated because many traditionalists are white hairs).  This makes sense, because MRA is not tied to any political or religious commitment, but rather to the common, shared experience of men – a very broad commonality indeed.  Therefore, these kinds of claims about MRA being insignificant as compared with traditionalism are rather misplaced and, to me at least, represent wishful thinking rather than the actual facts on the ground, as it were.
*Dislcaimer:  The author is a layman of the Eastern Orthodox Church.