What is it all about ?..

Gormless Wimp or Jessica Valenti's Bitch..

Feminists and their male lackeys (commonly known as manginas) are besides themselves as they realise a number of things are happening that is basically beyond their control. Pathways are being laid where Men are finding their own aims and goals and it does not include the feminist utopia of re-manufacturing each and every male into some gormless wimp, solely cow-towing to their nefariously adopted schemes and aims for mankind..

Needless to say that this topic is at the very heart of gender feminists outcomes that is well beyond their control regardless of how hard they try..

By Cobus Fourie

In 1993, the 4 Non Blondes had a huge international hit with their song titled ‘What’s up?’ Linda Perry, the vocalist and songwriter, sings in the first phrase: ‘I realised quickly when I knew I should that the world was made up of this brotherhood of man for whatever that means…” The song’s chorus furthers asks the pivotal question: what’s going on? The question is obviously rhetorical but moreover a statement of discontent.

Linda Perry became a songwriter mostly after her band split up and she was the person behind Christina Aguilera’s hit song ‘Beautiful’ which in its music video had the theme of self-acceptance and portrayed a gay couple kissing and a transvestite. The conclusion is obvious – acceptance of the fringe, acceptance of the ‘other’.

I fear that in terms of acceptance we are starting to take one giant leap backwards. And by ‘we’ I mean the so-called men’s movement.

There seems to be a phenomenon rearing its evil head. All around the world men lead by other self-appointed preachers and moral leaders are revolting against feminism and claiming back their god ordained place in society as head of the house et cetera all under the auspices of religious dogma. They call this the so-called men’s movement.

This resurgence and revolt against feminism is proliferating at a rapid speed and I fear that in terms of human rights we will be back in the dark Middle Ages.

The patriarchy thinks in terms of binary oppositions or dichotomies depending on which nomenclature you prefer: Male versus female or the ‘one’ versus the ‘other’.

I was always flabbergasted when heterosexual people always wanted to know the butch and femme in homosexual relationships. It is just a manifestation of the obsession with dichotomies and the patriarchy’s utter disregard for equality and the notion of the subservience of the female. Certain heterosexuals and of course the patriarchy, par excellence, continue to impose these constructs upon everyone else to simplify their lives. This is also known as good old-fashioned stereotyping.

As James Dobson was quoted in the New York Times: “tolerance and its first cousin diversity is almost always code for homosexual advocacy.” It seems the patriarchy has a huge gripe with tolerance and diversity. It just doesn’t quite fit into their strict dichotomies.

Now more about James Dobson: he is the founder of the Focus on the Family Foundation and has been spitting out conservative drivel since 1977. Note that James Dobson is no reverend/priest/minister or religious scholar but a psychologist with a very clear ulterior motive. Note also that the Focus on the Family Foundation produces ready-to-play radio programmes, an almost prêt-à-porter of the broadcast industry. Also note that the vast majority of South African community radio stations naively broadcast these conservative drivel much to the astonishment of the progressive community. Our nation is built on tolerance and diversity; our coat of arms says ‘unity in
diversity’ after all. Now why do these radio stations propagate division?

James Dobson also went on the most illogical tirade about the innocent and very likable cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants. He was widely quoted that said character was a product of the pink agenda (inferring gay mafia connotations) and maintains that SpongeBob SquarePants will pollute the minds of the young and feed them pro-homosexual messages.

The feminists and the LGBT community have a common enemy in the patriarchy and its utter disregard for the rights of the ‘other’, this ‘other’ being everyone except the heterosexual, cisgender male. I did a simple Google search on ‘the evils of the patriarchy’ and to my astonishment most results lead to websites that proclaim the evil of feminism and the foundation of their dislike is ‘the bible tells us so’. Ever since the advent of the modern constitutional democracy, there has been the vital and clear separation between church and state. Otherwise, politically we would be back in the Middle Ages.

The problem with the patriarchy is that it is the basis of many cultures and it is sanctioned by religious texts hence it still being in practice today. The patriarchy imposes its strict dichotomies on everyone else thus subverting the rights of everyone but the heterosexual, cisgender male. The patriarchy also has no tolerance for equality and firmly believes in the subservience of the ‘other’ (historically the female). The patriarchy regards women and the LGBT community as lesser persons and would not very much like to grant them equal rights.

Rosemarie Putnam Tong, author of Feminist Thought, writes the following: “Simone de Beauvoir provided an ontological-existential explanation for women’s oppression. In The Second Sex, one of the key theoretical texts of the twentieth century feminism, she argued that woman is oppressed by virtue of her otherness. Woman is the other because she is not-man.” Tong also states: “They claim woman’s otherness enables individual women to stand back and criticise the norms, values, and practices that the dominant male culture (patriarchy) seeks to impose on everyone, particularly those who live on its periphery”

Amelia Jones, author of Feminism, Incorporated. Reading “postfeminism” in an antifeminism age, has the following to say: “The recent resuscitation of this patriarchal fantasy by the right – under the guise of ‘family values’ – is a symptom of the massive anxiety of the patriarchal system, a reaction formation against the threatening incursion of women into the work force and, more recently, the political arena.” Jones continues: “With the cultural authority of anglo masculinity becoming increasingly bankrupt as gay, feminist, and non-white cultures insistently articulate counter-identities to this imaginary norm, the patriarchal commodity system urgently seeks to reinforce predictable stereotypes of femininity… The properly postfeminist woman shores up the crumbling infrastructure of conservative American ideology during a time of economic crisis and confirms the ‘rightness’ of Republicanism, with its moralizing intervention in personal relations and the destruction of the civil rights of women, lesbians, gays, blacks, and others.”

Jones then explores the heart of this topic: “The other side of the postfeminist coin is the so-called ‘men’s movement.’ Inspired by Robert Bly’s book Iron John (1990) the men’s movement appropriates and perverts the rhetoric of feminism to urge the contemporary American male to ‘find a voice of [his] own’ as a ‘Wild Man.’ Bly laments the feminization of the American male at the hands of his female caretakers, and calls for the extirpation of this spineless femininity through primitivist histrionics and rituals of male bonding. The “Wild Man” immerses himself in mother nature and beats the appropriated drums of his ‘primitive’ brothers with big sticks to prove to himself that … his ability to dominate is intact. As with the frantic declarations of the supposed death of the feminist subject, the fact that masculinity (again, aggressively heterosexual and almost exclusively anglo and upper middle-class) needs to be shored up proves again how intense is the threat the vast numbers of working women of all sexual, racial, and class identities currently pose to the patriarchal system (not to mention the threat posed by the increasingly powerful identity politics of the non-heterosexual male).”

Just as these excerpts explain the situation in the USA, so these notions have shown up here in South Africa as well. Think of those “Man Camp conferences”. It is sad, immensely frightening, and utterly detrimental to the egalitarian society we want to build here.

Lastly, now I want to ask that anthem of a question that Linda Perry asked about seventeen years ago: what’s going on?

References:

Jones, A. (Ed). 2003. The Feminism and Visual Culture Reader. Routledge
Tong, R. P. 1998. Feminist Thought. A more comprehensive introduction. Westview Press

  Interesting range of topics and issues that feminists preferably hoped didn't exist and they try to manipulate all and sundry with their gender reconstruction outcomes..

Some responses from the more sensible thought provokers as they grapple with this..

Ragnar

The Wild Man she's talking about is exactly a man going his own way, becoming a "whole man", so to speak, instead of the "socially constructed feman". Such a man will naturally bond, be allied with men, with whom he shares his lifes interests and goals.
In other words she is talking about the civilised man, the creator of societies. The only primate who managed to escape the animal kingdom, well ... that's execpt for having to bring his biological counterpart with him.

Cloaca

The Men's Movement is a movement much like "people don't want to get cheated" is an attitude.
If you want to stop it, you have to stop men from talking and thinking.
Judging by how much women enjoy modern life and the many conveniences it brings - conveniences that were brought about by men talking and thinking (and still doing so), I might add -
you can't stop the Men's Movement.

K..

Slate, the Good Manginas Project, Alternet, Ms. Magazine, etc. The Mens movement has gained visibility we could not even have fathomed just 10 years ago. The FemBots are worried. They should be. The truth is that Men are boycotting Marriage, relationships and especially Feminized Women in record numbers. The Beta Males who the FemBots are marrying are wusses who they do not respect. The Men who are untamed and will not cave scare them.

This is more proof that they are losing the hearts and minds of Men. Our outreach to those outside our movement must grow and increase. The insular community of the Men in the Men's Rights movement must continue to grow. The Mancession is adding fuel to the fire. That the newest DNC ChairWoman who is a Rabid Feminist. Is proof that the Dems are in bed with and married to the gender Feminists who practice Grievance or Victim Feminism. Most are clearly mentally unbalanced like Amanduh Marcotte. This was in fact a delight to read.

Also the word misandry in search on Twitter brings up a growing list of angry FemiFascists who want to silence Men who promote our legal standing. The truth is that the Men's movement is not about male dominance. As much as many would like it to be. Instead it is about us having any reasonable legal standing in our Republic, again.

The Balancing Act OR "How to speak Ameriskank"..

Fascinatng balancing act..

Just to add to the informational value of this post, we have the following variations on current words bought to you by some "Niceguys"..

MAN: Synonom for "Automated Banking Machine". "Cannon Fodder" and "Bodyguard"

MANBOY: A man who has other goals besides growing old with some broad and/or raising someone elses' kids

PEDOPHILE: 1. Any adult male who is attracted to women who are feminine, youthful and virginal as opposed to used up old sluts 2. A man who is attracted to anyone younger than himself, including other adults (ie: a 30 year old man going for a 20 year old woman) 3. Any male over the age of 40 who has any kind of a sexuality.

NICE GUY: 1. Someone who is to be avoided because he lives a stable, healthy lifestyle, doesn't mistreat people, and isn't a reckless criminal. 2. Someone to run to after after you've been chewed up and spit out and no one else gives a shit about you.

FEMINISM: An idealogy stating that people born with a vagina are entitled to special rights simply because they were born with a vagina.

SEXISM: Gender discrimination when it happens to women

AFFIRMITIVE ACTION: Gender discrimination when it happens to men

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: The act of physically assaulting your spouse. Only a crime when it happens to women.

WIMP: Member of the male gender who refuses to lay down his life, well being or piece of mind, especially for womankind.

LOSER: 1. A man who doesn't make a million dollars a month, exercises his right to not have a girlfirend, is living at home with his parents beyond the age of 12, has ever played a videogame for more than five minutes, and who has other interests besides "hitting the clubs" 2. A man who has a receeding hairline, is short or has any other so-called "flaws" that they have no control over.

ASSHOLE: A man who points out to a woman, whether in words or in deeds, that not everything in this world revolves around her and that she should not, in fact, expect others to bend over backwards to cater to her whims. 

GAY: any man who rejects a physically attractive woman because of her abhorrent personality.

DANGEROUS: Any man who says a lot of the blame in society originated from the idea that women are never wanting in character, and the government measures that saved women from having to be responsible for their actions.

CRUEL: Any man who says women can be alone without him as life is too short to explain to your kids that they have a condition because of what mommy did before meeting daddy.  

Andrew Bolt: Slut Wave Feminism..

Here we have that smug, self righteous feminist twit on the Bolt Report trying to justify the new "Slut Wave Feminism" protests that people are still trying to comprehend. One does have to wonder where feminists went in this case, sanity was not obviously included in the thought process. All they needed was someone to make a hallowed "don't EVER criticise women" comment even when it's coddled with good intention and sound advice. But one can never claim feminists to be reasonable or even mildly capable of common sense, it's just not in the doctrine..

At least we can witness that this "protest" was an effort in futility and demonstrated clearly that they have so little to protest against that they will jump aboard anything that make them "feel" intruded upon. Childish or what..

Needless to say that this issue has raised the level of stupidity that feminists indulge in to an even greater height if possible and also raises a subject that the majority of the population has been thinking and witnessing ever the feminist "sexual revolution" started to take hold.

Oh, by the way ?

Have you witnessed an increase of "Slut Wear" available in your travel and outings. Did feminism actually encourage more women to indulge in this stupidity ?

The answer would be the same as most women wanting to be included on the feminist honor roll or be recognised as one of these insane, insignificant morons. The answer is ofcourse a resounding NO..

I think that most women are already well aware of the fact that "you are how you look" and this hissy fit from them is not going to change that..

Here is Andrew giving this feminists the short shrift..

Why Can't Women Handle Criticism (Verbotten)..

I am sure that most of you have come across the situation where any criticism of a female's behaviour towards another female is met with resistance, denial or mostly some well rehearsed excuse eg. "not herself, not feeling well, had an off day", etc, etc, etc..

It's almost like women constantly live in denial of their own bad behaviour or refusal to accept it or, and this may be the crux of the matter, their fragile ego refuses to even contemplate any negatives at all (maybe all that cattiness from their own make them hypersensitive)..
Feminists however have already declared women to be ignorant, stupid, incompetent and nowhere even near the ability of my sex. This is clearly demonstrated by their consistent efforts at lowering standards, set in place to ensure competency in given positions. Abilities which have to be tested to ensure the best for the job is available. Feminists (and women in general) argue the following without conscious thought even being applied, the fact that lowering standards just so women can climb aboard is an admission that women are incapable of competing on a level playing field..

Alcuin sums this up nicely..

Having a pleasant conversation with my parents over the phone, and then I mention a trouble-making sister-in-law of my wife's, here in Asia. Total silence from my mother, meant to cut short that line of thinking and change the conversation. A form of silent shaming on my mother's part. Yet, had I mentioned a trouble-making brother-in-law, uncle, or male co-worker, the conversation would have breezed along, with both parents adding their full insights.

But when a complaint, however minor, is made about a women, my mother clams up. Regardless of the circumstances. Or she will defend the woman. NAWALT, and so on. Give her another chance. She was having a bad day. Etc. (Link for More)..

 Ah yes, but that is not all there is. Objectify Chicks has to slowly explain the facts to another fembot..

So I am talking to this femtard. She assures me she is neither "doctrinaire" nor "extreme." She isn't a follower of the Femtard Goddess, Oprah, nor does she "hate men." She is a "reasonable" feminist.

So I say to her, "No, you are not a 'reasonable feminist.' Nobody on earth is a 'reasonable feminist' because nobody has ever become a feminist through reason. You are a feminist - to whatever degree - because of your emotions."

"That's the most outrageous thing I have ever heard in my life. I just believe that men and women are equal - that's not emotional, it's a fact." quoth my soon-to-be weeping femtard prey.

"Well," quoth I, "both you and the feminists say that you believe that men and women are equal. But here are two propositions that neither you nor feminists can argue with: first, there are NO facts which indicate that men and women are equal, and secondly, both you AND feminists believe that women are inferior to men."

"Feminists believe that women are inferior to men? You... you're...."

"Exactly," I said. "Listen, I hear your words. I hear you when you say 'Women can do anything that men can do.' I hear feminists say that as well. But I know you are all lying. Lemme ask you something: If women are capable of anything that men are capable of, then why have feminists spent the last 30 years trying to lower standards in the military (for both admission and promotion) so that more women can do what men have already been doing for hundreds of years? If women are capable of doing anything that men are capable of doing, why have feminists spent the last 30 years trying to lower standards in police forces and fire brigades so that more women can get jobs that men have already been doing for hundreds of years? If women are capable of everything that men are capable of, why have feminists spent the last 30 years trying to lower standards of admission - specifically for women, not across the board - so that more women can be admitted to law school, medical school, and MBA programs?"

"Well, just because a woman can't do everything a man can do physically...."

The Ultimate Feminist Irony..

Sadly, not enough self confessing feminists have the moral or mental ability to realise that what they have been promoting will eventually come back and bite them in the arse in such a fashion that they are at a loss to comprehend it..

Here is one great example in the "reap what you sow" department.  Have I not been saying it..

We saw this in the case of Jesse Cheng, the college feminist activist who says he was falsely accused of rape.

You mean that you have reached the "women DO lie about rape" epiphany. Fascinating..

Now comes a heart-wrenching piece by a feminist mother whose son has been falsely accused of rape. Here is an excerpt:
. . . .
Despite no evidence, despite the fact that she is obviously a troubled woman, despite other attempts by her in the past to accuse people of hurting her in some way, despite her own admissions of wanting to sue others still, despite my son’s spotless record and the support of myriad women who have known him for years, the state has chosen to pursue this “case.”

Fascinating indeed as feminists raise ill-begotten sons according to the feminist religion and wonder why, oh WHY, were other people already stating this and I just refused to comprehend it, refused to accept it and continued with my head in the sand, just like all those other miscreants and drones who continually live in denial..

If you think that women don’t lie to get back at men, how naive can you be? Yet we live in a culture of “women don’t lie,” a culture fostered by women’s groups since the 70s. A culture I helped create and support. A philosophy I believed.

Because why would women lie? The process of coming forward, going through the legal system was so horrific, so humiliating, why in the world would a woman put herself through it?

 Because she can, dear. Because she has the almighty arm of feminised jurisprudence on her side and truth has nothing to do with it. Because the law has been trained and it's operators indoctrinally skewed to only take the side of the female and the female is always to be believed regardless of lack of witnesses, doctor's reports or evidence. They are accepted because that is the way feminists have manufactured it to be..

You have become part of the system that will see your son falsely accused, jailed and listed as a sex fiend. Thanks Mom..

Now there are women’s groups with a strong political voice. There are women in political office, policewomen, and so on. Men and women now are predisposed to believe women when they accuse someone of rape. It is sometimes a knee jerk reaction that we have not evaluated for its veracity. We have not wanted to hear that women sometimes lie. The system has supported all women even those who lie. They’ve made it easy for them. If it is proven that a woman has lied, they are not prosecuted. They are at most sent to counseling. And being a “victim” can be intoxicating to some. It can let them off the hook for being responsible for their own actions.

But who is going to protect our sons? We who were on the front lines in the 70s when things were bad for women, we have raised good sons. Men we are proud of. Who will stand up for them?

I am now appalled to think that I was one of these women who thought that women don’t lie…and where there smoke there’s always a fire. Despite having raised a beautiful son, I was a sexist. Then I started doing research. There have been studies done since the 80s citing the percentage of rape allegations that are false. Some studies say as high as 60%. People who have been dealing with this for years have tried to tell us that women do lie. But we haven’t wanted to hear. . . . .

Read the entire piece here: http://www.elephantj...lie--anonymous/

Slut Wave Feminism..

It would appear that Paul Elam may have coined a new phrase "Slut Wave Feminism" after the inane actions demonstrated by the fembots and their totally inane "leaders" on the topic of telling women that dressing like a slut may actually indicate that you are not really one. Notably, this comment given freely by a member of the Canadian Constabulary was sufficient for those male haters to venture out into the streets of quite a few cities in the west to demonstrate clearly that not only should women not be held accountable for their actions but also that free speech as we know it, should be squashed and reviled. Sadly, those trolls who participated  appear to be totally devoid of the meaning of their organised and sanctioned protest..

One can only stand back and be amazed at how far feminists and their lackeys will go to ensure the feminist doctrine is adhered to, women as far as they are concerned are only ever victims regardless what the end result of studies and research informs us as far as they are concerned, to be totally untrue. But as usual, truth is an inconvenience that feminists can totally live without..

The Slut Walk episode just demonstrates the ongoing anti-male attitude that rides a climax in today's media and the ongoing exposure that those compulsive zealots demands is always forthcoming..

Here is Paul's Radio Program looking at this topic with some very good background information and facts..

Also, sadly but true. This protest is all about the abolition of free speech and it will not only affect men in the long term but women as well..

A trite insignificance they will one day regret..

Listen to internet radio with AVoiceforMen on Blog

Talk Radio

'Slut Walk': feminist folly
This is idiocy, not liberation

May 12, 2011

Have you heard about the "slut walks" sweeping the globe?

No, they aren't being organized by frat boys. Quite the opposite: Thank the gals in the so-called feminist movement for this one.

Toronto, Ottawa, Boston, Dallas and London have all seen "slut walks" in recent weeks, with 24 more planned around the world. It was all spawned by a Toronto police officer's boneheaded comment at a January campus-safety forum that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized."

Women bear responsibility for their rapes? OK, anger at that notion is plenty righteous. So, the Toronto slut walk was born to demand respect for sexual-assault victims. But the idea that being a "slut" is a bad thing also raised ire -- it's why the Toronto organizers announced on their Web site that they were "tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming; of being judged by our sexuality. [We are] taking the [the word slut] back."
Walk of weirdness: Scantily clad 'feminists' romping against rape Saturday in Boston. More 'slut walks' are planned around the world. -
AP
Walk of weirdness: Scantily clad "feminists" romping against rape Saturday in Boston. More "slut walks" are planned around the world.

Just what the women of the world have been clamoring for: to call themselves sluts.

No wonder a 2008 Daily Beast poll found that just 20 percent of women call themselves "feminists," and only 17 percent would want their daughters to use the label.

Want to cringe some more? A Slut Walk Boston organizer told a reporter, "We are using these efforts to reclaim the word 'slut.' " So at one event after another, women held up signs saying, "Proud Slut," "Sluts Say Yes" and "Slut Pride." They marched in bras and fishnet stockings, some with the word "slut" scrawled on their bodies with lipstick.

And slut-supporting men beamed in their "I love sluts" T-shirts. You bet they do.

In Boston, feminist writer Jaclyn Friedman bellowed, "Today we all march under the banner of sluthood!" In Ottawa, revelers chanted, "Slut, slut. Ho, ho. Yes means yes, and no means no!" The Web site "Feministing" described the slut walks as a "movement," with one blogger saying, "Sign me up for Team Sluts." The Slut Walk DC Web site boasts a banner, "Reclaiming the word slut."

This is supposed to pass as progress for women?

Slut-walk defenders say that they're being ironic, that it's supposed to be funny that women are turning a word used to dehumanize them into a badge of pride.

If you don't like the slut walks, then you just don't get the hilarity of women debasing themselves in the name of empowerment.

OK, the early feminists -- from whom the imposters ruining the movement claim to descend -- did manage to turn the pejorative "suffragette," coined to mock the seekers of equality, into a positive word. But a name that meant to mock is different than a word meant to dehumanize.

Here's a prediction: Feminists will no sooner turn "slut" into a positive word outside their ever-shrinking bubble than African-Americans who call each other the "N-word" have taken away the sting of that dehumanizing epithet. Some words should be retired for good.

And many gays may now march proudly as "queer" -- but plenty still bristle when an outsider uses the word. That's unlikely to change, considering the original intent of it.

Sex-positive feminist icon Erica Jong presciently told writer Ariel Levy in 2003: "I was standing in the shower the other day, picking up my shampoo. It's called 'Dumb Blonde.' I thought, '30 years ago you could not have sold this.' I think we have lost consciousness of the way our culture demeans women. Let's not kid ourselves that this is liberation."

Yes, please, and let's not pretend that women holding "slut walks" is a step forward for womankind or will in any way change the treatment of rape victims.

While the so-called feminists are tarting up themselves to reclaim a vile, misogynist word, perhaps the rest of us should fight to reclaim the word "feminism" and return it to its roots of working for true equality.

If we leave it to this gang, we're screwed.

kirstenpowers@aol.com

Stanford Promotes False Rape Agenda..

As feminists infiltrate and manipulate jurisprudence, we will see more and more of this anti-male bias where common law is thrown out the window and any man will be automatically condemned without proof, witnesses, doctors reports or substantiation of any type..

Nothing has to be produced by the accuser, only her say so. Works brilliantly in this country, just ask all those falsely accused guys in jail right now. This just cannot get any worse. Why not just travel the streets and collect any male and thrown them in jail without any justification and thereby spare everyone the misery of actually having to prove anything..

Maybe it will get to that as we sit on our hands and live in denial or worse still, actively promote and endorse it just like the "good men project" is so busily doing..

The Despicable Training Materials Stanford Furnishes it’s ‘Impartial’ Sexual Assault Judicial Panelists

By False Rape Society | Tue, May 03 2011, 03:47 PM

Stanford trains its judicial panelists who will preside over disciplinary proceedings involving allegations of sexual assault by using materials that assume the accused male is guilty even before the hearing has begun. I will be providing a detailed analysis of these materials, but I wanted to quickly share an excerpt with you today.

Among other things, panelists are provided an article by Lundy Bancroft called “Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men.” Here is an excerpt:

The goal of holding sexual offenders accountable for their misconduct is one that is universally shared by all civilized people. However, Stanford’s hearing process, as illustrated by the above, unduly enhances the risk of holding innocent persons responsible for such offenses in furtherance of the objective to hold true offenders accountable.

Stanford’s process, in short, is an affront to the fair administration of justice.

I follow these issues closely and can’t ever recall hearing of a school that wears its biases on its sleeve in so egregious a manner as is illustrated in the materials I've reviewed. Presumptively innocent young men accused of sex offenses at Stanford are assured a process with all the fairness employed in Salem, Massachusetts, 1692. If these biases were better known, I can't imagine any sane parent paying to send his or her son to that school.

It is a hallmark of the American experience and a universally accepted tenet of the common law tradition that hearings be conducted with impartiality, fairness, fidelity to the evidence, and free from even the appearance of bias. Those fundamental principles must never be tossed onto a scrapheap of politicized indifference to appease one interest group or another.  Here we have not only an appearance of bias, we have a blatant, politicized, institutionalized embrace of partiality that favors the female accuser and the maligns the male accused.

Stanford owes it to all its students to treat them fairly, even when the charge is sexual assault, and even when the student is male. On this issue, there can be no plausible, just, moral, or legitimate debate.

The Usual ABC(Aus.) left wing Lunacy on Bin Laden..

I did make the comment in an earlier post about the ABC(Aus)interviewing Obama sympathisers as well as using middle east television station Al-Jazeera for their information on the world's most barbarous terrorist Bin Laden. Apparently those viewed are not only held by some at the tax payer subsidised  ABC. Left wing lunatics run that asylum and have taken it over without resistance and they wallow in all their favourite topic, being Global warming, the failed and incompetent Labor Government incapable of achieving anything except mayhem and destruction, the carbon tax that nobody wants and if that is not enough as they have a foreign minister (apart from the self confessed feminists on board) who is quite happy spending our hard earned tax dollars building Mosques in faraway place like Afghanistan..

Anyone see a pattern ?

ABC writers agree: killing bin Laden was useless, bad and sad

Andrew Bolt – Wednesday, May 04, 11 (12:01 am)

There seems to be a party line at the ABC’s online site on the killing of Osama bin Laden, The Drum, but it’s not a party-party-party one:
Amin Saikal:

Bin Laden’s death may well be welcome news to the US and its allies, and many others around the world, but it cannot be expected to make the world any less insecure and volatile than it is at present.

Kellie Tranter:

The US vigilantes may have killed bin Laden, but they haven’t helped to make the world a more peaceful or secure place.  In fact, peace is about the only thing that has never been tried.

Greg Barns:

There should be no mindless ranting and chest beating about Bin Laden’s death but soul searching about how easily lofty and fundamentally important principles of humanity and fairness are cast aside when there is a vote in it or when primal vengeance is given its head by our leaders.

Anson Cameron:

And now some snitch, some stool-pigeon from the back streets of Abbotabad in Pakistan, has taken the CIA’s forty pieces of silver.

Angry Harry: Are men more intelligent than women?..

Angry Harry is a psychologist, an honourable man and he is the reason I am here today. This guy is the instigator of the Mens Movement without a doubt. Well Done Harry, I am proud..

Needles to say that Angry Harry is not a man to mince his words and never has..

You go my Man..
Link..

By Angry Harry

Are men more intelligent than women?

Well, the evidence seems to suggest that this is so.
On Start the Week, on Radio 4, tonight, Jeremy Paxman asked Professor Susan Greenfield, well-known neuroscientist (and Director of the Royal Institution) "You claim, don't you, that the more emotion you have, the less mind you have?"
"That's right," she answered.
Indeed, it is one of the main propositions in her new book, The Private Life of the Brain.
She went on to say,"[For example] One might say that, in meditation, one is developing a very deep consciousness, where you are accessing your inner states, and ignoring the outside world. This could be an example of where you are NOT experiencing an emotion, as such. The opposite would be, [perhaps] a baby, or someone with road rage, or a bungee jumper, awash with emotions and who is not [therefore] 'accessing' [with the mind] the past, or the future, or anything 'inside'."
Thus, Prof Greenfield is saying that the more 'emotion' you experience, the less 'mind' you have.
Now, which of the two possible genders, statistically speaking, experiences more emotion - and would claim to?
Hmm. The female gender, one would suspect.
And it would follow from Professor Greenfield's beliefs, therefore, that, statistically speaking, this gender has less 'mind'. It is less in 'contact' with it.
Putting this another way: Relatively speaking, compared to men, the conclusion must be that women are less often 'accessing the past, or the future, or anything 'inside' ' - statistically, that is.
Well, that's what follows from Professor Greenfield's observations.
All in all, therefore, women seem to function less 'mindfully' than men, or, putting it less euphemistically, less 'intelligently'.
Statistically speaking.
In addition, it cannot have escaped even the most ardent feminist's notice that it is men who are the focused, the possessed, and the obsessed. It is men who push forward the boundaries of science, music, technology and art. It is men who build great cities and great religions.
It is men who tinker well into the night, studying and prising apart the boundaries of even the most obscure and intractable.
I knew one man who spent six years studying locust legs.
Not locusts.
Locust LEGS!
FOR SIX YEARS!
And he is probably still at it.
I knew another man who was a mathematician and who struggled daily, FOR YEARS, with some obscure problem in which only one other person in the entire world seemed to have any interest - and it wasn't me.
Just look at any science program on TV and notice the 'workers' laboring in the various scientific fields. The 'experts'. The ones who sneak into their laboratories even on Christmas Day to skulk around engines, chemicals, computers or insects. The ones who spend hour upon hour, year upon year, squashed into their little rooms to study the contents of test-tubes or tissues. The ones who wander into the most hostile and desolate parts of the planet to scrub around for clues, artifacts and ideas.
They're nearly all men.
It is men who lead, explore, push forward and calculate.
The intelligence of men must creep forward more quickly, and further, than that of women,
And, to the extent that intelligence is based on factors in the environment, as opposed to genetics, or based upon learning and studying, as opposed to 'emotionalising' (and, so, losing 'mind') then the intelligence of men must creep forward more quickly, and further, than that of women, throughout their lives - because, statistically speaking, they choose to take on more of the intelligent-provoking 'environment', and they interact with it in much more of an objective and emotionless way (i.e. with more 'mind').
When it comes to intelligence, men have got what it takes. They drive in straight lines, they focus their attention, they do not multitask, they obsess, and they do not spend so much time emotionalizing.
And they actually increase their intelligence by doing such things.
And the whole species benefits from their pursuits.
Statistically speaking, men are taller than women. Not much, but significantly so. The picture below is of some men and women. Some of the women, quite a few of them, are actually taller than quite a few of the men.

But now look at the next picture.

The very same men and women have fallen in love, and they have partnered each other. They are so happy. But, notice that EVERY SINGLE man is TALLER than EVERY SINGLE woman.
And the same thing happens with intelligence. Just as it is that women, statistically speaking, prefer men who are taller than them, and richer than them, and socially higher up the ladder than them, so it is that they prefer men who are more intelligent than them.
Not only do women admit to this last aspect, recent research also shows that most women believe that their partners are more intelligent than them.
And they are!
The situation is exactly the same as for Picture B. Simply think of intelligence instead of height. All the women in this picture have chosen partners who are 'more intelligent' than them, even though it is true that, statistically speaking, across the whole population, there are millions of women who are more intelligent than millions of men.
And until such time as women CHOOSE partners who are less than, or equal to, themselves in terms of intelligence, the statement that 'men are more intelligent than women' will remain true even when looking at the issue as it relates to partnerships between men and women.
Men are MOSTLY more intelligent than their female partners.
Putting this another way: When it comes to looking at men and women as they function within their relationships, men are MOSTLY more intelligent than their female partners.
But, of course, we all know this instinctively.
We just cannot say so.
But it is clear that both men and women CHOOSE things to be this way - statistically speaking.
As Germaine Greer puts it, "Women are not valued for their intelligence."
Well, Yes, they are. But they are not loved for it, nor are they found attractive as a result of it - statistically speaking.
In her book, Sexual Personae, Camille Paglia said that, "If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still all be living in grass huts."
She has a point, because if women had, indeed, been the dominant gender, then they would have used their influence to promote further emotionalizing. And the result would have been less achievement with regard to developing other things.
Like wheels.
And this, of course, partly explains why the educational systems in the west are currently failing so miserably to produce high standards in their pupils. There is too much emotionalizing going on, and not enough thinking; i.e. not enough mind.

And, in the past, those little societies that spent their time emotionalizing, instead of creating, inventing and progressing, had no chance in evolutionary terms. They lost the battle long ago. The men were killed and the women were carried away. And they no longer exist. They have been statistically washed away.
Paglia also said that, "Women have been discouraged from genres such as sculpture that require studio training or expensive materials.
But in philosophy, mathematics, and poetry, the only materials are pen and paper.
Male conspiracy cannot explain ALL female failures.
I am convinced that, even without restrictions, there still would have been no female Pascal, Milton, or Kant.
.Even now, with all vocations open, I marvel at the rarity of the woman driven by artistic or intellectual obsession, that self-mutilating derangement of social relationship which, in its alternate forms of crime and ideation, is the disgrace and glory of the human species."
Men are, indeed, more intelligent and creative than women, on the whole. They work at it. They strive for it. They value it. They are loved for it. They are wanted for it.
And the mental environments in which they choose to spend their time definitely develop their talents even further.
That is, they give much more time to their minds.
And this is mostly why women, STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, will never be able to compete successfully with men intellectually and nor, therefore, in any task or job which requires intellectual endeavor.
Finally, not only do men develop their intelligence by CHOOSING to engage more so in activities that enhance it - as opposed to emotionalizing - (and so, to the extent that the environment affects intelligence then it will do so more for men than it will for women) but it is also the case that, thanks to the Y chromosome, the genetic variability of men is greater than that of women, so spreading the range of their intelligence more widely. The consequence is that at the bottom range of intelligence there will be found to be far more men than women, and in the top range the SAME will be true.
Further, and for the same reason, both the highest and the lowest intelligence levels of men are more extreme than are those of women.
At the high-flier levels, women haven't got a hope of competing with men.
And the upshot of all this is that at the high-flier levels, women haven't got a hope of competing with men either in terms of their number or in terms of their achievements - unless, of course, the men are deliberately handicapped in some way.
Thus, there is not so much of a glass ceiling created by sex-discriminatory men holding back the realization of statistical parity between men and women in the higher echelons of the world, the women's relative lack of success in these lofty places is far more due to the choices that they make and their less-variable genetic makeup, neither of which is the fault of men.

Nature vs Nurture

For at least half a century, the overwhelming evidence that intelligence is determined very significantly by genes has been hidden from the public - by the usual culprits. The politically-correct view was that the environment was the most significant factor in the development of intelligence and that genes were almost irrelevant.
Indeed, scientists who have expressed the view that intelligence is largely the product of a person's genes have been labeled by the politically-corrected feminist-dominated left as racists, sexists, Nazis, and goodness know what else. And, for example, during the 80s and 90s many of the UK's school teachers were indoctrinated with the view that children do not differ at all in terms of their mental abilities. This is absolute rubbish, but I have met many young teachers who actually believed this wholeheartedly as a result of the politically-correct nonsense being propounded by the teacher-training colleges.
The point here, however, is this.
IF it is true that intelligence is largely, and significantly, determined by the mental environment in which it is engaged, then it follows, for example, that those individuals who find themselves - or place themselves - in situations conducive to the development of intelligence are going to end up more intelligent than those who do not.
As such, for example, those who live or mostly work in more impoverished circumstances are not going to end up being as intelligent as those who live or mostly work in more enriched circumstances. And so, for example again, middle class people are going to end up more intelligent than those from the working classes. Whites from the rich West are going to end up being more intelligent than impoverished blacks from, say, Africa (or who live in western ghettoes) and, presumably, men throughout history, not being tied to their children and their homes, ended up being far more intelligent than their womenfolk who, apparently, spent most of their time dealing with children and being oppressed.
The politically-corrected cannot stomach the conclusions that must be reached even on the basis of their very own doctrines
Needless to say, the politically-corrected cannot stomach the conclusions that must be reached even on the basis of their very own doctrines concerning the development of intelligence.
And so it is that the various pronouncements of the politically corrected concerning the development of intelligence reveals that they are either mostly incredibly stupid, and simply cannot see where their own arguments lead, or that their propositions are mostly designed to manipulate people rather than to enlighten them; which means, quite simply, that they are bald-faced liars.
Mostly, one discovers that they are both.
But, in either case, their influence (which is mostly due to intimidation) is a negative one, and it tends to make societies structure themselves on the basis of serious falsehoods.
And clearly, societies that do this, particularly complex ones, are not going to progress very well. In fact, eventually, they are going to cave in - well, they will eventually collapse or perform hopelessly in those domains where the falsehoods form part of the very foundations upon which they have been built.
And with regard to the negative consequences of having serious misconceptions about the nature of intelligence, the whole UK educational system immediately comes to mind.
I repeat; these people are either very stupid in that they cannot see what follows from their own pronouncements, or they are dishonest manipulators for whom the ideological ends justify their thoroughly dishonorable means.
The arguments that I have made concerning intelligence are relatively easy to grasp and they are worth understanding.
And they boil down to this:
The more that the environment is said to affect the development of intelligence (a PC left-wing argument) the more must the conclusions from this position suggest politically very-incorrect outcomes. For example again, the men from the past must have been more intelligent than the women. The colonizers must have been more intelligent than the colonized. The masters must have been more intelligent than the slaves. The whites must have been more intelligent than the blacks. The rich must be more intelligent than the poor.
You fruitfully expose them for the intellectual phonies that they are.
And when you point this out to the politically-corrected and their feminist friends, in order to expose their ludicrous and conflicting claims, you fruitfully expose them for the intellectual phonies that they are.
And it is very important that we do expose these frauds, because they and their bankrupt ideologies have achieved enormous influence in western societies. And, as a consequence, the futures of these societies are being continually undermined.

Osama Bin Laden is finally, history..

This is probably the best coverage that I can find. Bin Laden was a murderous criminal and terrorist and I am appalled that the Australian ABC "24 Hour News" channel would actually interview some left wing cretin who was sympathising about his inevitable demise..

What planet do these left wing lunatics live on. It's beyond my comprehension..

Bearing in mind also that feminism suffers from the inclusion of those cretins as well..

Have a look at Andrew Bolt's excellent article..

Andrew Bolt

Monday, May 02, 2011 at 12:57pm

The US reports that it has the body of Osama bin Laden, the al Qaeda chief..
UPDATE
Fox believes bin Laden was killed by a missile (wrong: see below). Barack Obama is said to be considering an urgent address to the nation, closer to midnight.
What is significance of this? Bin Laden said it best, in talking to his senior followers in November 2001, two months after hijacking four jets and bringing down the World Trade Centre, with the loss of nearly 3000 civilians.

When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.

UPDATE
He reportedly was killed in Pakistan, and a DNA test verified his identity. Reports differ as to whether he was killed with a missile or a bullet. The killing apparently happened days ago.
So ends the conspiracies:

UPDATE

It is believed that bin Laden was killed in a mansion not far from Islamabad, Pakistan, with members of his family.
Early intelligence suggests that bin Laden was killed as a result of a US-led military assault.
The location of bin Laden and his family confirms recent speculation that he was hiding in comfortable surroundings and close to civilisation, not in the remote mountains dividing Pakistan and Afghanistan.

UPDATE
The questions so far:

If this was a covert US operation near Pakistan’s capital, does this mean bin Laden had Pakistani protection?
How long had bin Laden been living there? How? How long did the US know he was there?
Was any information recovered with his body? Any henchmen?
Where is bin Laden’s deputy, the allegedly even more radical Ayman al-Zawahri?

And then the unknowables:

How will jihadists around the world react?
Is this the beginning of a slow end of the jihadist culture, especially given the failure of al Qaeda to strike the US on its soil again in the decade since September 11, and given, too, how miserable the latest jihadist operations have been:

A day after the Taliban declared the beginning of its spring offensive, a young suicide bomber detonated his explosives in a town near the Pakistan border in southeastern Afghanistan on Sunday, killing 4 people and wounding 14, an Afghan official said… He said a 12-year-old boy had carried out the attack…

And I guess we’ll soon know how empty was this threat:

Al-Qaeda terrorists have threatened to unleash a “nuclear hellstorm” on the West if their leader and world’s most wanted terrorist Osama bin Laden is nabbed.  A senior al-Qaeda commander has claimed that the terror group has stashed away a nuclear bomb in Europe which will be detonated if bin Laden is ever caught or assassinated, according to new top secret files made public by internet whistleblower WikiLeaks.

UPDATE
Obama adresses the US just after 11.30pm, Washington time:

Says in August he had a possible lead on Osama, apparently in a compound in Pakistan. Last week, he determined there was enough intelligence for a US operation. Today, a small team carried it out in Abbottabad. No Americans harmed. After a firefight, Osama killed and body taken.
Now riffs on his theme that Osama was not a “Muslim leader” but killer of Muslims.
Claims Pakistan helped lead the US to Osama’s hideout. But then says he tonight called the Pakistan president, which suggests Pakistan did not know of the operation.
“Justice has been done.”

UPDATE
About Abbottabad, bin Laden’s hideout:

- far from being some remote cave, it is a very large town of 80,000 people, 120 km from Islamabad.
- far from being discreet, it is relatively modern and has tourists passing through:

- far from being out of reach from Pakistan’s military, it is actually a military centre:

Abbottabad became and is still an important military cantonment and sanatorium, being the headquarters of a brigade in the Second Division of the Northern Army Corps. The garrison consisted of four battalions of native infantry (Gurkhas) and four native mountain batteries

- far from being secret, it’s celebrated:

ABBOTTABAD, July 23: Pakistan’s two dozen cricketers are currently undergoing strenuous training in the foothills of the Himalayas in Kakul like novice soldiers.
Led by captain Shoaib Malik, the national players are attending a conditioning camp at Pakistan Army’s Physical Training Institute (5KM from Abbottabad) in typical military style in a bid to sharpen up for September’s Champions Trophy. Cricketers are generally used to five-star hotel facilities even during training sessions, but Kakul offers no such luxury, not even room service.

So what was Osama bin Laden doing there, and isn’t it very, very likely he was protected by the Pakistani military?
UPDATE
Associated Press reports:

Osama bin Laden was killed in a helicopter raid on a mansion in an area north of the Pakistani capital, U.S. and Pakistani officials said Monday.
Four helicopters launched the attack in the Bilal area of Abbottabad, about 100 kilometers north of Islamabad, said a Pakistani intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information. One of the helicopters crashed after it apparently was hit by fire from the ground, the official said. He gave no word on casualties.
He said the helicopters took off from a Pakistani air base in the north of the country.
Women and children were taken into custody during the raid, he said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.

Published in Pakistan’s The Express Tribune today:

ABBOTABAD: 
A helicopter crashed in Abbottabad near the Pakistan Military Academy Kakul late on Sunday night, police sources said.
The chopper was seen flying low before it crashed, locals said. The sound of gunfire and two small blasts was heard before a massive explosion, sources said.
They added that the third blast damaged windowpanes of the area houses. This was stated to be the first incident of its kind in Abbottabad at night.

The Dunya News Network:

At least three people were injured when a helicopter crashed near the Pakistan Military Academy.

According to eyewitnesses, a low flying helicopter crashed in a populated area and as a result two houses were engulfed in flames. Three people including two women were injured in the attack and were taken to the CMH Hospital.
On receiving reports, rescue teams arrived at the scene and started the relief work. After the incident, law enforcement agencies surrounded the area.

The US reports no casualties on the US side.
UPDATE
Was the arrest in January at Abbottabad of Bali bomber Umar Patek a breakthrough? And why didn’t Osama run?

This photo taken on Wednesday, April 13, 2011 shows the home of Abdul Hameed in Abbottabad, Pakistan from where Indonesian al-Qaida-linked militant, Umar Patek, was arrested in Jan. 2011. Patek was on the run from a $1 million U.S. bounty on his head, for allegedly helping mastermind the 2002 suicide bombings of nightclubs in Bali that killed 202 people.

Interesting deail in this report three weeks ago on Patek’s arrest:

Questions also remain over his fate, and there are signs he may be caught up in tensions between Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence agency and the CIA, which have previously cooperated during terror arrests and would like access to him.
Islamabad has said it will not hand Patek over to the CIA and that he will be sent to Indonesia. But officials in Jakarta don’t appear that keen to have him, and have expressed doubts whether they could make charges stick against him for his alleged role in the Bali attacks.
Abbottabad is in northwest Pakistan, one of the first towns on the famed Karakoram Highway that leads to the Himalayas and China and less then a day’s drive from the Afghan border. During the era of British rule, it was a major garrison town and it remains so today, with Pakistani troops now occupying the barracks built and lived in by the region’s former rulers.
Officials did not say how or why Patek ended up there, but his arrest followed the detention of an alleged al-Qaida facilitator in the town called Tahir Shehzad, who worked as a clerk at the town’s post office, a squat building just across the road from the British-era St. Luke’s Church.
Tahir had been under surveillance since last year when he was spotted in Abbottabad with an Arab terror suspect, said the intelligence official, who like all Pakistani spies is not permitted to give his name.

UPDATE
Smart propaganda by the US, if true:

Pakistani television stations on Monday broadcast what they described as unconfirmed images of Osama bin Laden’s bloodied face after the United States said he had been killed.
“The picture of Osama bin Laden’s dead body has been released. It is unverified,” said the commentator on Pakistan’s largest TV network, Geo.

Feminists Caught Out Lying About Testosterone..

Ha..ha
I have posted on this topic before when it was demonstrated by previous studies that testosterone is in actual fact a calming and reasoning agent and not what feminists claim, that is caused aggression and anger..

There were two things wrong with the feminists "testosterone fueled, angry male" rantings of the past and that is that it induced precisely the opposite affect than they raged about and also that women possess a level of testosterone as well, maybe in most cases they could use some more to make them even remotely reasonable..

That being the case, it may be that that wicked blood additive of estrogen may actually be the main culprit..

Testosterone link to aggression may be all in the mind

A dose of the hormone makes human game-players behave more fairly.

Alison Abbott

Higher levels of testosterone do not necessarily lead to more aggressive behaviour.

The popular idea that testosterone always makes people more aggressive has been debunked by researchers. A team based in Switzerland has shown that the hormone can make people behave more fairly in an effort to defend their social status.
Ernst Fehr, an experimental economist at the University of Zurich, and his colleagues used the 'ultimatum bargaining' game to test how testosterone would affect behaviour in a group of 121 women. Counter-intuitively, women who were given testosterone bargained more fairly.
But the idea that testosterone causes aggression in humans, as it clearly does in rodents, is so firmly ingrained in the human psyche that women who believed they had been given testosterone — whether or not they had — bargained much less fairly.
Women, not men, were tested because they have less variable 'baseline' blood testosterone levels.
The study is published in Nature¹. "It is a folk hypothesis that testosterone causes aggression," says Fehr. "But human society is more complex than this."

 Link..

Adam Goodie, a psychologist at the University of Georgia in Athens who works on decision-making, says: "The paper is a major blow to the popular wisdom that testosterone simply makes you more aggressive and less cooperative — the true picture is not nearly as negative." 

Rollin' Justin robot plays catch..

The Feminist's Coffin: Hand me the Nails..

As sad as I am about funerals, this one I will definitely look forward to..

Firstly of all we must build that coffin. In this case it's a rather decrepit thing ofcourse as the wood has already rotted and that rot has already taken it's toll, hand me the nails would you ?

Nail One..

Nearly two-thirds of women say their biggest concern is balancing work and family life. Only one in 20 feels the greatest problem facing them is sexism at work

Nail Two..

Only one in five women describes herself as a feminist – and three out of four say they definitely would not use the label.

Nail Three..

[Women]..They have a tendency not to be so involved quite often and they're not so ambitious in business as men because they've got better things to do. Quite often they like bringing up their children and all sorts of other things,

Nail Four..

Sexism is dead, say most British WOMEN.

Nail Five..

Quotas, women-only shortlists and any form of positive discrimination are often disliked equally by men and women.

Nail Six..

It is inevitable that there exists groups of feminists who want to either subjugate or use men, or do away with them entirely.

I could continue, endlessly. Needless to say that I fleeced those comments from articles in newspapers, books and comments in response to the feminists endless denial that they do not or ever confess to being the female supremacist movement that they clearly are..

Their claims that they are for equal opportunity is just another one of their blatant lies..

All at the expense of men and boys..

Just a final comment as it is one I came across just now. It's one of the founding members of the feminist hate movement and her removal from University. A nasty sexist individual, renown for her anti-male attitude and this is what "feminists" pay homage to..

Mary Daly, a radical feminist writer and theologian, taught theology and social ethics at Boston College. Her policy was to admit only women to her classes on feminist theology and ethics, teaching men privately.
In 1998, a student who had not taken the prerequisite women's studies course tried to register, and was told by Daly that he could take the course with her individually. This student was supported by the Center for Individual Rights, an organization that opposes Title IX, and one tactic used is to file lawsuits applying Title IX to male students.
In 1999, facing this lawsuit, Boston College terminated Mary Daly's contract as a tenured professor. She and her supporters filed a lawsuit and requested an injunction against the firing, on the grounds that due process had not been followed.
In February, 2001, Boston College and Mary Daly's supporters announced that a settlement had been reached, thus taking the case out of the hands of the court and judge.

Desperation Feminism: More Cognitive Disonnance..

Feminists must be getting desperate as they bring out the "big guns' to argue their cause against the Mens Rights Movement. Someone has hit the panic button, maybe..

Here we have another one of those experts that they like to bring into the fray..

Andrea Doucet, Ph.D.

Professor and author, 'Do Men Mother?'

Only a female of that age could possibly be a professor (Positive discrimination, anyone. Automatic feminist induced promotion)..

My story is also informed by that age-old feminist maxim that the personal is political: while I was reading feminist theory in the Cambridge University library,

Wow, what a surprise, someone has wasted their life in learning how to hate the male sex and she wants to be recognised in that field of un-devour.. 

Cognitive dissonance reigns supreme in the feminist hegemony, marry that with the doublethink mentality that feminists wallow in and you have a totally hypocritical, confused and totally screwed up human being..

The fit between feminism and fathering has become a taken-for-granted part of my work and my life. But I was recently forced to revisit this combination as I followed a debate at the Good Men Project (GMP)between men's rights activists (MRAs), including fathers' rights groups, and their critics.

Laughable ain't it just. One sentence that contradicts every feminist mantra and yet it puts it in writing just so you know how much..
It does demonstrate however that the Good Mangina Project was a trap that we fell into. Under the claim of bringing together the difference of opinion to "work out" those differences, but it was just another example of feminists lies and manipulation..
So we have this disclaimer from the MRA Author..

The editors at the Good Men Project Magazine asked if I could write a piece on the top 10 issues for men’s rights activists (MRAs). As I am only one man, I felt I could not speak for the rest of the community on how we prioritize issues.

But it does not stop them from suggesting that these "Top 10" points are manifestly indicative of all MRM points of interest, frustration and anger..
No links..

Yet the "feminism" and "fathering" depicted in that list, and in many of the comments, were framed in such narrow ways. The only fathering referred to was that of separated and divorced fathers (especially non-custodial fathers). Meanwhile, feminism was thinly presented by MRA contributor Zeta Male in his overarching statement that "feminism has harmed men."

Anyway, it just goes around in circles as ALL feminist discussions do. They never actually admit or have the courage to confess that maybe they have screwed up and that Men are worse off ever since that hate doctrine interfered in our lives..

"Feminism is to Philosophy what Marxism is to human rights"..

You do not have to look far into "Women's Studies" to realise what a blatant, obvious and sexist University unit it really is..

Dare to question the feminist doctrine or the ongoing delivery of male-hate and male-slandering and you will not pass but be scorned for daring to question it's mantras..

"Feminism is to Philosophy what Marxism is to human rights".

Universities around the western world promote this hate doctrine as an academic discipline, an oxymoron if there is ever one, and demand all males attend this hypocritical course or something similar in structure, to ensure the brain-rinsing is complete. So affective is that unit that is has generated the gormless wimp entity commonly known as male feminists. Those self flagellating irrelevances continue to slander and malign their own sex like it's something foreign without giving any thought or relevance to being one themselves. They also conveniently ignore the fact that feminists cannot stand them or tolerate them or even want them associated with their hate movement..

Rightly so, this guy is trying to do something about it. Send him an email expressing support so at least he will know that he is not alone in his battle to remove that scourge..

mrastandup@hotmail.com

IN THE NAME OF EQUALITY – CAN YOU SUPPORT A LAW SUIT AGAINST A LONDON UNIVERSITY?

By Rights of Man | Wed, Apr 27 2011, 08:12 PM

ACTION ALERT: Gender Studies Law suit in London

An egalitarian MRA is bringing a damages claim against an elite university's Gender Studies department which he attended as a student, but was forced to withdraw from due to the persistently sexist anti-male nature of the course. His legal claim is based on Sex Discrimination law, Breach of Contract, Misleading Advertising and Misrepresentation – and he is looking for pro bono support from a lawyer or barrister, or assistance from a 'McKenzie friend' – someone not necessarily legally qualified, but who can nevertheless offer advisory support and strategy in court.

The university's promotional literature did not warn of the one-sided anti-male learning materials that would form the bulk of the curriculum – and the university's prospectus and regulations, forming part of the contract, specifically rule out discriminatory learning materials and practices – so the facts of the case are uniquely strong - on a number of fronts - and a successful litigation here will help bring about real improvements for the future inclusion of men and men's equality issues within gender studies, and all other academic fields.

The complainant will be filing particulars of claim no later than May 10^th 2011. The court case itself will take place in the months to follow. If you, or anyone you know of might be interested in offering any kind of support, including financial, then please email the complainant at the following address:- mrastandup@hotmail.com

Thank you.