30.11.11

Scarlett Johansson promoting the Scarlet..

Apparently ripping off one's clothes, flicking the switch and storing the end result on her phone was probably not the brightest idea one could take. The next dumb idea would be to make a political statements in the hope that the first action may be ruled out by the next..

Now what headliner could she use, one hysterical enough, to attract the appropriate attention. She found one..



Scarlett Johansson: ‘It Would Be Irresponsible’ Not to Support Obama
Yep! the Obama-noid's scurry round trying to justify another term for a President who has demonstrated clearly, his total and complete contempts for his fellow man including men of his own  colour. Obama installed a radical feminist "Women's" group to ensure and increase the privileges already in place at that time..
Johansson, who has been active in campaigning for various Democratic political leaders, including Barack Obama, tells Biskind that nearly one term later “we’re all guilty of being idealistic, I and everyone who voted for him.” But in response to being asked if she would work for him again, she says, “It would be irresponsible not to.”
Obama re-directed funds allocated to jobs that would have benefitted men as at that time the mancession was heading towards 10% of the workforce, he decided instead to allocate those billions to jobs employing the majority of women. If that was not enough, he also castigated all men about failing to care or to man-up for children, in what could only be seen as a statement, which could only have come out of his newly installed sexist and discriminatory "women's Office". Was broadcast world wide and once again demonstrating exactly where his priority lies..

More on the story here..




Raising the Public Image of the Men's Movement..

Further to the previous post on how to increase awareness of the MM by raising our image and effectiveness..
Some thinking material I just came across may work well with what we have in mind as well. Have a read and wonder how we can apply this methodology to the MM, to our benefit..

The other workable process would be spreading the MM message locally. It would be best practise to contact a local member of the MM/MRA and combining your efforts at spreading the word via well prepared, professionally produced brochures, pamphlets and posters. Spreading the word may just be leaving a few posters or pamphlets at the local doctor's office or library for instance. I use to staple them to the back of toilet doors. But anything your imagination comes up with would work, visit a politician's office and leave some behind, back of the seat in Airplanes, your local council always has brochure stands, airport lounges, shopping centre notice boards, etc, etc, etc..

In order to project our message, we have to do it right. This article may shape some ideas..


Ironic Effects of Anti-Prejudice Messages




(Medical Xpress) -- Organizations and programs have been set up all over the globe in the hopes of urging people to end prejudice. According to a research article, which will be published in an upcoming issue ofPsychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, such programs may actually increase prejudices.
Lisa Legault, Jennifer Gutsell and Michael Inzlicht, from the University of Toronto Scarborough, were interested in exploring how one’s everyday environment influences people’s motivation toward prejudice reduction.
The authors conducted two experiments which looked at the effect of two different types of motivational intervention – a controlled form (telling people what they should do) and a more personal form (explaining why being non-prejudiced is enjoyable and personally valuable).
In experiment one; participants were randomly assigned one of two brochures to read: an autonomy brochure or a controlling brochure. These brochures discussed a new campus initiative to reduce prejudice. A third group was offered no motivational instructions to reduce prejudice. The authors found that, ironically, those who read the controlling brochure later demonstrated more prejudice than those who had not been urged to reduce prejudice. Those who read the brochure designed to support personal motivation showed less prejudice than those in the other two groups.
In experiment two, participants were randomly assigned a questionnaire, designed to stimulate personal or controlling motivation to reduce prejudice. The authors found that those who were exposed to controlling messages regarding prejudice reduction showed significantly more prejudice than those who did not receive any controlling cues.
The authors suggest that when interventions eliminate people’s freedom to value diversity on their own terms, they may actually be creating hostility toward the targets of prejudice.
According to Dr. Legault, “Controlling prejudice reduction practices are tempting because they are quick and easy to implement. They tell people how they should think and behave and stress the negative consequences of failing to think and behave in desirable ways.” Legault continues, “But people need to feel that they are freely choosing to be nonprejudiced, rather than having it forced upon them.”
Legault stresses the need to focus less on the requirement to reduce and start focusing more on the reasons why diversity and equality are important and beneficial to both majority and minority group members.
Provided by Association for Psychological Science (news : web)

The Next Step : Public Policy and Presentation..

On our road to finding a better way to spread the MM word, many suggestions are presented as to how to go about achieving a better and more productive method of educating the public about our aims and goals. Feminists have on regular occasion write off the MM as being either radical or extremist without even stating the reason why, they have invoked that blatant lie on the off chance that people will automatically turn off the subject at hand . They are well aware of it's affect and it's time we played that same game..

Many years ago, when I was a lot more pissed off then now. I produced A4 posters aimed at the current misandry that feminists were exposing at the time. Particularly new laws and "how to train Judges" were a few topics that I waxed lyrical about. In hindsight, those posters were a little too radical even though I did tone them down. If those posters were designed, edited and professionally presented, we would have a better chance of promoting our aims and goals to the public rather than sounding like a bunch of ratbags with chips on our shoulders. We need help with this, as it is the case now, we have to move towards the next step and anti up for public consumption. Play the same game advertisers, lobby groups and feminists have played for so long. If you are able to help, can design and present professional posters, let me know and we will get the ball running right here or contact any MM site or AVfM..

Want to defeat a proposed public policy? Just label supporters as 'extreme'

November 29, 2011 by Jeff Grabmeier

New research shows how support for a generally liked policy can be significantly lowered, simply by associating it with a group seen as "radical" or "extreme."
In one experiment, researchers found that people expressed higher levels of support for a gender equality policy when the supporters were not specified than when the exact same policy was attributed to "radical feminist" supporters.
These findings show why attacking political opponents as "extremists" is so popular – and so effective, said Thomas Nelson, co-author of the study and associate professor of political science at Ohio State University.
"The beauty of using this 'extremism' tactic is that you don't have to attack a popular value that you know most people support," Nelson said.
"You just have to say that, in this particular case, the supporters are going too far or are too extreme."
Nelson conducted the study with Joseph Lyons and Gregory Gwiasda, both former graduate students at Ohio State. The findings were published in a recent issue of the journal Political Psychology.
For the study, the researchers did several related experiments.
In one experiment, 233 undergraduate students were asked to read and comment on an essay that they were told appeared on a blog. The blog entry discussed the controversy concerning the Augusta National Golf Club's "men only" membership policy. The policy caused a controversy in 2003 before the club hosted the Masters Tournament.
Participants read one of three versions of an essay which argued that the PGA Tour should move the Masters Tournament if the club refused to change this policy.
One group read that the proposal to move the tournament was led simply by "people" and "citizens." Another group read that the proposal was led by "feminists." The third group read that the proposal was led by "radical feminists," "militant feminists," and "extremists." Additional language reinforced the extremist portrayals by describing extreme positions that the groups allegedly held on other issues, such as getting rid of separate locker room and restroom facilities for men and women.
Participants were then asked to rate how much they supported Augusta changing its membership rules to allow women members, whether they supported the Masters tournament changing its location, and whether, if they were a member, they would vote to support female membership at the club.
A good piece has just been written on this precise topic..

A kinder, gentler machine gun hand

How Feminism Capitalizes on Men’s Rights Movement Victories
Exposing feminist extremism helps to spread the MRM message. Large or outrageous acts of misandry will sometimes yank a few of the oblivious masses out of their stupor, causing them to sit up and take notice. We tend to look upon these events as small victories for the MRM as they almost always draw a handful of people to our cause.  It is only natural that we would celebrate our exposing.
We are prone to become so caught up in our taking of a hill that we fall into the trap of thinking that the hill was a victory. I would suggest otherwise.  In the fog of war against the male sex, we fail to see how extremist behavior provides a diversion from equally important issues. In some cases, the hills we charge serve to empower the more mainstream of feminists who are able to look normal in comparison to their extremist sisters. Attention is never drawn to the fact that it is always the MRM that first exposes these radicals. It is rarely stated that ‘moderate’ feminists remain utterly silent about their fringe elements proposals of male genocide until the plots have been exposed to the public eye. Only then do these mainstream feminists step into the spotlight to announce that not all feminists hold those beliefs. Feminists capitalize on misandry by presenting an image of disapproval when their radical sisters are brought to light, giving the world an impression that they themselves are the reasonable voice of feminism. Our skirmishes become victories for mainstream feminists as well.
Meanwhile, police departments and college campuses across America continue to incorporate inaccurate abuse data into their domestic violence policies. False rape accusers continue to suffer no or mild punishment for their crimes. Talk show hostesses laugh about male genital mutilation without a blip on the news radar. Men are portrayed as buffoons in innumerable television programs and commercials. Civil courts overwhelmingly grant mothers custody of children, but refuse to intervene when non-custodial mothers abduct children from their primary guardian fathers on grounds that it is a civil issue instead of a criminal one.
While the MRM revels in a ‘victory’ against radical feminists the mainstream feminist movement continues their unrelenting attack on men’s rights. Draconian laws are passed in which due process is cast out with the bathwater if you are guilty of the crime of having external genitalia. Boys are taught that it is wrong to behave as boys, indeed that it is ‘natural’ to behave in a manner diametrically opposed to what their biology tells them. While this happens all around us, the sculptors of these tyrannies, the feminists, smile benignly. This is the path of feminist ‘equality’; the kinder, gentler machine gun hand, ready to goad us at gunpoint down the hellish road of their good intentions.

DIVIDE AND CONQUER

To counter the feminists win/win scenario, we must learn strategies which will allow us to expose the links between mainstream feminists and their radical elements. We must remind people that Qui tacet consentiret, silence implies consent. We must do this consistently with every battle in order to expose the hypocrisy in feminism. Society must learn that the actions of feminists do not match their claims of striving toward equality. By continually calling them out, we can force feminists to either take actual strides toward equality by supporting men’s rights issues, or to display their bigoted ideology.
Feminists enjoy claiming that there are many schools of feminist ideology. Despite this claim the average feminist will conveniently mix & match various ideologies. It is not uncommon for a feminist to portray herself as a liberal feminist while ranting about how the oppressive nature of female exploitation (Socialist feminism) is created by the Patriarchy (Anarcha-feminism) and the social construction of gender (Postmodern feminism).
Feminists fall into only two camps, those supporting gender equality and bigots. The former is by far the minority. By continually pointing out these overlaps we are able to dismantle the individual ideological shortcomings, creating rifts that actually separate what now only pretends to be separated. This tactic also has the potential to draw gender equalists into our fold.
The terms ‘sexist’ and ‘sexism’ are weapons in the feminist arsenal. Feminists often use these terms to stifle debate and criticism. Sexism has two meanings, only one of which is relevant. The first meaning is that of sexual discrimination. The second is an attitude or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles. Part of feminist theory is the distinction between gender and sex. This second definition is flawed, as it has been demonstrated in the case of David Reimer that gender has a biological basis.
Since that time numerous peer review publications and studies have demonstrated innate differences between the sexes along with the biochemical causes of these differences. To combat the feminist’s ability to employ these as weapons we must divorce the two definitions. The first definition requires clarification when it is used, as it is often applied to anyone that disagrees.  The second usage is a feminist construct rooted in their ideology that has no bearing on reality. By forcing the feminists to define their use of the terms in this manner we expose their mentality to the public.

CARRYING THE FIGHT FORWARD

Countering feminist claims when they are presented is a reactionary process. This tactic is doomed to failure. The feminists have already scored their sound bite, and by the time we respond their meme has already taken root while our tardy voices are shouted down by the drone of the feminist hoard. The end result is that the MRM message reaches only a small fraction of the population. While reactionary actions will always be needed, we must make strides in being proactive. To this end it is necessary that we present some form of united voice swiftly and publicly on equality issues. We need both men of words and men of action to present our side as a voice of reason and moderation.
We must find ways to reach the disenfranchised men, to offer them guidance and support. We must explore new mediums for spreading our message on local, national, and international levels. MRM and MRA websites have a limited appeal and will attract a limited audience. In order to be heard, to be a force to be reckoned with, it is imperative that we escape this corral of our own making.
Education is one key. Feminists have been preaching their gospel of misinformation for over 50 years. Males young and old have been indoctrinated with the belief that gender is a social construct. Many of those men have been further oppressed with the ancient social construct of chivalry which leads them straight down the path of defeat. Feminists have spread their false statistics not only into courtrooms which grant them the protection of men with guns and cages, but into scholastic institutions that further fuel the indoctrination.
We are now tasked with enlightening the indoctrinated. As these false beliefs and statistics are firmly entrenched, we are presented with the difficult job of digging them out and laying down a new foundation based on facts. We have to reach the lawmakers, the police stations, the student bodies, and the general public. The tools for this job are there, if only we can learn to operate them.

THE NEW BATTLEFRONT

Our next generation will be rooted in the digital age. News, entertainment, and social events now take place at the speed of the internet. As the modern world becomes more entwined with and dependent upon electronic communication, it becomes more apparent that this is the most powerful tool at our disposal. The electronic world is our new battlefront.  We have a distinct advantage over civil rights movements of the past in that the internet is a source of communication that can tremendously speed the process of organization, outreach, and information sharing.  The second greatest tool for social reform, the printing press, is lost in the shadow of the internet.
If the internet has taught us one lesson in electronic organization, it is flash mobs. Through networking, a mob can be coordinated, brought together, and disbanded in a matter of minutes. In more populated regions with a higher concentration of activists, impromptu rallies and protests can be brought together whenever an opportunity arises. These could be staged in conjunction with political visits, or even for opportunistic media hits during live news reports. We have at our fingertips the tool to make a store opening or weather report a conveyance of civil reform.
Thousands of forums and websites open to commentary exist, and yet we employ only a miniscule fraction of these mediums. We need to think outside the corral of men’s rights, and ask ourselves what areas do not pertain to us. Our interests lay well outside the realm of MRM pages which tend to be areas of preaching to the choir. Do men not extend into the reddit pages of politics, worldview, science, advice, IaMa, and even economics? We cannot continue to box ourselves in. Innumerable forums are present for us in which we can make our voices heard. We need not be invasive, overt, or spamming. A simple discrete comment or tag line can spark interest.
Many newspapers are now available in e-print.  This throws open the door to commentary and letters to the editor ranging from local to world readership. Each and every one of those papers represents an opportunity to spread MRM awareness and concerns. Each and every paper is a chance to communicate with another frustrated, disillusioned, repressed man who has yet to find a voice for his discontent.
Petitions are another weapon that the internet has made simple. A google search for e-petitions will generate multiple hits for sites that create electronic petitions. Gone are the days of door to door signature begging. Petitions can now be created and circulated from the comfort of your home or office. With e-petitions we can enter the political arena with a force unprecedented in history. This is a weapon that we would be foolish to ignore. There is no better tool to make our collective voice be heard to the lawmakers than petitions, and no faster method of collecting signatures than e-petitions.
The one area of this new battlefront that we have occupied well is that of video. The MRM produces videos that are witty, funny, and informative. What we need are videos en masse. We also need the speakers to be charismatic, impassioned, and eloquent orators with skill at public speaking.
No better testimony to the power of charisma and presentation can be offered than the 1960 Nixon/Kennedy televised debate. Nixon appeared sickly and refused makeup. Kennedy was young and vibrant in full television makeup. It was not Kennedy’s arguments that swayed public opinion, as people who only heard the debate on the radio pronounced Nixon the winner. What won the debate for Kennedy was his visual charisma and presentation.
Today politicians are well aware of this, and utilize good speech writers and lighting in conjunction with their appearance and presentation to win votes. These are the skills and tools that we need to make the most of.
Recently a Texas judge whose belt whipping of his daughter that was captured on video was uploaded to youtube. The video quickly went viral, and as a result of that video the judge has been suspended from the bench. The power of video is phenomenal, and the power of a viral video can be earth-shaking. We need videos that go viral. To achieve this will require the work of more than individuals working alone. We need to utilize our collective wisdom and skills to brainstorm and produce videos of exceptional quality and substance. I would suggest that anyone producing videos watch a few episodes of Penn & Teller Bullshit to get a feel for the use of emotive language, gestures, voice infliction, and humor used by Penn Jillette in making his points.
A second area that we already use is that of radio. Again the internet has made it possible for virtually anyone to broadcast.  Using the non-visual tools outlined above, we can more effectively utilize this medium of communication for getting the word to the masses. Oral presentation is everything in radio, and a mixture of humor and fact is  the formula for keeping listeners engaged.
Finally we are able to resort to a variant of that great tool of liberation; the printing press. Johannes Gutenberg changed the world in the mid 1400′s with the invention of movable type printing. For the first time in history, books could be mass-produced. The first presses were monstrous apparatuses that could take up the majority of a room. Today we are able to print more literature with greater speed using machines smaller than a suitcase using a computer and printer. Flyers and handouts can be generated at home with ease. These can be passed out, left lying in reception areas or waiting rooms, stuck between the pages of magazines at a bookstore, placed under windshield wiper blades in parking lots, or scattered strategically across college campuses. Some of these are already formatted and waiting for download, and many more can be created. By adding reference sources and website addresses to these, they can help spread the word. Just a few minutes of our time while shopping or visiting the dentist can help further the reach of our voice.
These are only a few suggestions. With a concerted effort we can identify many more avenues for generating public exposure.
Sally Forth. We have been on the losing end of a battle that many of our brethren are not even aware of for too long. Lest we see ourselves subject to the kinder, gentler machine gun hand that is Swedish feminism, we have no choice but to rally our forces, hone our skills, learn to use the weapons before us, and carry the charge. We can no longer afford to celebrate empty victories while feminism claims the reward. It is our duty to expose the myriad hypocrisies of feminism while challenging them on every hill. The virtues of fact and ethical high ground are on our side. Now is the time to carry those twin virtues to the world.

Prolonging the Illness..


Occasionally someone will put forward a good explanation and argument against feminism. Regardless of the damage and suffering that syndrome has caused, there are still people trying to justify the feminist behaviour. I wonder what it would take for a feminist to step back have a reality check, admit that the treatment is better than prolonging the illness..

With the exception of Wikipedia..

Feminism is a sickness, or more accurately it is a syndrome. Let me quote Wikipedia “a syndrome is the association of several clinically recognizable features, signs (observed by a physician), symptoms (reported by the patient), phenomena or characteristics that often occur together”.
Because feminism is essentially a cluster of behaviors (syndrome) we cannot reduce the whole thing to one word “equality” or one behaviour “equality seeking” as does the Wikipedia description of feminism. We need to include misandry, violence, oppressive rule, narcissism, and many other qualities belonging to the syndrome. These behaviours are demonstrated by all feminists, all over the world. Moreover, when we name the latter characteristics we see that the syndrome also includes dissociation and denial of these more negative elements belonging to the cluster, as the negatives are never included in feminist-inspired definitions.
So here is a more accurate definition of the syndrome feminism:
-seeks power under the euphemism of “equality”
-is narcissistic
-misandric
-violent
-interpersonally controlling and exploitative
-has overly positive view of itself despite negatives
-displays dissociation and denial of negatives

The call to action ..

Ray..
“All right, I have an agenda. Call it a vision for the future; an idea where things ought to be heading. And no, I don’t mean AVfM. I mean ALL of this. The whole game. The whole revolution. The whole damned enchilada. Just imagine: a world without feminism.”
This is what a
men’s rights activist
looks like.
===============
WANTED:
People to engage in Men’s Rights Activism
I wish somebody would put those sayings on T-shirts so I could buy them and wear them.
It would be nice to find one, or two, other good MRA’s within a reasonably close driving distance so we could collaborate on men’s rights activism projects. What’s close? Los Angeles County/San Fernando Valley for starters. Out of several million people living in my neighborhood, you’d think one, or two, wouldn’t be hard to find.


Global Warming causes smaller tits!..


Keeping you abreast with the latest in science and global warming hysterics..


Disaster- Global Warming causes smaller tits!

It also causes smaller turtles,frogs,deer and mini polar bears according to the latest research passed off as science.

A Pair of Great Tits

Over the past century, several types of animals, including turtles, tits, frogs or deers are becoming increasingly smaller.

The decrease of Arctic glaciers in recent years has led to considerable smaller polar bears. Because their environment is shrinking they must adapt and become smaller so they will survive in the future but the scientists are not sure if the polar bears can keep up with the accelerated pollution and they might face extinction.

Reduction of food reserves will affect especially the animals that are at the top of the food chain, including people who in the future will be increasingly smaller, will have fewer children and more vulnerable to disease.

In the last century, global average temperature has increased by almost one degree (Celsius), but after increasing industrialization scientists believe that around year 2100 the average temperature will be 7 degrees higher than today and this mean an mass extinction of animals and plants and possible humans.

A separate study conducted over 1700 species of plants and animals, proved that 80% of them moved their living area with 6.1 kilometers north every ten years and 87% bloom or begin the mating season two days earlier each decade.

Experimental studies have found that for every degree (Celsius) above the global average temperature, the plants lose about 17% of their size and the fish are becoming about 22% smaller.

As a retired nurseryman I can say that a one degree increase in temperature will make plants grow faster and larger not smaller and  moving plants to a warmer greenhouse is done for that reason. I don't know why people bother printing this crap.

Voodoo Acupuncture, Feminism and other Comedy...

A mixed bag for a change. Watched a little of Steven Wright whose comedy does have people wondering but to me he is classic..
Read some interesting commentary as responses to the fatalistic and nonsensical rantings from another feminist enabler and nay-sayer..
Also the claim made by Wikileaks and Assange is under the spotlight as it was never substantiated or confirmed that Wikileaks was the original release site for the AGW email releases..

Voodoo acupuncture - You don't have to go. Steven Wright..
Fidelbogen.  This person appears to be a feminist who hasn’t gotten the memo — that feminism does not self-define any more.It is a state of mind known as feminist subjectivism.In the present case, our subject has employed a classic device known as the “talking-point trick.”
Anyhoooooo, these people must be schooled. Gradually. Little by little.
Or else simply brushed aside.
 Other comments of interest on the same thread..

“If feminism were to die tomorrow what would replace her?”
Let’s hope some sane, ‘ane’ (as opposed to inane) and humane womanism which loves and respects ‘manism’, which serves the common good and which is genuinely just. Let’s hope for truisms instead of lies, scholarship instead of propaganda, free speech instead of totalitarianism, love instead of hate, beauty instead of ugliness, and respect instead of ridicule. The death of feminism means the death of infantile female entitlements dressed in false female victimhood, the death of gratuitous male oppression and the birth of big women who can handle adult responsibilities, adult reasoning, and adult respect.
According to me, Wikipedia is Maoist pornographer Jimmy Wales’ retarded totalitarian racket. Wikipedia’s feminism page/feminism related pages are an utter insult to anyone who has a brain and knows how to read. As anyone who even glances at the history of the feminism discussion page knows, the feminism page is written by and for fascist feminist partisans…and belongs in the trash can rather than as a reference for further discussion.
Here’s a better definition for the sick secular superstition: Mainstream feminism is a collection of influential but insipid dogmas aimed at falsifying well known sex/gender realities, establishing feebleminded female-centric fantasies as fact, and instituting superior-as-equal political, economic, and social rights and opportunities for women. It is also about destroying, demeaning and scorning men as male/masculine people. Mainstream feminism is focused solely on women’s issues, but because feminism seeks female sexual superiority, most feminists also believe that men’s psychic murder/torture/enslavement is therefore a necessary condition for feminism to succeed, or that men should become good little ‘girls’ so that there is no need to murder/torture/enslave men to create the feminist Utopia.
Response to another troll on the AVfM article as feminist gate keeprs and enablers refuse to explain why feminism is a movement that encourages, promotes genocide with the elimination of men and boys..

Their denial or their refusal to raise the topic really explains it all..



Some other comments..
“They have opposed domestic violence, sexual harassment, and sexual assault.”
No, they have twisted everything into a victim/perpetrator-merry-go-round, while deliberately hiding statistics that show women to be more violent in the home to every other resident of that home,-have covered up womens sexual harassment in the workplace, -and falsified the statistics showing women to sexually assault children, (especially boys), on a slightly below equal rate.
“In economics, they have advocated for workplace rights, including equal pay and opportunities for careers and to start businesses.”
No, they have made the workplace conditions unbearable for the male gender by controlling the narrative,-have given men disadvantages in all areas in order to be able to compete, while giving themselves a head start, -and have set up small hairsalons and feel-good stores, claiming those to be businesses and not slander and gossipshops. Nothing in this area has been accomplished without using men as steppingstones in one way or another. Nothing.
“-If Feminism were to die tomorrow would women lose the right to bodily integrity and autonomy and reproductive rights?”
Women would be held accountable for their own actions on a far greater scale than now, first of all. If she chooses to keep the child, she pays for that right herself. If the man chooses to keep the child, she provides the child and he pays for the upbringing of said child. If that doesn’t compute, you should not be allowed to have sex. Sex is a two-way street and that goes for responsibility in relationships too. 
“-Would domestic violence increase/decrease?”
It would propably remain static, i.e. women would still be the instigator and perpetrator in the majority of the cases, no matter if the victim is the husband or the children. She would just be held accountable for this.
“-Would the definition of domestic violence change?”
When a growing number of women goes to jail, because they’re held accountable for their violence, there would be no need to change the definition as long as there is made no difference between the genders.
“-Would sexual assaults incease/decrease?”
That depends on whether we’re dealing with the skewed feminist-numbers or the real deal. If we choose to live in the real world and are talking about rape, there will always be a certain percentage of psychos, both males and females, that are proned to do this kind of thing, but no gender-group should ever be held accountable for the actions of one individual.
“-Would the definition of what a sexual assault is change?” 
Most definitely. You would no longer be able to drink yourself stupid and claim rape, or regret actions done under the influence and claim those to be a sexual assault. Or cheat in a relationship and blame an outsider for rape. Accountability would again be the key word. If that doesn’t compute, you shouldn’t be allowed to drink or have sex.
“-Would acts we once described as sexual assaults be decriminalized?”
See the above as an example. Futhermore, if you dress like a slut/whore, don’t expect to be treated like a princess, and don’t go into areas that even men stay away from, dressed like that. Think a little, once in a while!
“-Would date rape no longer be a crime or would it simply be a bad night with a jerk?”
Sting Chameleon answers this question below. Again, do some cognitive thinking once in a while.
“-If Feminism were to die tomorrow, what would replace her?”
Hopefully gender peace, and people getting along and minding their own businesses. Why would you want to replace one ideologue with another, BTW?
“-What would the death of Feminism actually mean?”
Peace? No more whining and victim playing? No more being held at a different level of accountability in courts? No more cheating and lying to take hold of a mans possesions or his rights to his kids? No more FRA’s? No more false DVA’s? No more advantages given to get a head start? No more using sex to manipulate, betray, or retaliate imaginary wrongs? No more legalized hissy fits?
Naaww..-Who am I kidding..?!
All that shit is never going to change, and we all know why.


Slightly OT…
Before I learned about MRA’s, I had to attend a sexual assault briefing and one of the topics was date rape concerning about the usual “women can’t give consent while drunk” guff. I raised my hand and I asked:
“Who would be raping whom in drunken lesbian sex?”
I got the evil eye but I thought it was a valid reductio ad absurdum with the subject at hand.






Assange on Climategate

Jeff Id links to a YouTube video of WikiLeaks’ Assange making a variety of untrue or inflated claims about Climategate and WikiLeaks’ role.
Assange falsely claimed that the Climategate emails were broken by WikiLeaks. This is obviously untrue as CA readers know. I can date WikiLeaks’ entry by contemporary comments. The first notice of the emails at WikiLeaks was 2009/11/21 at 2.50 AM Eastern (12:50 AM blog time). The emails had been downloaded by many people (including me) from a Russian server on Nov 19 and had been downloaded by WUWT moderators on Nov 17. A contemporary comment in a CA thread says that WikiLeaks was down and refers people to megauploads. WikiLeaks has not even been a major reference for Climategate – that belongs to eastangliaemails.com (originally anelegantchaos.org) which was up on Nov 20 and provided a searchable database.



29.11.11

Get By With a Little Help from My Friends..

I know this old rockers dates me a bit as well. But, heh! I can get by with a little help from my friends..


Can't Find My Way Home..

Blind Faith "Can't find my way home" does appear to be an appropriate song to play at this time. An appropriate break to the basic enjoyments we have to fall back on when it gets just too much.

Music, life's elixir..




Hannah Mudge and Other Feminists Denial Process..

As JTO from the A Voice for Men site demonstrated, feminists are quite happy to blame anyone associated with the Men's Movement as being "woman haters" without ever bothering to find out that the people involved in our movement (male and female) are in most cases in relationships and or are married. People like myself who are in partnerships and have children are involved for no other reason then being disgusted by their male hating behaviour and the promotion of that goal..

It does not require much to align the feminist hate movement to other depressive movements as feminists have clearly demonstrated and are quite happy to promote that they are..

The alignment of feminism to Socialism, Marxism and Nazism are clearly defined in their literature and their ongoing promotion of the anti-male rhetoric. Below is a good example, as the link from JTO's article shows The link is to a Radical Feminist Forum whose activities included a meeting in Perth,  Western Australia in September 2011. This meeting of like minded Genocide promoting, feminists included discussing the SCUM manifesto and it's benefits and hopeful outcomes.

One of the attending speakers is Susan Hawthorne as you can see below..
Fem-manifesto-ing
BY FCMGuest post by Susan HawthorneThis is based on a talk originally given at the SCUM Conference in Perth, Australia on 24 September 2011.I come to the writing of manifestoes with the interests of a poet and political activist. Political activism is obvious. But poetry? An effective manifesto is one in which the language works, the political position is clear – but above all – it has rhythm and metre. A manifesto is a bit like a poem or a song.
Let’s look at Marx and Engels. The first line of the prologue:
A spectre is haunting Europe–the spectre of Communism (Marx and Engels 1848/1967: 78).
Or the first line a Chapter 1:
The history of all hitherto existing societyis the history of class struggles (Marx and Engels 1848/1967: 79).
The most disappointing aspect of the Communist Manifesto are the last lines:
It does demonstrate clearly how ignorant and forgetful feminists like Hannah Mudge is when it comes to blaming all and sundry on the Men's Movement, while they in turn put up their hands and claim  innocence and fawn ignorance. The NAFALT denial persists (not all feminists are like that)..

That radical feminist forum discusses the annihilation of all men and boys via DNA manipulation as well as genocide, their hatred seethes from those pages and is as sickening as anyone can ever imagine. Select the worse scenario and that is precisely what it is they propose. It's not a busy site, it does have quite a few followers whose attitudes and rantings can only be described as psychotic, bordering on lunacy..

The connection between feminism and it many variations are there for all to see. They claim to be a movement for "equality" but the Swedish example has already totally destroyed that notion as we have already witnessed. Feminism cannot be described as anything else but a hate movement, whose only aims is for the destruction of all men and boys by gradual and systemic methodology. This can also be ascertained when reading a post from one of the swedish citizens..

Regardless of their claims, feminism does nothing more than promote hate and distrust between the sexes and the only way we will rid this planet of it is to ensure that the politicians and law makers are informed (as if they did not already know) of their maniacal actions and future aims..

Be careful who you vote for. Ensure they do not have any sympathy towards this hate movement..

Hannah Mudge: More Trifling CD (Cognisant Dissonance)



Patience is definitely a virtue when one has to muddle through another inane rant from another misguided, cognitive dissonance recipient. It does fascinate me how feminists and their ilk can calmly disclaim any malice and irrational behaviour on their own part, with accompanying male-hating and abusive commentary, and yet claim that all others, mainly the MM sites, are responsible and in their own justification, they are totally and entirely blameless. How does that work. What makes an individual live in complete denial when the precise opposite is true. That opposite can be readily seen and witnessed on copious feminist sites. Yet they deny it ever happens. Classic..


Hannah Mudge

News Columnist, Peterborough, UK
After a stint as a journalist, Hannah Mudge now works in publishing and enjoys writing in her free time. Her interests include classic rock, politics, women's issues, reading and running. She also loves talking, a good debate, drinking wine and is obsessed with the Mitford sisters.

Hannah is based in Peterborough, England, where she lives with her husband and several fish, spending a lot of time on her computer and acquiring more books. In 2009 she completed her first half marathon and had a blog post featured on the Guardian's 'Best of the Web', both of which made her very happy indeed.

Twitter: @boudledidge | Blog: On To Berlin

The other issue they continually promote is the "hate mail" they receive, which in their obvious non-magnanimity, only happens to them. Well no it don't, we just do not make the same song and dance about it as they do. Making altogether ridiculous statements is apparently reserved specifically for them. The overall affect is comical to say the least..

This is her version on how that video was exposed..
The women posted an admittedly ridiculous video on YouTube over a year ago, advertising a theatre production based on Valerie Solanas's SCUM Manifesto and showing the shooting of a man, followed by a victory dance by the women.
So it's publicity for a play, which isn't, you know, real.
So, in her interpretation, being sent an abusive email (I have plenty) is a major issue where women are concerned but the display of a "kill all men" video depicting females shooting a man in cold blood, dancing to that act, is not in her opinion comparable. Can one wonder why CD (cognisant dissonance) is a prerequisite condition for feminists. Her response to this humour and comedy, where she is concerned is "So it's publicity for a play, which isn't, you know, real.", there we go..


Not real, but those emails and comments are. I believe I require a mind rinse..


This male hater gets better..
Many of these sites try to maintain a veneer of "reason", but you never have to read very far to realize that they're beloved hangouts of individuals who really do despise women, or at least all women who don't fit their ideal of feminine behaviour and let them treat them as they wish. Even when the contributors to these sites attempt to discourage completely vitriolic comments and attacks, you're going to get readers who can't help themselves. 
My favourite part of this drivel is the claim that feminism equals femininity. The sexist and discriminatory raging that these male hater inflict on a daily basis on all men and boys (boys having mothers) is to identified as feminine behavior. Very good, aligning all women with feminism's hate program and their irrational behaviour is deemed, in her mind, to be the justified action of her own sex. Obviously not aware of the fact that feminists are a minority and any decent woman would not have a bar of their hate movement even if their life depended on it. Those are facts that I have personally found to be the case. Whenever I have asked any female if she is a feminist, I am met with utter disbelieve that I would even ask that question. They loathe that doctrine as much as we all do without reservation. But feminists keep deluding themselves into believing that they speak for the majority when in fact they fail to realise that they are not only a minority but on the loosing side and facing a downward spiral..


The entire episode was a response to an excellent article generated by JTO on AVfM..

When is a death threat funny?

AT WHAT POINT DOES A “REAL MAN” TAKE DEATH THREATS SERIOUSLY?


In response to this site’s ongoing opposition to increasingly common calls for male-targeted murder, a blogger named Hannah Mudge appears to have missed the point entirely.
In a discussion on the topic of online bullying[1], Mudge correctly identifies threats of violence or death as problematic for opinionated bloggers whose postings, in the pseudo-anonymous culture of online writing, sometimes provoke threatening responses. Unsurprisingly, on a site named “bitchbuzz” the tacit assumption appears to be that female writers hold a monopoly on receipt of such threats. However, this fallacy is so common that exploration of it would be a distraction.
Mudge spends a paragraph establishing her ideological credentials, and demonstrating to her readers that she knows about the subtleties of psychological abuse, before getting to the meat of her argument.
According to her source, a “man” renowned for depraved futility; one of the more high-profile men’s rights websites (that’s us) recently offered a reward to for the personal details of a group of Swedish women who have made a video we don’t like.
Hannah omits mention of the reason we don’t like it, namely that it called for male-targeted murder. In addressing the video’s naked endorsement of homicide, Mudge manages to characterize it as “admittedly ridiculous.” She further smogs the issue by claiming it was “publicity for a play, which isn’t, you know, real”.
And in the limited sense of being technically correct, Mudge is right. The depiction of a man’s murder, followed by the text message “Do Your Part” is indeed the promotion for a play. That play being the stage adaptation of Valerie Solanas’ infamous anti-male hate literature “Society for Cutting Up Men Manifesto”[2]. Many apologists for male targeting hatred and violence claim that Solanas was kidding. However, in addition to authoring this manifesto, she also shot Andy Warhol. Probably not kidding so much, eh?
But lets, just for argument’s sake; assume that Solina’s work is no more than a particularly dark joke. Clever satire, characterized by sentiments such as:
  • To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples
  • Every man, deep down, knows he’s a worthless piece of shit
  • Being an incomplete female, the male spends his life attempting to complete himself, to become female
  • The male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection of tenderness
The stage production based on Solana’s hate manifesto, and promoted by this disgusting item of murder advocacy is routinely performed by the group calling themselves “S.C.U.M.” for school-children. Yes, children. Try to imagine explaining to a 12 year boy that the presentation he was shown at school explaining that he is male and therefore worthless – that it was only satire and he should just man up.
Hannah Mudge also mistakes the intent behind identifying and publishing the names of murder-advocates. She claims my article on this site was “[a call] for those who are involved in the video to be publicly shamed.”
While public advocation of murder is shameful, particularly when based on a sexual demographic, the real reason for naming murder advocates is to prevent murder. The obtuse failure to grasp that Swedish feminists’ public call for murder is actually a public call for murder, while the identification of those murder advocates is a matter of civic responsibility is difficult to credit as genuine confusion.
If calling for male-targeted murder is, in Mudge’s words “All just a bit of fun,” then how does identification of those murder advocates transmogrify into an endorsement of violence?
Perhaps in Mudge’s mind, its not really violence or murder if it targets males.
National and regional governments commonly list male offenders on state-funded websites. News outlets also routinely publish the names of men accused, but not even convicted of various crimes, including unproven accusations of rape. Such men are professionally and personally destroyed, even after legal exhortation. The register-her project, condemned by Hannah Mudge, includes only those offenders on whom reputable reporting exists, and does not register those who have been accused but not convicted of crimes. Their crimes are already a part of the public record and are linked on their register-her profiles. However, in Mudge’s words: “if that’s not an encouragement to disturbed individuals looking to go on the rampage, I don’t know what it is.”
This is a rhetorical question, but one betraying either laziness or stupidity. The “About” page of register-her includes the following statement.
“This website is a public service designed as an information resource regarding criminal threats in the community. The need for register-her.com was born out of the unfortunate social and legal custom of failing to punish female criminals and to safeguard society from their continued criminality.”
Borrowing from Hannah Mudge again – the video of which I and the editors of AVfM are unreservedly critical is explicitly “an encouragement to disturbed individuals looking to go on the rampage.”
Mudge’s assertion, that public identification of the advocates of murder and promoters of hate constitutes “another example of women being targeted for harassment” stretches credulity. I do not believe that Hannah Mudge is an honest actor. Rather, she is attempting to protect hate mongers who advocate murder and who indoctrinate children in the same mentality, as if these people are satirists, and she is characterizing men who object to being targeted for murder as aggressors.
WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
The Swedish feminists aren’t unique in their advocation of male-targeted violence. An american author who writes crime novels under the pseudonym Perri O’Shaughnessy also blogs using the online identity Vliet Tiptree. On a feminist themed blog called radical-hub, O’Shaughnessy crafted an anti male diatribe of more than 4000 words[3]. In this rant O’Shaughnessy demonstrated her lawyerly skills by using euphemistic language to call for a long term program of male-targeting eugenics. Commentary from her followers – left standing months after the blog’s exposure by AVfM is more explicit, suggesting programs of male infanticide as well as other methods of extermination.
Another blogger named Rebecca Carter[4] advocated male extermination in explicit language. The daytime women’s show “the Talk” treated male sexual mutilation committed by Katherine Becker as slapstick comedy[5], and one of that show’s hostesses announced that a previous generation’s celebrity male mutilator – Lorena Bobbit was worshipped at an alter in her home.
So Hannah Mudge I have a question for you, and it’s not rhetorical.
At what point should a “real man” take the direct threat of murder seriously? When, as a man, should an individual take the signal that the calls for murder, for eugenics, and for extermination are not “all in good fun” anymore, but that they represent a real violent malice?
Ill ask you again Hannah – with a repeat of my notice to you that this is not a rhetorical question. When does advocacy of violence or murder stop being a joke, and start being what it is; namely a death threat issued against an entire sexual demographic?
Maybe it’s when rape of members of a sexual demographic – happening with the sanction of law enforcement becomes a staple of late night comedy on TV? No, of course not, men getting raped in prison is hilarious!
Is it when state-sponsored performance groups teach children to hate based on sex? No, of course not, that’s just satire from silly old Valerie Solanas; the attempted murderer.
Is it when numerous blogs call for male targeting murder? Is it when those blogs receive dozens of comments in support of, and in escalation of advocated violence? Ha! No, of course not, the hundreds of women calling for men to be killed in their facebook, myspace, and twitter blogs are just cute.
Maybe its when gruesome, violent crimes targeting one sex are openly celebrated on daytime TV. Ha! men getting chopped up is funny, you can tell because the entire studio audience cheered and laughed.
So, men like me clearly have no idea how to recognize the difference between good-natured comedy, and murderous intent, so please Hannah, do inform me.
One more question for you Hannah. How does objection to violence transform, in your mind,to harassment of women?
Hanna Mudge, you are a disgrace.
[1] http://tech.bitchbuzz.com/this-week-in-online-harassment.html
[2] http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm
[3] http://radicalhub.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/radical-feminism-in-the-21st-century/
[4] http://www.avoiceformen.com/portal/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Proposition-777-Extermination-of-Man.pdf
[5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rkl_oLSKQc

Creating Utopia, Swedish Style..

I, like yourself, do not have to look far to witness the total hypocrisy that we have been fed by feminists over the years, in order to understand what manner of lies they expect us to believe. The doctrine they want us to accept is so flawed as to make one shake our collective heads in bewilderment. It does take an exceptional effort on the part of the listener, viewer and reader to wonder what level of cognitive dissonance one has to endure to demand your thought processes to accept it. It contradicts all level of reason and integrity, we were raised to be honest, just and righteous were we not..
Feminism's claim that we are the product of our environment has been totally refuted by their own doctrine. It is blatantly obvious to them that the sexes are different, they find it necessary to change one sex according to their dysfunctional mindset and assist the other to achieve their misguided substitute. Both men and women have been told that their lives and existence on this planet is somehow been corrupted by the thought processes of both. In their opinion, everyone should not be identifiable as being any different from the other. No sexes, just one sex..

One wonders why anyone would want to find alternatives to the feminist mind think. What demands anyone to search the web for an alternate view without realising that they sense something is amiss,  what they have been forcefully told to believe. I went through that same sensation in the early nineties when I witnessed the endless male-bashing efforts by what appeared to me to be, normal women. Their endless efforts at telling me that my behaviour and the way that I live was toxic to their way of thinking. After witnessing a comprehensive staged effort by feminists to malign and castigate all men and boys, not only did I come to the conclusion that beauty was actually only skin deep, but those women who mouther those hateful and unnecessary epithets designed to wage a war, also demonstrated that those same females were being cunningly manipulated to express a view that was totally foreign to me and probably to themselves as well (not realising the outcome)..

The comparison between the manipulation of science in the AGW debacle, has many comparisons and implications to the "war of the sexes" meme, they ensured that their unscientific methodology received exposure and also lived in the hope that by manipulating the facts, changes could be made by coercion and appealing to future imaginary conditions. Denying the bleeding obvious by introducing exaggeration and lies had worked well there and it should work for feminism as well. In the long term, people are made to look amateurish and stupid, sycophantic, lacking a thought process and excepting any lunatics claims, I thought we had outgrown that. People demonstrated how easily they could be manipulated and controlled, their thinking could be carefully directed in whatever direction those dictators wanted without having any indication what affect it would have on future thought and behaviour, or on the generations to come. They will have to deal with it..

Right now we can witness clearly the hate and vengeance feminism has wrought on both men and women. The overall affect it has had on society is staggering, look at Sweden for a good example of what will happen if you allow that poison to take hold and give it authority to behave the way it does. It's the "power corrupts completely" statement that can be applied here without any fear of contradiction..

When an infectious doctrine like feminism is allowed to spread and infect all exposed, then why bother with religion, philosophy or history, if they are not used to argue against this blight, this scourge. Historically, people have resisted this level of tyranny by spilling their blood but here we have a malign influence, ignored by the lack of action by the majority of people to fight against it. If you were of the opinion that life sucks now, wait until we have the same situation they live and promote in Sweden, where feminists have been given carte blanche, allowed to carry out their heinous,  hypocritical assault on human rights and personal freedom, without bothering to study it's inevitable outcome. Feminism has no answers to that because it is an experiment, an experiment where the outcome is presumed but not tested, argued, justified or researched. One cannot research anything when one does not have comprehensive, revisable scientific facts with a copyable process to test the theories and hypothesis. In the case for feminism this would indeed be impossible as their entire theory is just that and it's outcome is presumed. Hardly a way forward is it. Living a presumption is what the people in the Roman Empire did "they were unbeatable"..

That has apparently been left to future generations to work out and deal with. Anyway, enjoy your breakfast, mine was enjoyable..