Domestic Violence Perception Management Shelters: Secret Power Centres The Law: Respector of Persons Problems Caused by Government and Law Feminists are not Your Friends Damn Middle-Class Rich White Women and Their Whinging "Why Would She Lie?": Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics Fight For Justice Fathers4Justice vs. the Media The Truth About Fatherlessness The BlindSpot of the Welfare State The Masses Against the Asses Freedom of Speech The Bias of Science Does Feminism Exist? No Innocent Feminists Eddie Muir is Inoompetent Facets of Feminism Hidden Persuaders Brownmiller False Rape Claim DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Ask Erin Pizzey: In 1971, Pizzey opened the first battered wives shelter in England, which she ran until 1982. Arguably, the Chiswick Family Rescue was the second domestic violence shelter in the world. Pizzey's book "Scream Quietly or the Neighbours Will Hear" (1974, out of print) was one of the first to explore and expose wife battering. Today, the shelter Pizzey founded denies her entry; her name does not appear in its official history. Pizzey's 'mistake' was to diverge from the theory of domestic violence that feminists at the time insisted dominate all discussion. She believed that men could also be the victims of domestic violence, and that women could be as violent toward their partners as men. Pizzey's views put her on a collision course with PC feminists who, according to Pizzey's own published account of events, initiated a campaign of harassment and violence against her. Pizzey described this harassment in an article she published in the Scotsman in 1999. "Because of my opposition to the hijacking of the refuge movement, I was a target for abuse. Anywhere I spoke there was a contingent of screaming, heckling feminists waiting for me," Pizzey wrote. "Abusive telephone calls to my home, death threats and bomb scares, became a way of living for me and for my family. Finally, the bomb squad, asked me to have all my mail delivered to their head quarters." One night, the family dog was killed. Eventually, "exhausted and disillusioned," Pizzey said she went into "exile with her children and grandchildren," leaving England in 1982 to live in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Pizzey returned to England that same year for the book tour of her next book, "Prone to Violence," which once again ignited a violent reaction among feminists. Pizzey wrote that when she arrived in England for her book tour, she was "met with a solid wall of feminist demonstrators" carrying signs that read "ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS, ALL MEN ARE BATTERERS." "The police insisted that I have an escort all round England for my book tour," Pizzey wrote in the Scotsman. There is some reason to believe that "Prone to Violence" has been the target of a campaign of suppression by PC feminists. According to the web site Wikepedia, in 1996 an internet search of the world libraries that can be accessed through the Library of Congress uncovered only 13 listings for the book: an astonishingly low number for a pioneering work that caused a sensation. Why would PC feminists nearly riot over a book and, then, ignore it? Because Pizzey advanced a competing theory of domestic violence. When viewed through the PC lens of class oppression, domestic violence is not an act of violence committed by one individual against another. It is an act committed by men that must be correctly understood within the larger context of women's class oppression. "Prone to Violence" spelled out some of Pizzey's disagreements with that view. Disagreement #1: Of the first 100 women who entered Chiswick, Pizzey found that over 60 percent were as violent or more violent than the men they were fleeing. In short, a significant percentage of the women were also batterers or otherwise active participants in the violence. Disagreement #2: Pizzey developed the theory that many battered women were psychologically drawn to abusive relationships and they sought them out. To PC feminists, such analysis was tantamount to 'blaming the victim.' Disagreement #3: She explained why the existing model of domestic violence shelters was ineffective. PC feminists were attempting then (and now) to secure ever greater financing for these operations. Sandra Horley, director of Chiswick in 1992, reportedly complained, "if we put across this idea that the abuse of men is as great as the abuse of women, then it could seriously affect our funding." Censorship, violence, animal abuse. Still, it was probably a flase flag operation, don't you think? Or ask Suzanne Steinmetz (stone mason in German). Her children were threatened with death, by the feminists, because her domestic violence studies reached the "wrong" conclusion. Facts don't matter. It's POLITICAL correctness that matters, not factual correctness. It's a good job women are so much more kind and nurturing or who knows what they'd have done to her. PERCEPTION MANAGEMENT www.menweb.org/lacecur1.htm: "Our hypothesis is that worthy victims will be featured prominently and dramatically, that they will be humanized, and that their victimization will receive the detail and context in story construction that will generate reader interest and sympathetic emotions. In contrast, unworthy victims will merit only slight detail, minimal humanization, and little context that will excite and enrage." —E. S. Herman and N. Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent Keep needy men off the RADAR. Fictionalise a feminisation of poverty, while most poor people are men, most homeless are men, most drug addicts are men, most of the "unworthy poor" are men. Most white collar workers are women. Women find it easier to get work. Etc. It's the Hatred of Men's Genitalia. The Lace Curtain: http://www.menweb.org/lacecur1.htm The Lace Curtain shows a masterful control of the media, something there is no chance at all a group of women could achieve, no matter how delusional and violent they may be. Power breeds power. A powerful psychopath is dangerous, a powerless psychopath isn't. Only the CIA and their Nazi propaganda machine could have given this sort of media sympathy to the feminists. Look at how little media attention there is for other so-called left wing causes. None. Just ridicule and derision. Or course, I'm not saying women don't love children, although the plague of daycare centres and the abortion holocaust might be good reason to think so. No, I'm sure women "love" children. Apparently women are just as likely to commit child sexual abuse as men. There is an organisation called "Butterfly Kisses" which should adequately prove my point. And for their male homosexual allies there is NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association. That's even got Love in the title. We've always been told homos are more in touch with their feminine side. Looks like they were right all along. Who'd have though it? Feminists are totally insane, by definition, but some are worse than others. See here: http://www.awakenedwoman.com/malta.htm Those women are totally tonto. They're also talking about the Hypogeum of Hal Saflienti, in Malta where a huge pile of bones was found in the catacombs, indicative of anicent human sacrifice. On top of which shapeshifting lizard men have been seen there and reports of hidden chasms and missing children have been happening even in the twentieth century. The Lace Curtain: http://www.menweb.org/lacecur1.htm More feminist censorship. Censorship requires power, and a hate-filled, truth-hating political philosophy. See Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky and the other one, or the original preface to Animal Farm (which was an essay on censorship in "free" Britain and was, of course, censored). In this case, my findings were compatible with those of virtually every feminist – put less emphasis on the quasi-anorexic woman. The censorship came instead from a different portion of the Lace Curtain – the portion whose investment is not in victim power, but in "genetic celebrity" power:8 the power of a woman’s beauty to obtain attention, "love," dinners, dates, and diamonds without her doing anything but smile in return. The genetic-celebrity-power portion of the Lace Curtain knew that the more she had an investment in her genetic-celebrity-power, the more she would invest, the more the ads were worth. I was discovering that each portion of the Lace Curtain wanted to hear the men’s feelings that they wanted to hear. What happens when the genetic celebrity gets married? A Ladies’ Home Journal reporter interviewed me about "What Men Fear Most."9 It was about the secrets men fear sharing even with their wives (e.g., fear of not earning enough money combined with a desire for a career that he enjoyed more that paid less). He sent me the draft he sent to the Journal. I was relieved. I knew it would be helpful to the marriages of Ladies’ Home Journal readers. Until we saw the published piece – with virtually every insight surgically removed. An experienced writer, he had never experienced "editing" at this level. He was shaken, and depressed. No feminists are to be excused. Especially not those who act as skirmishers for their more violent or extreme brethren. The likes of Christina Hoff-Summers, for example. Anyone using the name feminist, an inhetrently sexist name for a movement which has always been sexist, is an enemy of justice. SHELTERS: SECRET POWER CENTRES The Promise Keepers, an American organisation, are also an evil front for feminism. They are a Catholic group who take it upon themselves to proclaim their willingness to be "responsible" for things for which they bear no moral responsibility. As with all feminists they put the burdens, blame and responsibility for all things on the shoulders of men. Sentimental feminists, as Bax would call them. Feminists, you see, are motivated solely by power and politics, not by what's best for women and certainly not by the truth. "Battered Shelters", Donna LaFramboise: In April 1996, the province of Nova Scotia yanked funding and temporarily shut down Yarmouth's Juniper House shelter after its board resigned — citing tension between staffers and the board. Ruth Ann Deveau, the former executive director, had been convicted of fraud under $1,000, after her successor found funds were unaccounted for. At Kingston's Sexual Assault Crisis Centre, 15 volunteers quit in protest in 1996. One concern was the fact that the directors had decided to stop using a local auctioneer for charity events. The reason, in the words of one board member: "She is married to a Tory and the ramifications of that are unavoidable." The centre also began to decline free food from a local Domino's Pizza, because the American founder and then- owner of the chain is a pro-life supporter. I dislike Tories as much as the next man, but this is irresponsible. Earlier this year, during a bitter labour dispute, a representative of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (to which staff now belong) alleged that "53 employees over the past three years have resigned or been dismissed" out of a "permanent complement of 28." The union has characterized management as "oppressive and controlling," while workers have told the media that shelter clients are leaving the facility because services aren't available. Only to be expected when you hire lesbians. In fact these women's shelters, rape crisis centres and so on are used and indoctrinations centres for reeducation and brainwashing. By immersing these weak-willed women in an environment where the evil of men is taken for granted and then employing the Big Lie technique the type of abuse-prone woman drawn to a DV shelter or rape crisis centre (either as a volunteer, probably an abuser, or as a "victim") can be indoctrinated any way you want. That's how Hitler got all those screaming female supporters. Tens of millions of public and charitable dollars are handed over every year to organizations with long records of financial and managerial scandal. Rather than attracting people who can put aside differences and comfort the afflicted, these organizations have become magnets for militants who seem instead to view such services as an opportunity to proselytize. Barbara MacQuarrie, president of the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres, says that a client using these services will be urged to: "...put her experience as an individual into a larger socioeconomic political context where women experience violence systematically. We try to tell somebody, this isn't just about you. This is about the way women are treated, and we have a whole bunch of institutions and systems that reinforce that kind of treatment." There are, of course, occasional inmates in these islands lunacy in an otherwise sane world who refuse to kow-tow to debauched and dishonest philosophies. And woe betide them. Battered women's shelters are supposed to be caring, and supportive facilities. But women who seek refuge in them often tell a different story. Those below all requested anonymity. Some fear personal or professional reprisals, others wish to protect their own privacy and that of their children. [...] Samantha says the RCMP had to break down the front door to pull her abusive husband off her so often that "it got to the point where you couldn't even close the door any more." But after fleeing to a Winnipeg shelter in 1994, Samantha says she returned to her abusive husband rather than remain at the facility. [...] In May 1996, Shirley knocked on the door of a Winnipeg battered women's shelter with her two teenage daughters. The then 34-year-old aboriginal woman says she turned to the facility not because her common-law husband had been violent, but because they'd had a fight, it was late, and she had nowhere else to go. "He didn't beat me up or nothing, we just had an argument," she says. "It was just a time out. I needed a place for my kids to stay and sleep and eat." Because the shelter serves battered women, it would have been understandable if Shirley had been re-directed to a hostel. Instead, she says, the workers who took her in ignored her actual situation and pressured her to conform to their stereotypes. "They asked me if I was abused, and I said, 'No.' They wanted me to get a lawyer, and I said, 'For what?'" Shirley says shelter employees tried to "trick" her into making incriminating statements about her husband. "Everything negative about him, they wrote it down. If I said something nice about him, they wouldn't write it down. I kept telling them, 'No, he didn't hit me.'" She says she was offered incentives such as housing and furniture to leave her husband. "They said, 'If you leave him, we can help you find a place right away.' But I said, 'I don't want to leave him.'" Two years later, Shirley is adamant she wouldn't turn to a shelter again. "For me to leave my common-law, they wanted that so bad. They were trying to break up a family, and I didn't want that." www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-30.htm: Two years ago, Terri admitted that she abused the battered-women's shelter system. Although her husband had never assaulted her, she told a Winnipeg conference examining false allegations in family law that she lied to shelter staff, and to herself, because it was absurdly easy and because she had something to gain. Terri says her husband's drinking problem made their seven-year relationship a rocky one, and that she had left him before. Her mother urged her to go to a shelter, she says, in the belief that the counselors would help her achieve independence. Terri (who requested anonymity to spare her now former husband further embarrassment), says she telephoned a Winnipeg shelter and was told only abused women were admitted. "I went to the door and I cried and said that my husband was abusive. My kids weren't with me because I didn't want them to see how I had to get in." Terri says the intake worker accepted her story at face value. So she retrieved her sons, then three and six years old, and went back to the shelter where staff began coaching her on how to gain the upper hand in divorce court. Terri says residents were told that "the first thing we needed to do was obtain a restraining order against our spouse. We were instructed to write down our complaints on paper and bring them with us when we went to see our lawyer." In Terri's case, the result was a ten-page affidavit alleging not that her husband was physically abusive, but that he displayed characteristics one might expect in an alcoholic. "A lot of the stuff I wrote up in the court document was about his hygiene. I complained about always having bladder infections because he never had a bath." On the basis of this affidavit, she says, "I got the restraining order and soon after I got full custody of my children with no visitation for my husband." Later, the full import of her actions sank in. "I realized what I had done. My children had not seen their father for a year, yet I was never afraid that he would harm them or myself," says Terri, now a 36-year-old therapist. "It was not a fair fight. I had the shelter and the women's movement on my side." [...] Susan Baragar, who practices primarily family law in Winnipeg, describes herself as a feminist but believes nevertheless that it is "all too easy" for women to get these letters from shelters, and warns that they are a highly potent weapon." Judges are "most definitely swayed" if a woman is staying at a shelter and court documents include a letter from the facility implying that the father is dangerous, says Ms. Baragar. "I mean, you've got sort of a 'professional' now saying he shouldn't see his kids." Ms. Baragar, herself, has used the tactic on behalf of her own clients. She cites a recent case in which she represented a woman who "came in with this two- or three-page letter which I attached to the affidavit, and [the father] was denied access on that basis. Nothing else. It depends on the judge. Some judges are more cautious than others. But in that particular case he was absolutely denied access." Women, on the other hand, have carte blanche to abuse http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-31.htm: When asked why the shelter would assist a fugitive, Cliffe replies: "They are staunch feminists who believe what a woman says with no questions asked. So this woman says one sentence — she claims the father was sexually abusing this child — and they believe it." [...] Many of Cliffe's co-workers held a different view. When she told them she was going to alert child protection authorities, the shelter convened an emergency staff meeting on the morning of December 14 [1998] in an attempt to dissuade Cliffe from making the call she placed that afternoon. "They got me in on Monday morning and spent three and a half hours taking the skin off my bones." According to Cliffe, they shouted, banged on the table, swore at her and declared their intention to help the woman escape. "I was asked, 'How dare you pass judgment on this woman? This woman is saying she's educating this child. Who are you to put your middle-class values on her?' The little girl couldn't read the word "egg". And its a bit rich coming from a feminist: "middle class values", considering feminists are all rich white women. They were saying: 'If you make this child protection report you're going to send this woman to jail and you're going to send this child back to be sexually abused. Who in the f - - do you think you are?'" I think they may have been creating a hostile work environment. Tut tut. Cliffe left the meeting (which occurred off-site), returned to the shelter and made her report. "I phoned Child Protection and I was sobbing at that point," she remembers. When three of her co-workers arrived back at the shelter, she felt it was best to leave. "I didn't feel safe. My knees were knocking. I felt physically unsafe after what they did to me. They were all sitting by the door. When I walked through them, my boss said to me: 'What have you done?' I did my job. I don't feel I did anything that any one of them shouldn't have done." When the authorities arrived at the shelter shortly afterward, the woman and her daughter were indeed gone. At that point, the RCMP became involved, catching up with the pair at a bus station. Immediately taken into foster care, the girl was returned to California soon afterward. THE LAW: RESPECTOR OF PERSONS The law doesn't care much for children. The law is there to protect property and rich white women. Not long ago I was reading about the difference in sentencing between black and white men convicted of the same crime, someone was outraged by the racism. Of course, the difference is even greater between men and women, but no-one cares about that. Sex, gender and wealth all have an effect. Rich white women don't get sent to jail. Rich black men hardly exist, but poor black men get long stretches in hard jails. Rich white men get sent to open prisons. Poor white men get sent in with the poor black men, just not for as long. http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/1595973903e0ca8f/bd0efbe62dce88d0?lnk=st&q=michael+snyder+doj&rnum=2&hl=en#bd0efbe62dce88d0 If you're going to run someone down in your car, make sure it's a black man. You'll get an average of 2 years, for a white woman SIX years. Avoid them, no matter how tempting it might be. I can't remember where I read that. http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-32.htm#secrecy: Those triggers also protect shelters from normal scrutiny. Ottawa's new domestic court is taking men out of their homes at the rate of 120 a month. The zero-tolerance approach to domestic violence includes, for most men, a restraining order meaning they can't go home, or near their homes, until calm is restored. Of course, the only lack of calm comes from the feminist movement, the movement that tried to blow up the Miss World Pageant and the Telecom Tower (Post Office Tower as was). Anne Cools, A Canadian Senator, like Erin Pizzey, is a founder of the women's shelter movement who is now opposed to it. PROBLEMS CAUSED BY GOVERNMENT AND LAW Don't think that the CIA and the intelligence services wouldn't conspire against us. Look at Operation Gladio, Operation Northwoods, Smedley Butler, MI5's attempts to get rid of Harold Wilson. They hate democracy. That's their philosophy, if you're losing the game, kick over the table. I’m shaking, I shake the spear before you’re eyes Well if you know your history, you will read between lines If you’re waiting for a vision, to illuminate your mind To leave this world of misery, to leave it all behind -- "Grateful when you're Dead", Kula Shaker All women are man bashers/false accusers, that's what I say. That's what they say, isn't it, all men are this that or the other. Well, here it's actually true. All women benefit in their careers and so on from the unfair biases of feminism. Benefit in the family courts from feminism. All women tolerate, none put up any opposition to man-bashing and false accusations, quite the opposite. Women are far more monolithic as a group than are men. Don't think there are any extremists in the feminist movement, either. The so-called extremes are the mainstream all of the big feminist writers are "extremists". Tails don't wag their dogs. 40% of rape accusations are false, see the work of Eugene Kanin (he only counted those who confessed to lying as false accusers). That's far higher than for other crimes, because it's easy, risk free and effective. Feminists protect the "victims", as they and the courts insist on calling accusers, by saying "why would she lie". The truth is there are many reasons. Revenge. Excuse for being prognant. One woman sliced her leg open and claimed she had been raped by two black men because she was late for work and needed an excuse. Yet these women get a presumption of guilt for the victims of their accusations, get sympathy, get paid compensation by the government and get anonymity. There is no prospect of a serious punishment and little prospect of any punishment, no matter how extreme and blatant the dishonesty. Nor is rape a common crime, contrary to the "research" of the likes of Sheer Hite. Of course, if you count consensual sex under the influence of intoxicating substances as rape then half the men out there and a decent number of the women are rapists. but that's not reality, that semantics at best and politically motivated deceit at worst. Men raped, a common thing in the prisons of America receive no sympathy from feminists at all, despite the victims being largely innocent or non-violent offenders. Feminism is built on lies. They need to lie to maintain their victim status, upon which their movement is built. The truth is feminists are probably the most priviledged group in the world, being entirely rich women, mostly white and western. Take the burning times hoax as an example. The idea, propagated by ideological feminists that several million women were burnt as witches (the actual figure was only in the thousands, over two continents and several centuries, many of whom were men burnt for witchcraft and heresy). Even women who have commited murder must be assumed to be victims. Look at Karla Homolka. She was a serial killer, but because of the assumption of her innocence on the part of prosecutors she was offered a plea bargain, as women usually are, on the condition that she incriminated her husband. It was then revealed that she had played a very active role in choosing, capturing and killing their victims. But they could only punish the husband fully because of the plea bargain. The plea bargain was full of lies. Karla Homolka had drugged and held down victims. As part of her defence she claimed to have been abused, although it was actually a normal part of her life to be "abused" as part of sadomasochistic sex games. Or take Lauren Wright, hit in the stomach and killed by her stepmother. On the plus side her stepmother was convicted of manslaughter. Unfortunately, so was the father who had nothing to do with it. Per's Manifesto: Alba Ingrid Scarpelli regularly tied up and tortured 5-year-old Richard Holmes. He is the son of her live-in boyfriend, Alan Lee Holmes. Scarpelli, 32, kept the boy tied to a bedpost with a cat leash. Sometimes she taped his mouth shut. At other times, she force-fed him hot peppers that have caused permanent damage to his liver. He cannot run or jump like other children because of damage to his ankles from being tied up. Scarpelli was convicted of six charges, including first-degree assault, child abuse and false imprisonment. Under state sentencing guidelines, she faced a jail term of 15 to 25 years. Holmes, by contrast, pleaded guilty to two counts: child abuse and conspiracy to commit child abuse. He faced a maximum of 15 years. Here is what the judge decided. The woman was sentenced to 18 months. The man was sentenced to 8 years. As Scarpelli's sentence was read in court, her sister Elaine Scarpelli shouted "Ingrid, that's a great sentence!" Indeed. Presiding over both cases was Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge DeLawrence Beard. He gave Scarpelli the slap-on-the- wrist sentence and the stiffer sentence to Holmes. Beard told Holmes he had a "higher duty" to protect his son. "You are going to receive a substantially more severe sentence because you were substantially more culpable," said Beard. "You were in a superior position to intervene and stop this." We agree that Holmes had a duty to protect his son. We agree he ought to be punished. But the case raises troubling questions. Why is a man's duty to prevent crimes higher than a woman's duty not to commit them? Why was Holmes in a "superior position" to stop this? Because he's male? The person in the best position to prevent violence by Alba Ingrid Scarpelli was Alba Ingrid Scarpelli. As for Beard's odd comment that the man was more culpable -- that means a woman is less culpable for the very abuse she herself is committing. So when a woman commits violence or abuse, consider her less culpable and look around for a man to blame. FEMINISTS ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS Per: Fellows like this seem to be under the impression that by not challenging the feminist's worst anti-male beliefs, they were somehow being nice guys. This, they seemed to think, would in turn encourage the feminist to see men as swell fellows and not evil patriarchs. We doubt it. If you let someone treat you like a doormat, the primary lesson that person learns is that you don't mind being treated like a doormat. And if you hold your tongue while "moderate" feminists trot out the same old anti-male stereotypes and disinformation, the moderate feminists will learn that it is acceptable to bash men. And that nice guys let them do it. Yes. You see there is always a distressed female somewhere in Ulan Bator who needs the feminist movement to swoop down in their SUVs and take her oppressor to court or their is the redressing of centuries of alleged injustices or their is the manufacturing of "equal" non-feminist injustices, their is always an excuse for the feminist movement to maintain its existence and to push on its agenda. There is always a reason they can come up with the give more women "positive discrimination" or to avoid challenging injustices suffered mostly by men. Always a reason to campaign for more funding for breast cancer research, an already overfunded disease and not to fund men's diseases like prostate cancer or testicular cancer, which get next to no funding. For that matter, heart disease is the leading cause of death among women but research int ht area might benefit men too and so it can't be allowed to occupy any space in feminist agitprop. Still, if men got it, I dare say it would have been cured by now. As for the centuries of injustice argument, the modern feminist is a stranger to the short end of the stick. Long ends only are available and acceptable to little princesses. Their idea of injustice is getting the standard model porsche from daddy. Of course, they see themselves as oppressed, they are very self-important. The oppressor class often sees itself as subjugated or under siege. The Romans conquered the known world in self-defence. Hitler was only defending the purity of his race from those awful Jewish media moguls. The slightest chink in the armour of priveledge is an injustice to them. Let women into the lifeboats first and you are a patriarchalist, don't and they'll have you shot. http://members.tripod.com/feministhate/id44.htm: Once upon a time, long long ago, in a country far far away...... Increasingly when I ask feminists to try and name an issue of discrimination against women it sounds like the beginning of a fairy tale. So often the issue is conveniently situated either in some remote country or better yet in some unspecified part of history. Far enough away that statements will prove difficult to check on. Fairy tales. Don't get me wrong; I am not saying these stories are always lies. I am saying that I cannot tell whether they are true or false. And more -- they do not know if their stories are honest either. It's not just a question of the difficulty of checking facts. There is no context to the stories. No knowledge of the culture in which they take place and how it might colour the interpretation of the selective reporting. Isn't that why fairy tales happen in far away places? Even children know that those things don't happen in our normal lives... but maybe long long ago...? Everything seems more possible. Long ago men all hated women say the feminists. Women were treated as slaves and as property. Or perhaps it is what is happening in Afghanistan... Incidentally, it' a fair while since we knocked over the Taleban, and I don't see the other dominoes falling into neoliberal feminist "democracy". In fact, if you look at Afghanistan on the news there's quite a lot of burqas knocking about. Wonder why those women haven't voted them off. Could it be because the law enforcing their use was largely unneccesary, because women, witht he exception of a handful of liberal, ivory-tower elitist feminists, wanted to wear them? Surely not! Who'd want to cover up in the sun? Let's forget about the law enforcing beards and trousers on men, for a moment. How is it that this ultimate sign of feminine subjugation survives in a country where women have the vote and men are only a small minority of the population, after decades of insurgency against their own government, the Soviets and the Americans with a hefty civil war in the middle? in their fairy tales men control women and men like to hurt women, but in my life I don't see that happening. In my life I see men loving women and wanting to protect them. Maybe men in those fairy tales were different in their fundamental human nature? I have my doubts. One of the more unexpected indicators of a hate movement is historical revisionism. Lies about the past. Why is this considered particularly notable as a sign? I mean why is it more notable than simply lying about other things? OK, obviously it is easier to lie about the past but why is it more hateful? Well here's my stab at it. It's the Magic Y chromosome DAMN MIDDLE CLASS LIBERAL RICH WHITE WOMEN AND THEIR WHINGING As for the much vaunted argument that all is equal, man-bashing, a cultural insitution without which no female conversation or piece of government/corporate propaganda/ advertising is complete, is evened out by the odd joke about a dumb blonde, the argument is laguhable. No joke, no matter how offensive it may (or int his case may not be) can make up for a culture of jokes belittling men, belittling male victims of violence, a concious effort on the part of feminists to brainwash people into contempt for men. I'm a hard-core unreformed socialist and this gets on my wick. Bloody liberals. This fake victimisation holds true at the individual level too. Look at Battered Women Syndrome (Battered Truth Syndrome to the reality -based community). Per: In the legalistic psychobabble common to these arguments, the motion claims that "The defendant reasonably believed that there was no escape from serious injury except through compliance with the demands of her batterer." No escape? How about the back door? How about alerting the store's security? How about telling a clerk or phoning the police? One of the most amazing things about "battered women's syndrome" is that the women who claim it seem remarkably "escape impaired," deciding that the best and only solution is to kill somebody -- or, in this case, to steal a stranger's wallet. It is no standard practice for a woman who has commited a crime to blame a supposedly culpable man for her wrongdoing. In divorces women can easily have their husbands thrown out of their homes and take their children away, even if the father is the primary care giver, because the feminists have argued that women are too scared to get a divorce if they can't get a restraining order at will. The feminists also argue against prosecuting those who make false accusations of rape because they claim to think it will scare away genuine victims of rape. Typical propaganda strategy. Create a rape hysteria, solicit false accusations then defend the liars on the basis that prosecuting the dishonest will harm the honest. Manufactured dangers, manufactured solutions. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. That's Hegelian dialectic. Yes, even women don't like custody battles, despite their near-inevitable victory, so its a lot easier to try and scare fathers off. Look at how many cases aren't disputed by fathers. Better to submit to losing custody and get occasional visits on suffrance from the mother that the fight and, almost inevitably, lose. That means not seeing the kids, seeing as visitation is never enforced by the courts. Even winning custody is no guarantee. Teachers will help women kidnap their children from school and few courts will return them. What female teachers, who make up the maajority of teachers these days, a large majority, won't help with is teaching boys. They are far more likely to punish boys, boys were far more likely to be spanked when spanking was legal. Women don't want boys to be energetic, and certainly can't teach boys to harness their energy for academic purposes. They want boys to be passive and hateful likelittle girls. They are the front line in the war on boys. Them and the Nazi/psychiatrists. All women tolerate man-bashing, you'll do very well to find even a single one who stands up against Bobbit humour and so on. For some reason sexual abuse, like Prison rap eof men is thought particularly funny. Of course, feminists don't complain about mostly female professions. The fire brigade are mostly men, that's unacceptable, but teachers who will shape the population of tomorrow are mostly female and that's fine. That's equality for you. Equality for you, privelege for me. Feminists dominate these "caring" professions. They conspire to keep men out, to make false accusations against male colleagues and to exclude men. Choice is another area of inequality. Feminists say abortion is an inherent biological right based on their physiology as child-bearers. However, they want this "inherent right" with no accompanying responsibility. If women have a unique right to kill a baby before birth, men have a unique pysiological ability to walk away and have no responsibility for a choice over which they have no rights. Yet the law seeks to deny this right. Choice for men is the only logical choice. "Fascism is corporatism" -- Mussolini So is feminism. The so-called pay-gap is another of these victim myths. The idea that women earn only 59, 69, 79, 75 or any other alleged number, per cent of what men earn for the same work. As if any business would hire men in womne could be got for a third less to do the same work as well. The fact of the matter is women choose less well paying jobs, jobs that are less risky or less unpleasant or require lesser quilifications. Much as feminists might sue to prove cooking in a school kitche is "equivalent" with cleaning the toilets, that doesn't make it so. In reality, women find it easier to get work, especially in the modern no-skill labour force. Its always been the way. I refer you to "The Making of the English Working Class" by EP Thompson. Women are hired when something easy needs doing, when there's something you don't need a man for, because women don't cause trouble. Women tend to be right wing (most men voted for the Labour party in every election from 1945 to 1979, but only for half of that time was LAbour in power, due to female Tory votes). Women tend to fight with each other and don't form or join unions, being too selfish. Women, in other words, are easier to control and are used to subjugate the population as a whole. Having the man of the house out of work leads to tensions within the family and destroys democracy and social movements. That's why it's so important to the capitalists. That's why Thatcher drove unemployment up to 3 million. That's why the currency speculators put her in power in the first place. To destroy the political life of the working man. "WHY WOULD SHE LIE?": LIES, DAMNED LIES AND STATISTICS Let's have a look at some of the reasons women lie about rape. "Why would she lie", as the feminists would say. http://ncfm-dc.org/issues/rape/whywomenlieaboutrape.htm: Spite or Revenge 20 [%] To compensate for feelings of guilt or shame 20 Thought she might be pregnant 13 To conceal an affair 12 To test husband's love 9 Mental/emotional disorder 9 To avoid personal responsibility 4 Failure to pay, or extortion 4 Thought she might have caught VD 3 Other 6 That's from the famous USAF study, not Kanin, but I'm sure it transfers well enough to civilian life. The study found that most false accusations are "instrumental" -- they serve a purpose. If the purpose isn't avoiding guilt or getting revenge, it might serve a more focused purpose, for example telling her parents "I didn't just go out and get pregnant - I was raped"; or telling her husband "I didn't have an affair; it wasn't my fault, I was raped." An unrelated Washington Post article, "Unfounded Rape Reports Baffle Investigators" (6/27/1992) also found a wide range of motivations to falsely accuse men of rape. Anger towards boyfriends was common. One woman had her boyfriend spend 13 months in jail before she acknowledged that she lied. One woman accused her newspaper delivery man of raping her at gunpoint because she needed an excuse to be late to work. Look at the disparity in results from our educational system (GCSE results): 2001 A* A B C D E F G U X Boys 2.8 7.9 14.4 23.6 20.0 14.6 9.1 4.4 2.4 0.6 Girls 4.3 11.5 17.9 24.7 18.0 11.8 6.6 3.0 1.6 0.5 All 3.6 9.7 16.2 24.2 19.0 13.2 7.9 3.7 2.0 0.5 More girls in every grade C and cbove. More boys in every gradations below C. Never used to be like this, although the feminists will have you believe this is nature. That's not a bell curve, you'll notice, with more boys at the top and bottom and more girls in the middle. It's uniform. More disprortionately girls the further towards the top you go. More boys towards the bottom. FIGHT 4 JUSTICE What we need is a masculist militant tendency. A spoiler for a mass movement. A bunch of high profile extremists, like an F4J that didn't care about being thought of as nice guys. That was F4J's downfall. They weren't a right-wing organisation, their leader used to be in Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. That was why they had to be eliminated by the government. The Met sent infiltrators, COINTELPRO style to discredit them by acting as a agent provocateur, suggesting and soliciting violent activity and then filming it as if it were reepresentative of the group. I'd have though CND types would be wise to that by now. Matt O'Connor went on Channel 4 news and I'm sure I remember him saying there was a conspiracy to destroy him, so perhaps they did know. Cafcass and MI5 working together are an unstoppable force. Don't think it can't happen, in America thise nightmare alliance is already very much a reality. Look at the custody related threats made to Michael Riconosciuto. As the evil rag the Grauniad said: Solicitors representing women whose ex-partners are members of Fathers4Justice claim they have been sent abusive e-mails, had their offices vandalised and stormed by protesters and have even been targeted at home. In an even more sinister development, scores of family law solicitors specialising in children's issues were sent hoax letter bombs last autumn. Similar hoaxes - made of marzipan with wires attached to it - were also sent to offices of the Child and Family Courts Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass), which deals with custody issues. Typical non-violent disruptive activities. In other ciscumstances most F4J members would probably be Grauniad readers, as most Cafcass minions undoubtedly are. Perhaps that's a bit suspicious. They're so similar, you see. While F4J certainly raised the profile of Fathers Rights, did it help or harm the cause? wagnews.blogspot.com/2005/07/countdown-coming-uk-coup.html: All of which is virtually a carbon copy of events 'down under' --in Britain's stalwart partner in the War on Terror: Australia. Where a militant father's rights group called the Blackshirts has staged similar actions while wearing masks and paramilitary uniforms. The militant's leader John Abbott defended their often intimidatory acts saying: "we're here to encourage protect and defend marriage, the family and the children." Asture readers might dispute that assertion and see both groups as classic, if not carricature, covert provocateurs who serve to smear father's rights to help keep men and women divided and thus conquered. That's a tactic of rulership as old as the Romans. Someone is pulling the strings of these groups. Perhaps, like Blair, O'Connor is a disaffected lefty gone over to the Intelligence services. A defector. I wonder if he was ever in the SDP, that was a hotbed of CIA infiltrators. The SDP was all lefties who'd lost their faith, who no longer had a political philosophy and who were scared of being ejected from their seats by the newly democratised Labour party. SDP: www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l31whowh.htm www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182686,00.html: Conspiracy theories have floated. For example, the report was payback by a humiliated police force, members of whom had infiltrated F4J and pushed for violence. Or, the story was politically planted on the same day that Blair's Government declared a radical new plan to rein in "absentee fathers who fail to pay for their children's upkeep." Perhaps it might be a good idea to only give custody to people who can look after their children, instead of those who rely on the forced charity of others. FATHERS4JUSTICE VS. THE MEDIA blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/26/053927.php: Fathers4Justice is accusing Granada's Tonight program of orchestrating a "violent conspiracy" by stage-managing a physical attack by one former member of the organization on two others on March 21st, 2005, which they allege to have filmed while covertly following the organization's activities. The incident involved a vulnerable individual with mental health problems who had been plied with alcohol all day by an undercover Granada reporter named Mike Hardy. According to F4J members who were present, Mr. Hardy incited the person concerned to such an extent that he attacked two other members. The attack was then filmed for the Granada Tonight program by Mr. Hardy. F4J said that program producer Adam Leary had stated in a letter of October 21st that "As part of our filming we recorded physical attacks on two people who were then part of F4J's management committee - Jason Hatch & Michael Cox - by an F4J campaigner, Paul Nicholson." Mr Nicholson was subsequently expelled from F4J as a result. Fathers 4 Justice believe that: 1) Granada deliberately manipulated a vulnerable individual (Mr Nicholson) with mental health problems and then subsequently plied him with alcohol during the day of March 21st, 2005. 2) That he was incited by the Granada reporter to physically attack members of the then management team. 3) That the Granada reporter then subsequently filmed the attack. 4) That the orchestrated attack had been intended for F4J leader Matt O'Connor who had been present for the first half of the meeting but subsequently left during an interval. 5) That the entire incident had been contrived and stage-managed by Granada. 6) F4J will be making a formal complaint to Ofcom about the incident. The media was always out for the blood of F4J. The BBC let a board member of a women's organisation make a documentary saying they couldn't see their children because of histories of abuse and violence, but mothers often claim their partners are abusive to win custody disputes so this "history" is hardly surprising or convincing. The final straw in F4J's demise, of course, was the accusation, made by an admitted undercover police infiltrator, that the organisation was planning to kidnap Blair's son. This was completely untrue, but O'Connor caved in and disbanded the organisation. THE TRUTH ABOUT FATHERLESSNESS But Fathers4Justice have been right all along. It should be the court's priority to put the interests of children, not mothers or feminist ideologues working at the local women's shelter first. It is the interests of children, both boys and girls to be in the custody of their natural fathers, statistics don't lie. Natural fathers are by far the least likely relatives to abuse their own children, mothers and step fathers are both far more dangerous for children. The results of children in later life also support father's custody, as those raised without fathers are far more likely to fail academically, to commit suicide and to end up in prison for a wange of different offences than those who grow up with both natural parents, or those who are raised by mothers alone or mothers and step-fathers. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23275: Despite the rosy picture painted for us in the media and grade-school diversity courses, growing up fatherless is just about the worst thing that can happen to a boy or a girl - even worse than losing a mother. If you don't believe me, check the statistics. They show children from fatherless homes are: 4.6 times more likely to commit suicide; 6.6 times more likely to become teen-aged mothers; 24.3 times more likely to run away; 15.3 times more likely to have behavioral disorder; 10.8 times more likely to commit rape; 6.6 times more likely to drop out of school; 15.3 times more likely to end up in prison as teen-agers. They are also 33 times more likely to be seriously abused (a cohabiting boyfriend is 30 times more likely to abuse a child than a father) and 73 times more likely to be killed. The numbers are important - more important than the carefully-selected and sanitized stories of moms who are doing just fine without dads. For each of these wonder women, there are hundreds of mortal moms slogging through the daily grind of raising kids alone and wishing it were different. Or http://groups.google.co.uk/group/soc.men/browse_thread/thread/12eebdb45b1b3ca5/e523e4dc3cedd00e?lnk=st&q=author%3Ajill+times+as+likely+to&rnum=3&hl=en#e523e4dc3cedd00e: Equal opportunity *not* outcome. Feminism *is* sexism. Stop the sexism NOW! Children raised without the presence of their fathers are: 5 times more likely to commit suicide. 32 times more likely to run away. 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders. 14 times more likely to commit rape. 9 times more likely to drop out of high school. 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances. 9 times more likely to end up in a state operated institution. 20 times more likely to end up in prison. 9 times more likely to be killed by their non-cohabitating mother. 73 times more likely to be killed by mom or her live-in lover. Marriage. For the sake of the children! Zed the Zenpriest: See the links on that page too. Simone de Beauvior (In response to Betty Friedan's comment that a woman who *wanted* to stay at home and raise her children should have the right to make that choice.): "No, we don't believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make it." I think she's anti-choice. Of course, neither would consider giving men that choice. http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/3951/doublethink.html: " 'No' means 'no' ", except when it it doesn't, in which case it means "maybe", or maybe it means "yes", or maybe it means "yes, but...", or maybe... Aw, the hell with it. Who knows what the hell it means? Watch for the cognitive dissonance, it's all over women and very contagious. Unlike compassion, which you're very unlikely to catch off a woman. THE BLIND SPOT OF THE WELFARE STATE http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/descrim.htm: A guide to services for Women' published by the Department of Health has a whole page on Domestic Violence: "Domestic violence includes emotional, as well as sexual or physical abuse of women in their homes by partners" it then goes on to give the phone number of Women's aid and Rape crisis lines. This is classic 'male-bashing' in it's purest form. The leaflet makes no mention that serious studies into this area have shown that women are more likely to commit domestic violenceagainst their partners or children. The leaflet contains no phone numbers to help men who experience domestic violence, or to help women who are abusive or violent to their male partners. I think I know why America is such a violent place, in its streets and in its foreign policy, apart from the warmongering white-feather females, that is. Circumcision of females has been against the law in the UK for many years however circumcision of males is still widely practiced. The principle organisation whose aim is to educate about the harmful effects of circumcision of either sex in the UK is called NORM. It is reported by NORM that 30,000 male circumcisions are being done each year in England costing the NHS around 10 Million pounds/year. NORM believes that only 1/40th of all these operations are necessary, they believe that an intact male is less likely to disease, injury, and psychological problems. A mother Marilyn Milos reported this: "I didn't know what my sons had endured until, as a nursing student years later, I saw the surgery for the first time. Nothing could have prepared me for the experience of watching a new-born baby, strapped spread-eagle to a plastic board,scream helplessly as the doctor tore the baby's forskin from the head of his penis (an attachement that is normal in infancy), crush and then cut the foreskin lengthwise, insert the circumcision device, crush the foreskin around, and finally amputate it. The piercing screams were so devastating that I began to cry uncontrollably. The doctor looked into my face and said. 'There is no medical reason for doing this'!" And the Muslims and Jews too. The only civilised people are people with foreskins. For example Cambridge City Community Welfare and Development Plan 1995 says: "Disadvantaged groups include the unemployed and low paid, ethnic minorities, women, people with disabilities, lone parents and pensioners, those living in overcrowded conditions and lacking amenities". I'm one of those! However, I'm not a member of the most priveleged group in society, well off white women, yet still getting the privelege and special treatment of the disadvantaged label. We can compare the spending on men-only and women-only groups in Cambridge UK using 1992 and 1996 annual grant figures: Women /Lone parents (read mothers) 1992 1996 Women's Resource Centre (training and other) 176K 0.25M/year(estxx) Women's refuge centre (choices??xx) 60K (estxx) xx Choices (Incest counselling) 26.9K 5040 Rape crisis centre 500 1146 Corona House (Women's hostel) xx xx Women's aid 20.9K xx Lesbian line 960 xx Women and homelessness 14K xx Gingerbread (lone parent i.e. mother) 1000 12.9K Black women's support group - 19250 Women-only swimming pool sessions xx 575K(Parks)+498K(abbey) Social services dept (xx women's groups) 1.0M Social services/Health cmte (xx women's groups) 2.5M Men Cambridge Friend (Gay men) xx xx Well, at least a few gay men get some services. And, of course, other men get to pay for them. Libraries are beginning the apartheid practices of excluding men. Libraries do this by having women only library tables, or women only library days. I'm writing this from a library and I'm glad to say the locals of these parts haven't gone quite that insane as of yet. However these services are paid for by revenues that we all pay for. In Leicester, the County Council is being legally challenged over this issue, and taken to court. The council will be contesting this issue in court so demonstrating a deliberate will to impose this discrimination. Libraries are staffed mainly by women and therefore there is an automatic tendency to stock information that favours women. As an example the Cambridge main library information service has computer searches giving details of local groups. Entering the key word 'women' gave about 50 references, typing in 'men' gave 0 references. The library acted swiftly to correct this obvious gender imbalance. A second example was that the library had a 'women's issues' shelf but no 'men's issues' shelf. Again the library acted swiftly to correct this imbalance and with the help of donated books a men's shelf was soon available. This suggests that there was no real intentional bias and that maybe libraries are 'demand-led'. More sinister is the anti-intellectualism of the books women buy to put on the selves. Why do you think you find so many romance novels in the library but, if my local library is anything to go by, nothing at all by Pliny and Tacitus? New world service reporters such as Julliet Tindell now send back reports from Tokyo (BBC 26-Aug-96) where for example women are illegally imported into Japan to work in the 'entertainment' industry as prostitutes. According to the Japanese newspaper The Yomiuri Shimbun Mon Aug 12 1996 there are 160,836 male and 123,664 female immigrants staying illegally in Japan as estimated by the Ministry of Law (1-May-96). The men work in the so called KKK jobs. In Japanese KKK stands for dangerous, hard, and dirty, i.e. the jobs that no Japanese would want to do. The BBC program failed to mention anything about the fate of these illegal male immigrants. The program also failed to mention anything about men imported to work as male prostitutes. It is tempting to suggest that if immigrant women to Japan were being burnt to death in blast furnaces, or being trapped under agricultural machinery then we would soon hear about it from Tindell. This pattern of 'women-as-victim' reporting is increasingly repeated in many other countries by the BBC world service. The new correspondents have an obvious 'male-bashing' agenda and this is excluding the highly respected and experienced correspondents such as Tully and Glenny. That's what happens when you allow rich liberals to control your media. THE MASSES AGAINST THE ASSES Trendies. See here: http://men.typepad.com/mens_hour/2005/08/bbcs_bring_your.html The BBC really did make a programme called "Bring Your Husband To Heel", featuring a dog trainer. It wasn't, to the best of my knowledge, a parody or satire, much as the BBC is normally very fond of those genres. Nor is the far more right wing, tabloid, commercial media any better. ITV's "Mum's On Strike" was intended to be every bit as offensive. It's a culture war we're in. It's not enough to enforce a feminist neo-liberal society. They have to try and brainwash you into wanting it. Brainwash you into being a totally amoral consumer. Brainwash you into being a feminazi. It's a culture war. Destory not only democracy but the democratic spirit so that democracy may never again raise it's ugly, profit harming, capitalist baiting, head. Similarly with other-headed households, no-one can learn responsibility or moral from a woman, especially not a boy from a single-mother. Self-discipline is the key to personal goodness, and is anathema to woman. It's even worse with female teachers in schools, who are often doctrinaire feminists motivated by a hatred of men and a burning desire to see "powerful" women. Most female teachers seem to be femme lesbians. Those few who start off with pure heart don't last long without being evicted or corrupted once they meet the educational education courses at university. Only 11% of physics teachers have a physics degree in our once great nation. Most teachers only have qualifications in "Education", meaning the latest brainwashing techniques and trendy but totally ineffective educational techniques. As long as they won't teach boys self-discipline and independant thought, they'll get the job. If the boys don't go along shove 'em in special needs. Judith Church (Lab) is the mother of two children who makes capital out of being a single parent. However her ex-partner of 12 years brought those children up while she was trying to get into politics. Now Church hardly lets him see them. The newspaper report quotes the father Peter Mitchell as saying "it's hypocritical" [Express 6-Oct-9]). Church has even hired a live in full-time au pair and is now refusing to allow Mr Mitchell to spend more than one night a week with their sons. It is amazing that Church brings in a hired stranger to care for the children when the father who wants to care for his children is denied by Church. That kind of hypocracy is only to be expected from a New Labour/SDP style fallen socialist, or any feminist. Violence Against Women, get hysterical over how bad it is. Far more violence against men, never mind. http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/manifest.htm: The Cleveland and Orkney Island affairs have shown that social workers remove children without good reason. The Rosemary West and Rikki Neave affairs have shown that social workers do not intervene when they should. Where then is the benefit in having social worker involvement? There are so many times when they never get it right. Recent reports have highlighted the huge number of abuses that take place when the state takes the place of parents. The best protector of a child is the biological father. So it is. So it is. As I said above, the first ever Minister for Children was head of Islington social services during a major scandal in which coincil employees and heads of council children's homes had been sexuall abusing children. On her watch. She started her tenure as Minister for Children by saying a woman convicted of mistreating her children shouldn't be sent to jail beause her children needed her. Oh goody. Nice to see where the priorities of the Minister for Children really lie, isn't it? Margeret Hodge, Islington. There are many men with marginal mental stability who would normally lead healthy, respectable lives. However men are now being marginalised in employment with affirmative action programs, and deliberate closing of industries that employed men such as mining and ship building. To add to this men are being left by their wives and partners and their children are also being taken with the blessing of family court judges. Men are learning that relationships and employment can no longer be taken for granted. We can therefore expect record numbers of incidents of rogue males who will exact terrible tragedies on the population. These males will often have no work and be without a loving partner. If these men are not given status within the system then we can expect them to exact terrible revenge upon it. To reduce this problem male-unemployment will be specifically addressed. Yes, the closing of the industries under Thatcher, the asset stripping and so on wasn't done just to piss off socialists, it was done to destroy manhood. To impoverish people, so men couldn't support their families. To destroy the prospects of young men and drive them into heroin addiction. Look at how the right wingers treated the wives of the miners. Like heroes. Yes, they mostly stood by their men, but it was the men who were sacrificing and suffering. It was they who were having to steal food to survive. But the media tried to portray the wives as heroes, with the willing connivance of those big headed women, further weakening those cole-mining husbands, especially in the aftermath of defeat. The portrayal of this "heroism" destroyed the social order of mining communities, broke up families, warped the fragile minds of the miners wives. The French had the right idea, widely hated throughout the civilised world though they may be. Kept their shipyards open. Never really had any mines. Yes, and foster homes are always full of either feminist brainwashers or sexual predators, those being the people naturally drawn to preying on disadvantaged children. No government run childrens institution could possibly be any different. It's "peace loving" women who start all the wars, you know whether they do it with their majority of votes, or with white feathers or in the style of Golda Meir, Indhira Ghandi and Maggie. As for these trendy psychologist/social worker types: findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IUK/is_2001_Autumn/ai_80951844 There you go. Blacksmiths have a legend. They say that when Christ was being crucified the Romans went to the smithy to get some nails, but the blacksmith saw what was going to be done with them and refused to make any for them. His wife, however, agreed and made them, facilitating the crucifiction, as the sin of woman had made it necessary to begin with. http://www.ukmm.org.uk/issues/dresscodes.htm A man going to court because no dress code was enforced on women at his place of work while men were forced to where not only shirts but ties (nooses) as well. Even in such small things sex bias in endemic. Obviously in more senior issues no court case could ever be brought because the bias is too deeply ingrained. The then public health minister the then Miss Yvonne Cooper admitted a few years back that the NHS spends eight times as much on women as it does on men. Life expectancy is years shorter for men, yet retirement age is years later. Five years of extra work for 12 years less benefits. You'll hear from the feminists there aren't enough women in Parliament. On the contrary, there are far too many, but that's not the point. The representation of women doesn't depend on the number of women in Parliament but on the number of MPs elected by women and the number of MPs working solely in the interests of women. As to how many have been elected mostly by women, most of them (most of the electorate is female). As for those working sole for women - almost ALL of them. Satan tempted Eve beacuse he was scared Adam was too strong to attack directly, and it is still so. Hence the capitalists using feminism against us. FREEDOM OF SPEECH Censorship by feminism also takes hold on small things as well as big. Whether it's a man not saying something for fear a woman will overreact or Amazon showing an irrelevant review for a book almost destroyed by feminism for its unorthodoxy. www.fathersforlife.org/feminism/japanese_women_oppressed.htm: The editorial review shown at amazon.com pertains correctly to David Thomas' book, but the book description shown there has nothing to do with the book. Is that another manifestation of the feminist plot to downplay and diminish the importance of David Thomas' book? After all, the feminists m anaged to make the book almost disappear. The original foreword to George Orwell's Animal Farm was an essay on censorship in the "free" world, in Britain. See the Christman Tree files for the same sort of thing. www.ukmm.org.uk/issues/suppression/nl.htm: Walking through the aisle of a commuter train, going to the buffet car to get coffee, I would suddenly realise that many of my fellow passengers, casually turning the pages of their morning newspaper, were yawning over photographs from my wedding in 1977 and glancing at banner headlines which told them I had gone off my trolley. In the middle of a winter evening, as we were dishing up our dinner, the doorbell would ring at the remote house in Suffolk, two miles down a farm track, where I lived with my girlfriend and her children and we would find a tabloid reporter and her minder standing on the step and saying: "We thought we'd just drop in." Turning on the radio on a Saturday morning, just as I was winding myself up to an attack on the household heap of ironing, I would hear Ned Sherrin observe as an aside that I was obviously very seriously disturbed by personal problems. These unusual experiences came my way because I had written some articles and a book. The first and most controversial of these articles was a 5,000-word essay published in The Sunday Times Magazine in December 1990. That essay was given the title (which I felt to be misleading) "Badmouthing". In it, I committed the offence of writing sceptically, even disrespectfully, about feminism. I raised some doubts about the central claims of feminism and I questioned some of the fundamental tenets of its ideology. Writing articles and books is my work. It is what I have done for 30 years and what I expect to do for the rest of my life. Until December 1990, I was among the highest-paid and best-established feature writers in British journalism, contributing regularly to every "quality" paper and writing about everything from sport to music, from politics to books. I had written the Atticus column in this newspaper. I wrote columns, profiles and feature articles in The Times, The Independent, the Evening Standard and many others. After Badmouthing, however, I became a pariah, a professional and social outcast. My income plummeted from many thousands of pounds a month to hundreds. In the whole year of 1993, I earned less money in total than I had earned each month in 1989. I had achieved something that may be unique in our age: I had committed an unpardonable heresy. [...] A storm of zealotry was gathering and I was its focus. The modern version of a witch-hunt may be nothing more than a prolonged roasting in the media but, in my case, it felt as if it might be in danger of getting less metaphorical when a Cambridge history don told her pupils that she would like to see me shot. Around the same time, the president of the Cambridge Union urged her members to burn my writings. There was another writer in that period whose books were being burnt and who had been threatened with death for heresy. One of the extreme paradoxes of the time was that some of the same western liberals who deplored the fatwa on Salman Rushdie were unrestrained in their zealotry towards me. http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1196male.htm "Recent studies show that every 7 seconds a feminist tells a lie about male character!" Now, there is nothing to back up this statement. No studies, no cites, not even a clue as to where the statement originated. We made it up, pure and simple. That is exactly how many feminists write news releases. The press is so obsequious about feminist propaganda that they publish unfounded statements like this without ever checking. Patricia Ireland was a guest on the Charlie Rose show on PBS. She said, "According to the March of Dimes, the leading cause of birth defects is men beating their wives." This statement was reported as fact in the national media. The March of Dimes says the story has become a widespread urban myth The March of Dimes never said it, there are no studies to support it. Time Magazine later retracted the story, but it was repeated by a local shelter movement advocate and published by our local press just recently. Ireland knew she was caught telling a lie, but she had the audacity to repeat the same lie in a speech she gave months later. In 1993 a coalition of feminists, aided by a media propaganda organization called FAIR (believe it or not, Fairness And Accuracy in Reporting) pulled off a nationwide hoax about spouse abuse. They claimed that Super Bowl Sunday is "the biggest day of the year for violence against women. Forty percent or more women will be battered on Super Bowl Sunday." They sent media kits to all major outlets and asked them to warn women, "Don't remain home with him during the game." There was no data to support this outrageous claim, but the press obliged the feminists by publishing or broadcasting most of their press kit claims verbatim. Ken Ringle of the Washington Post was evidently the only journalist who checked. He blew the whistle on the hoax. Ringle contacted a scholar at the University of Virginia who had been quoted as a source for a study by the feminists. The response of the scholar, "That's not what we found at all." Later, the FAIR representative admitted that she knew all along that the study had been misrepresented. Believe it or not, in recent years the same thing has been said about our own beloved cup final. We have learned about the feminist zealots in academia who are violating the standards of honesty, rational inquiry, and objective research. These same "Women's Studies" gurus are brainwashing young women to believe the "big lie" that men are evil and that women are oppressed. In Sandra Harding's The Science Question and Feminism we find that Alfred North Whitehead, and Bertrand Russell's classic treatise on mathematics, Principia Mathematica for which they won the Noble Prize, should be called "Newton's Rape Manual". It seems that math and science is a male conspiracy to keep women oppressed. "Newton's Rape Manual", that's funny. Not intentionally funny of course, feminists have no sense of humour, but funny nonetheless. THE BIAS OF SCIENCE Feminism is well known to dominate the legal profession, judges solicitors and the like along with the social "sciences" but we often hear from the optiminists in the anti-feminist movement that they haven't, and could never have, infiltrated the so-called "hard sciences", so here's some evidence that even this predicted bastion of rationality and politically impartial truth-telling is occupied by the FOG, the feminist occupied government. www.truthinjustice.org/junk.htm In 1986, Chicago police crime analyst Pamela Fish testified there were no semen stains on the clothing of rape/murder victim Lori Roscetti. Four men -- Omar Saunders, Marcellius Bradford, Larry Ollins and Calvin Ollins -- were convicted of that crime. But in 2001, 22 semen stains were found and DNA tests excluded all four men. Pamela Fish joins the Scientific Fraud Hall of Shame Feminists control universities. Feminists control who gets to be a scientist. Feminists reach the results they want, not the results that are there, as science dictates. A series of Oklahoma convictions, including 13 death row cases, have been called into question because Joyce Gilchrist, a police chemist, misidentified hairs and testified to results she didn't get. Anything for a Conviction Malcolm Rent Johnson, executed in Oklahoma last year, was placed at the murder scene by the testimony of now-disgraced police chemist Joyce Gilchrist, but a police department memo obtained by The Associated Press says some of the scientific evidence she swore to does not exist. Executed by Lies Disgraced Oklahoma City police chemist Joyce Gilchrist doctored trial evidence and may have destroyed hair samples that could have exonerated a man now on death row, according to a confidential police memo obtained by The Associated Press. Still no charges against Gilchrist, but Curtis McCarty will Die for Her Lies . All to get men put in jail. I bet Curtis McCarthy is a black man, so I suppose it's all okay. CSI is designed to make you fall for this stuff. Don't watch it. Joyce Gilchrist is black too, which goes to show Blacktown.net was right all along. Fred Zain: http://www.truthinjustice.org/expertslie.htm You know, if the FBI are involved in something then something sinister is going on. I think this was done on purpose, hoping they wouldn't get caught. They like putting innocent men (no women, notice) in jail. It might cause a fuss if you start conspiring to put inocent women in jail, and we can't have that, can we? Chauvinist's Corner: How many lives has feminism taken? It is the bloodiest movement this planet has ever seen. Hitler, and his Second World War, complete with gas chambers and death camps, could not reach the body count of feminism. Stalin with his millions of executions could not match the slaughter of the women’s movement. The death toll is staggering and growing at a steady rate of more than a million per year,. More than the number of all the soldiers America has lost, in all of its wars combined, is the number of little children that are put to death in the United States of America each year in the unholy sacrament of the feminist religion. And its not just abortion that destroys lives on behalf of feminism. DOES FEMINISM EXIST? http://feministhate.tripod.com Statements like "feminism means different things to different people" or "This is what I mean by feminism" make feminism a meaningless title. On the other hand they continue to insist that being called a feminist is important to them because it represents "equality". Well they can't both be true. Does feminism have any objective meaning or is it entirely whatever the feminist says it is? What they are really saying is this, "I want feminism to have my meaning; equality but I can see that to many it means the exact opposite; sexism, prejudice and bigotry. Since I don't want to get blamed for all that I'll pretend it has no meaning at all when it suits me to deny my involvement with a sexist movement, and pretend its meaning is vital when it suits me to claim I am fighting to recover the true meaning of the movement. And Perhaps you've heard feminists say, (and I know I have many times) as an excuse for some man-bashing or sexism, "Well men have had their way for centuries, now it's our turn" and maybe you thought the revenge justification was petty, but that misses the point. Revenge on whom? Group guilt is a good sign of a hate movement and it is pervasive throughout feminism at all levels. That's one of my favourite anti-feminist websites, puts the lie to the idea that there can be innocent feminists even better, if somewhat less thoroughly that Per's MANifesto. Frankly you know this is all true. You just want to argue that it should all be ignored for the sake of feminists who claim its nothing to do with them because they are nice feminists. Maybe if they hadn't felt it was nothing to do with them things wouldn't have turned out that way. Too late now anyway. If the bigots "stole" feminism then the "equity" feminists were driving the getaway car. Its more than a little late to pretend to be surprised. See here: http://feministhate.tripod.com/id135.htm for how much feminists care about women. http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.feminism/browse_thread/thread/c12d16e76935bc96/c9cc5f0b758e3d23?lnk=st&q=%22shifting+viper%22+feminism&rnum=1&hl=en#c9cc5f0b758e3d23: "Feminism" means so many different things that it appears to mean very little. Its advocates constantly contradict each other and themselves; in casting off feminine reserve and modesty they seem to have learned intellectual shamelessness as well. Rather than damaging feminism, its incoherence offers an easy defense against criticism: whatever the complaint, the response is that it misses the mark because feminism is really something else. Do not doubt boys suffer more violence than others. http://www.aest.org.uk/survivors/male/ibc.html Goes to show. NO INNOCENT FEMINISTS Marc Le Pine had the right idea. Don't hurt innocent men. I'm not saying he was right about everything else, but he was right not to hurt innocent men. http://www.themenscenter.com/busterb/marc.htm The second thing that the white ribbon stands for is the culpability of all men: our supposed complicity in the Montréal Massacre. The idea is that in some way, the attitudes of all men contributed to the actions of one man, that even though almost all men are peaceful and even protective, we should all be ashamed because some of us choose to be violent or murderous. In some small way, we're supposedly all responsible for what Marc Lepine did because we all have penises, and he had one too. Donna Laframboise said it best when she asked if this means that all women somehow contributed to Karla Homolka's torturing, raping, and murdering several young women. Above I asked if Jesse Jackson is then in some small way responsible for the high crime rate among blacks in the United States. Apart from the fact that the latter is extremely politically incorrect, it's also fallacious. Good black people are the rule, not the exception, just as good men are the rule, not the exception. Furthermore, good men have no influence over those men who choose not to be good. We are not all members of some secret Club of The Penis that holds meetings on alternate Thursdays in strip bars all over the country at which the kind-hearted business-suited dads get together with the bad-ass motorcycle gang members and discuss strategy in oppressing women. I've always had a lot of sympathy for psychopathic killers. I blame Society. EDDIE MUIR IS INCOMPETENT I was listening to PM on Radio Four last night, a nasty habit I've gotten into, and Eddie Muir, I heard, was talking to some government minister. I don't know who he was, there's al the same really, these New Labour lackies. He had, and seemed very happy about, a brand spanking new catchphrase. "It's about, under the law, women have an absolute right to say no." True enough. He also insisted that women who've been assaulted don't deserve to be assaulted. Arguable, that, but generally regarded as true. The story, of course, was about rape and the woeful failure to accrue prosecutions in rape cases. The percentage of cases ending in conviction has been going consistently down (as a percentage of accusations), even since the government removed the presumption of innocence. It could be, of course, that the government paying compensation to "victims" of rape is encouraging false accusations. It could be, as has repeatedly been proven (for example by Eugene Kanin) , that most accusations are, for other reasons, false. However the government chose the blame juries, as usual. Only recently the Fraud Bill passed virtually unopposed in Parliament and permanently destroy our democracy, allowing the government to remove juries in fraud cases because they're too complicated for the delicate little minds of the general public. Long have they been trying to do this, first claiming big crimes were too important to be left in the hands of juries, then that little crimes weren't important enough for juries. Now they've finally got what they want. Does Magna Carta mean nothing to them? Did she die in vain? "It's about, under the law, women have an absolute right to say no." I don't think anyone said otherwise. What it's REALLY about is taking away the right of women to say YES when they're even slightly inebriated and making men rapists if they have sex with someone who'd fail a breathaliser. It's not about whether women who are assaulted deserve it, it's about whether women are assumed to be assaulted or have to prove it in court before they can get a conviction. And what it's really about is taking away the right to justice. Taking away the presumption of innocence, the REAL presumption of innocence, which has already been removed from its psotion enshrined in law but still holds firm in the heart of the English juryman. So they must be eliminated. Look at the American disparity in justice betwixt male and female. See also how the neo-cons are using feminism to destabilise the third world. FACETS OF FEMINISM The Barcelona workers patrols stopped prostitution, why can't the police? Politics. We need an end to politics for the common good. People must distance themselves completely from the political system to fight feminism. The political system is dominated by feminists in all parties. That's the terrible truth. I can see no possible redemption for the Labour party, let alone the others. The traitors, sell-out and feminists control them all, so we cannot vote, cannot support any of them. Feminism is in all areas of politics and should not be supported. Left, right or centre makes no difference. This is a de facto one party state. The feminists are it. History. Remember the "jus primae noctis", the "burning times" myth and other feats of historical revisionism? "What is history but a fable agreed upon?" as Napoleon said. Sir Robert Walpole said "All history is a lie", and has now proven correct, to some extent. Anything feminists say is untrustworthy, but especially with regard to history. Their claims are, as always, multiple and absurd from the existence of an ancient culture of giant psychic matriarchs (and its subjugation by patriarchs) to, according to Tom Smith (QIM), their misrepresentation of the "revolution" of the 1960s. Mysticism. The feminist belief in mysticism is obviously very strong. Their belief in internal "goddess", giant psychic ancient matriarchs and other myths inherited from the Nazi party and others of their own revivalist kind. This might not be important, but I think it is. Note also that if Malta was, as is claimed, inhabited by matriarchs, they were matriachs who committed tens of thousands of human sacrifices. (See "National Geographic" magazine, August 1940). This has to a great extent inflitrated the church. A working understanding of evil is necessary to understand feminism. Media. Feminism controls the media also, so getting the masculist revolutionary message across to the average myn (or woman) is going to be difficult. Write letters to local newspapers. Speak at your local church or some similar institution. Convert the masses. Church. I will have no part in "organised religion". It is a major social force to some, and as such is controlled by the feminists. Yes, even where you would expect patriarchy there is feminism. What corners of our society are free from this pestilence? The devil, and in this case his feminist servants, are liars. He seeks to drag people from the truth. Education. Boys need myn. Women are unfit to teach. The educational system at present is inherently anti-male. 'nuff said. Family. Fathers must be recognised as at least as good as mothers. Maternal abuse must be recognised. Families must be secured. When families do break up, the children should be placed habitually with the father. Institution of a patriarchy must be achieved. The family should be the building block of society once again, the father the head. Reproduction. In this one area I would accept equality. Choice for all or choice for none. Preferably choice for none. Sex. Myn are not sex obsessed bufoons. The Victorians. The Victorian Attitude is a terrible thing. Such absurd notions as myn being sex obsessed beasts, women being morally superiour and so on come from this. That only myn rape, that only myn are evil, that women make better parents, ad nauseum. Violence. The myth goes that myn are more violent than women, by nature or socialisation, especially when it comes to sexual violence. However, the supposed lack of female violence is easily explained by the feminist leanings of the legal system and academia. Women are far more likely to abuse children, relatives, the elderly, invalids, intimates, sexually, and so on. When they abuse children they are more likely to abuse male children than female children. Women commit from 25% (according the the BBC's "Panorama") to 50%+ (according to "The Invisible Boy") of child sexual abuse. It's all just another feminist untruth. Women are, if anything, more violent than myn given half the chance. Porn and exploitation. They want to be pictured naked, let 'em. On this count I support freedom for women, unlike the feminists. I disapprove of porn, but if they want to pose in the nude, who cares? The patriarchy. The patriarchy is a particularly stupid myth. It relies on the idea that all myn consciously choose to oppress all women in the most detestful of ways. How do male feminists believe, as they certainly do, that "all men" use rape to oppress all women? Perhaps they don't consider themselves myn at all. The female angel. Popular religious iconography is an unlikely location for feminist propaganda, of course, but in my effort to see feminism wherever it is, I draw attention to the female angel, a supposedly Christian symbol of a divine messenger. There are no female angels in the Bible. Not one. Young myn. Violent crime is often blamed on young myn, and much of it is commited by young myn, but can we really hold them to blame rather than the feminist utopia which created them? The woman problem. Fickle, arrogant, violent and stupid are just a few of the adjectives that should be associated with women. The solution to the woman problem eludes me at present, but it should be swift and brutal. Anger. I cannot agree with anger by any human, nor with the administration of "justice" by any human, these are to be left to God. However, it would be perfectly just, in my humble opinion, to punish women. A few Jack the Ripper style killings would be perfectly just. I certainly don't advocate this course of action, but a few anti-woman hate crimes would go only a small way to evening the balance. Morals. Women are by their nature more corrupt than myn. This is wisdom which has been lost to the mainstream for hundreds of years. We must return it to them. "Misogyny". I have yet to hear of any genuine misogynist. Even one. Misandrists, on the other hand, are everywhere. Health. The NHS spends eight times as much money on women as on myn. It spends fifteen times as much money on breast cancer as on prostate cancer. Myn's health must be improved, at the expense of women if necessary. "Revolutionary" feminism. There can be no such thing as revolutionary feminism. The rulers, oppressors, never revolt. Government. Feminists often claim women are not represented by the government because most MPs are myn. The MPs, of course, represent those who elect them, which is mostly women. Look at their actions. Blair has implanted quotas to assure larger numbers of women at the next elections. There is still no ministry of myn. Worse still is the imperialist need of the "people" running the country to impose their feminist will on others. They have elicited a promise from the Afghan government to have a large number of females in their governmet (which could never have been acheived diplomatically in patriarchal Afghanistan), and are even now bombing those Afghans who object to the new government (these are anti-Taleban forces, too). Kosovo, one of the newest Anglo-American colonies, has a quota to ensure 33% of it's house is female and proportional representation to make sure democracy is never served. Feminism is all statistical lies. Even the supposed increase in wealth of the two-income family. HIDDEN PERSUADERS I have been reading a book called "The Hidden Persuaders", a book on depth marketing from the 1960s and in it is recounted a very interesting story about wrestling, an American "sport". It would seem the wrestling bods discovered that their sport only survived because of female patronage, so they decided to make the sport more appealing to the female sex. The advertisers came up with three main proposals to accomplish this. 1) More posturing. Men flexing muscles, that sort of thing. 2) More clothes, funny costumes and so on. 3) More writhing. Seems they like seeing men writhing. So don't watch wrestling. BROWNMILLER FALSE RAPE CLAIM According to Brownmiller, and this is a very common feminist statistic, although you'll rarely be able to find a feminist who can source it as they've just heard it through the grapevine like all their other stats. I suppose that's why women are sometimes said to make 63p for every pound a man makes, sometimes 73p and sometimes 83p. They make it up as they go along, "I heard it somewhere, I think it ended with three". Anyway, this statistic, that only 2% of rape claims are false comes originally from Brownmiller and is tyotally contrary to all the evidence. She says she heard it from a judge. Assuming the judge existed, which I don't believe he did, and he knew what he was talking about, which would make him an oddity among judges, and he was remembering correctly, which is unlikely in a class famed for not remembering the Beatles, and he wasn't politically motivated, which is unlikely in a US judge, and he said what she claims he did, while she's a know liar, then if all that's the case, if this judge said those things, he was wrong. If he did it. If he existed. I don't think he did. Either way, this feminist appeal to authority, always the favourite female ploy and fallacy, is irrelevant. Those of us in the know about the true rate of false rape claims know the figure's wrong because we have hard facts, the possible remembrance of the words of a drunken, probably fictional, judge won't sway us. Back to Index