Saturday, June 28, 2008

Oh Bloody Hell, Here's ANOTHER One!

Another damned RAPE LIAR, I mean, who couldn't stick to her bloody story! Certainly there many such episodes occurring nowadays -- ad nauseum, with numbing regularity, to the point of brain-calcifying boredom! But thank heaven the earth still harbors a few tough cops who haven't been sensitivity-trained (by feminist indoctrination to "believe the woman") out of their natural Joe Friday instinct to seek the truth.

Here, have a look at the brief article in the Salt Lake City Deseret News:

As usual, the reader comments are as revealing of the zeitgeist as the story itself. And I injected myself into that geist (for the purpose of steering it) with a comment of my own. Although you can read this on the website, I will post it here for the sake of filler:
Fidelbogen | 7:06 a.m. June 28, 2008
"The saddest part is that such an incident may scare girls, who have been raped, to report it."

Why is THAT the "saddest" part? What about the RAPE LIAR'S innocent victim? Could there possibly be anything "sad" about getting falsely accused, getting sent to prison and raped, getting your good name smeared all over the media, getting placed on a sexual offender's list, and so on. . .?

Or could it be that because the falsely accused victim is MALE, his suffering is of no importance? What a feminist attitude!

The "saddest part" is the direct, immediate personal misery of the rape liar's falsely accused victim, and NOT the hypothetical difficulties experienced by hypothetical future rape victims. We need to get our priorities straight.

As you might guess, the italicized quotation at the beginning cites a statement by an earlier commenter. It was the customary dreck informing us that. . . well, male life is dreck! And as you see, I've taken the commenter to task. And take note of two further points. Firstly, that I have pronounced the word feminist in order to violate the F-word taboo. (None of the other commenters did this—I alone broke the silence.) And secondly, that I have reversed the prescribed order of feminist rhetoric by making it very pointedly clear that the falsely-accused is a VICTIM. In addition, I have avoided anything like a scurrilous or even flamboyant tone— yet at the same time, I have pulled no punches, having arrayed the facts in all the fullness of their cold, self-explanatory, acid-edged clarity. For the facts will speak with overwhelming precision if you let them!

Your additions upon that article comment thread would certainly not go amiss. . . .

Switching now into bootstrap lawyer mode, I aver that no feminist-based assertion of moral obligation toward women can possibly govern any man's relationship with the rape liar described in the referenced news article. And the same remarks apply equally to any female citizen anywhere at any time, who would falsely allege, or communicate by perjury, under any color of law or aegis of the judicial system whatsoever, any matter injurious to any male citizen.

More simply stated, no woman who behaves in the manner described above has any right to assert any supposed feminist prerogative against men either singly or as a group -- her behavior nullifies any such prerogative.

From the foregoing, certain extensions may be derived. Given that no male citizen is bound by any feminist-based system of moral obligation toward any female citizen who has injured him in the manner described above, and given that ALL women have the power under law to injure men in the manner described above, it follows that ANY postulated social-contractual obligation toward women that is vested in a social order permitting such things, is of insufficient moral force to command any male acquiescence. (Those who wish to make the case that said moral force is sufficient, would argue from a position of weakness. )

When I say "ANY postulated social-contractual obligation" vested in such a social order, I mean precisely that : ANY! Irrrespectively and without distinction!

Feminism, as such, has insinuated itself under color of social-contractual obligation. However, since feminism originally had no investiture beyond its own self-proclamation, it quickly sought to vest itself in the established apparatus of state. It has very successfully done so, to the point we may justifiably call feminism a state ideology -- such has been feminism's penetration into the limbs and organs of culture and the body-politic at all levels. Thus, feminism itself furnishes a prime example of a social-contractual system lacking sufficient moral force to command male acquiescence. For feminism not only draws its legitimacy from a social order which treats men as de facto second-class citizens, it has also largely created that social order in the first place.

Men are under no moral obligation to "feed the hand which bites them" -- whether that "hand" be feminism itself, or any social contract which obtains its legitimacy through investiture in the feminist social order.

The point I would make understood, is that men, as disenfranchised second-class citizens in the feminist social order, are under no legitimate moral compulsion as regards their behavior toward women. There is no morally legitimate social-contractual basis for any such compulsion. The present historical reality being what it is, no such basis objectively exists.

It is a frightening thought, that no injunction for men to behave morally toward women can legitimately vest itself in the state as we presently know it. And yet, it is eloquent testimony to the superlative decency of most men that they do not lapse into utter barbarism en masse against women, given that women are licensed to behave barbarically indeed toward men! For considering the objective historical reality in which men now find themselves, one sees no objective reason why men should not treat women as "fair game". And in the future, as more and more men -- especially young men -- realize that they have "nothing to lose", it should not surprise us to see them acting upon such conclusions. I say this by way of warning, because I'd rather it didn't happen!

As matters presently stand, it is only the dead letter of the law, backed by the state monopoly on violence (otherwise known as law enforcement), which upholds any so-called 'obligation' for men to treat women other than ruthlessly. Any self-respecting man of intelligence knows perfectly well what is going down. Men who don't know this -- or worse, refuse to know this -- are patsies wearing dog collars and collaborating in their own oppression.

Any self-respecting man of intelligence despises feminism, knows that the state is his enemy, and treats women by no other standard than his own personal honor and goodness, be this what it may. For him, such policy is NOT a "passion", but merely good manners -- and nothing deeper! He is aware that there is NO social contract which could form the basis for any externally binding obligation on his part, and that if he is obligated at all, it is only because he is obliging -- his code being that of noblesse oblige. And he is free, at his own sovereign pleasure, to set aside this code at any time -- since there is no externally binding obligation that would prevent his doing so. If he does not in fact do so, it is once more owing to his personal honor and goodness. . . or then again it might be only pragmatic calculation. And he draws up a separate social contract with every female he meets, none of which are vested in feminism or any other state ideology.

If you believe that the above-given system of behavior is concerning, and fraught with points of difficulty, I would allow that your belief is not entirely lacking warrant. But consider that I am simply showing you the times. That is my gift of truth to you.

Now would be a good time to review the following foundational manifesto, which is akin to what you have just finished reading:

Then, surf on over to the following fine website:

And do enjoy the rest of your day. . . :)


Thursday, June 26, 2008

Pure Escapism and Self-Indulgence

To hell with it! FUCK IT!!! I am tired of thinking about feminism, or writing about feminism, or talking about feminism, or lumbering my brain with the accursed thing in any manner! I am burnt out!! Today, I will take a vacation, and talk about things that are completely off-topic for this blog. Things lyrical. Bucolic. Good for the soul. But hey, I can do that; after all, it IS my blog. . .
And really, couldn't we all use a little vacation? So. . . tag along for the ride if you feel so inclined.

Here, how about some of that spatial feeling that we males so richly enjoy? Actually, quite a lot of it. Let's go for a little jaunt around my part of the USA, shall we? -- and I'll show you some of my favorite places! Now, being a typical male -- and hence, very spatially oriented -- I just LOVE maps, geology, topography, landscapes, landmarks, distant horizons, physical perspectives . . . all that sort of stuff!! Anything to do with the earth, and with the forces that shape it, and with my own sense of physical locality in the grand scheme of it all. . . .

Hell man, you might even say that this is where I "get my reality".

Of course, we all understand the darker motivation behind such feelings, don't we? It is really nothing more that my atavistic patriarchal drive toward conquest, military campaigning, and uh. . . RAPE, in the larger sense of term!! Think about it: why else should men feel "turned on" by space and topography and the like, unless it be their primitive lust to plot invasion strategies and/or "have their way" with Mother Earth??

All right, now that we've got that stuff out of the works, here's the deal. I did a bit of Google Image searching, and pulled up some waaaaay cool pictures of places in eastern Washington state which I am very fond of. :) Keep in mind that some of these images are equipped with expander tools, where you can click and see a larger version. And you'll want to see that larger version too, trust me!

First, look here: a centerfold!!! ;)
That's right, the Saddle Mountains are a geomorphic fold -- an anticline, to be exact. And this photo sights directly along the center of it. The crest of it. Rather a plateau, wouldn't you say? And the north and south slopes can be seen curving away to the right and left of the picture. It is beautiful, is it not? I say, what a swell place for a North American MRA meetup, eh? :) Well. . . no, not practical. But, what a concept, yes?

Now here is another Saddle Mountains scene I really like. It is called the Corfu Slide; it's a bit of geological trauma which occurred during the last ice age and left a dramatic mark upon the hills:
Why do I like it? Well for one thing, because the picture is inherently cool. But that is not the only reason. The other reason is, that I personally stood in this very place and beheld this very scene with my own eyes in real life! Now, just imagine my delighted surprise (and surprised delight as well!) when I stumbled upon this via Google Image Search. Ah. . . the jolt of recognition! Like running into an old friend unexpectedly!

This next one shows a more "cropped" view of the Saddle Mountains, from the lowlands. Looks to me like the Wahluke Slope not far from Matawa.
I'm not sure what that oil-rig looking thing is. . . but I don't like it! Oh hey, see those little white fan-bladed contrivances sticking up in the field in the background? You might think those are wind generators of some kind, but no, they are fans made to circulate the air so that the fruit in the orchards won't freeze when the temperature gets too low. They are used in conjunction with smudge-pots. (Eastern Washington farming is NOT an easy business to be in -- you're living on a thin blade edge of financial survival at all times!)

Next, a place known as Sentinel Gap, where the mighty Columbia river cuts through the Saddle Mountains.
Oh, how silver shineth the mighty Columbia in this view. And how the churning ripples do sparkle as they catch the sun! That highway you behold, which follows the curving shoreline -- I have driven it many a time. And do you see that ridge in the distance, to the left of the picture? I once spent the better part of an afternoon climbing that rugged brute, taking my sweet time. At the summit, I reclined at my ease amidst the sagebrush, feasted on pan-fried peanut butter and molasses sandwiches, and drank. . . plain water. Oh. . . and that inspirational green stuff. Yeah man, let's not forget that! ;)

All right, here is Sentinel Gap version 2:
It's the same Sentinel Gap as above, I assure you, but viewed from several miles' distance.

And here is yet another Columbia river scene, a bit south of Sentinel Gap, in the Hanford Reach.
The Hanford Reach is the last free-flowing stretch of water along the entire Columbia. The rest of the river is backed up behind various hydroelectric damns, equipped with fish ladders and such.

This pastoral scene can be enjoyed along Crab Creek road several miles east of Sentinel Gap.
Crab Creek road runs directly along the base of the steep northern escarpment of the Saddle Mountains. It is a gravel road, and I will never forget driving it, how the gravel became treacherous, like ball-bearings, at speeds over 25 MPH. I will never forget the wild fish-tailing that I did on that day, and how quickly I learned to mend my pace! But note the railroad trestle: what a structure under which to conduct an MRA meeting, drawing diagrams in the dust with a willow branch, plotting the Patriarchal Reconquista or the NFS Risorgimento!

Here is a picture of Umtanum Creek Canyon, a place that is particular to my heart -- being, in truth, the most perfect of all possible valleys!
You'll certainly want to use the deluxo-extremo expansionary dreezle tool in order to accurately assess the sculptural richness of those basalt cliffs in the morning light! ;}

Here is another of those "I've been to this exact place in person" pictures.
Yes, I have stood almost precisely on the same spot in the Yakima River Canyon as the photographer who snapped this photo, although not during the winter as shown here. Speaking of which, that does look suspiciously like arctic pack ice on the Yakima river, doesn't it? Well. . . it must have been one hell of a winter. But winters are freaky in eastern Washington. Some years it doesn't even snow, while other years will see truly arctic spells that could rival Upper Michigan or Minnesota! And summers in this region are a blast-furnace -- I've personally experienced 110 degrees farenheit!

All right, now it is time for me to draw the line! Finito! No more escapism or self-indulgence. Once again, I must direct my attention to that vile and bitter war. . .

Aye! Death be unto our Mortal Foe!

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

A Website Worthy of Your Attention

peweThe following has appeared as a reader comment in the recent CF post entitled Another Rape Liar Spills Her Guts to the Police:

"I just saw this and found it to be a very interesting point.

"The entire discourse about rape is dominated by radical feminism. In that discourse, men are blamed for rape far beyond rape's actual occurrence (e.g., one-in-four women on campus are raped); women are exempted from making false claims far more often than false claims are actually made (e.g., the disingenous assertion that only 2 percent of rape claims are false). When men suggest women be careful with respect to rape -- just as men would suggest someone should be careful when traveling in a bad neighborhood -- we are accused of victim blaming. In short, men are only permitted to be part of the discourse about rape to the extent that feminists need to retain their status as victims.

"I am all for teaching college students what "consent" means -- but not the feminist definition, the legal definition. Aside from that, I have no place in the feminist sexual assault discourse, so I choose to help raise awarenesss about the false rape claims -- since innocent men are being dragged through hell and few people want to talk about it. My Web site is devoted to this false rape epidemic:


This guy's a lawyer, he pulls no punches, and he doesn't pussyfoot around. I think you will enjoy his blog. Here is some copy from his "about" blurb:
"I am an attorney in the United States, and I started this Web site to help raise awareness about false, unfounded or wrongful rape accusations. Objectively verifiable data suggests that at least 9 percent and probably closer to half of all rape claims are false. Yet the crime of making a false rape report has become so embroiled in the feminist sexual assault milieu that it has been largely, and improperly, removed from the public discourse about rape. Sexual assault counselors often disingenuously refer to false accusations as a "myth." Denigrating the experience of the falsely accused by dismissing their victimization as a myth is not merely dishonest but morally grotesque."
"Morally grotesque." Ha! That's great; I wish I'd thought of that! I think I'll steal it. . . ;)

The following post from this new blog is especially worth reading, since it deals with something that we all love to get furious about: Also, it includes a comment by yours truly, and a reply by the blogmeister.

And now that we've got that furious hate energy coursing through our veins, why not bring it to a boiling, scalding pine-pitch of frenzy with a couple of old CF items in a related vein:


and HERE:

(Sound effect as of wicked, villainous laughter echoing down a corridor!)


Monday, June 23, 2008

Fisking the Frisking

During the past month or so, I have gotten some communiques from what might be termed the "frisky" cultural demographic. These have taken the form of enquiries or proposals: will you link to this?. . . or, would your readers be interested in this or that article?. . . and the like. The sudden advent of such saucy & lightsome hipsters wishing to transact with a rugged sourball like myself is, in itself, rather a conundrum. Or a sign of the times? Or then again, maybe some folk don't quite cop that MRAs are wild woodland animals and, in their feral way, a mite frisky on their own account. . . .?

A day or five ago, I got an e-mail from one Deirdre Sullivan, who seems to be a member of the official team at a website (not previously known to me) with a quite different color scheme than what you see here. The name of this website is The Friskyand it displays, as part of its header logo, the slogan "a daily romp on the sexy side." And after gallivanting from page to page and frisking the site for political contraband, I find, upon my oath, that The Frisky scintillates like unto naughty champagne indeed!

But here is part of the e-mail:
"Hello Counter Fem:

"We have opposing views at The Frisky in regard to the new term, "freemale". I personally love it. The author of our story, the fabulous Simcha Whitehall, has a few concerns about the term. We were wondering if your site wanted to chime in on the topic and link to our post:

" 'Freemale' To Be You And Me

I would recommend that you follow that link and discover what lies behind it. Have a read. Take a look-see. Imbibe the ethos. Cop a buzz from the kittenesque ambiance, cutie! Savor the third-wave pop sensibility. Groove to the hip-and-happening weltanschaaung! Et cetera.

Very well. Our topic for the day is the neologism "freemale". Neologism means new word, and freemale must be plenty new, since Urbandictionary.Com has no entry for it . . . yet. And just this minute, I could have written the first entry myself—but I shall leave that honor up for grabs. So get over there right quick, before somebody else does! Go! NOW!!!

Or else read the following from the fabulous Simcha Whitehall's essay:
"Cougar, spinster, playgirl, bachelorette. So many slang terms all mean the same thing: a single gal who lives on her own and on her own terms, like Kylie Minogue (chart topping dance hits and spandex booty shorts not required). But a new word has been coined in the U.K. and Australia: “freemale”. A freemale is a woman who stays single and only uses her vajane as an in-door for sex, not as an out-door for babies. The colloquialism, which has just washed up on our shores, is a mix of freedom and female, two words which should go hand in hand already. But what the new lingo “freemale” is actually is doing is. . . . etc, etc. . ."
"Vajane". That is a Borat-ism, yes? Naughty, naughty! ;)

But seriouslyit would seem there is a new urban subculture among the female citizenry. We of the MRA have long known of MGTOW, and the marriage strike. So was it only a matter of time before a "Newtonian" symmetry of occurrence came into play? Was this bound eventually to happen?

I am inclined to say yes, because I am a strong believer in mirror effects across the male-female interface line. Men and women may be fundamentally different in a lot of ways, but they are also fundamentally the same in a lot of ways. Even, I would venture to say, in most ways. So why should there NOT be a seamless fabric of transmitted effects across the human ecology? If there is a flu epidemic among men, why should it NOT occur among women also? And likewise, if men in growing numbers are shunning marriage, why should women NOT be acting similarly? We may expect a uniform transmission of effects wherever men and women are alike, for alikeness offers
an unbroken pathway on which impulses may travel unimpeded.

And do men and women have the institution of marriage in common? Are they alike in this respect? Is the fabric seamless? Yes, I feel certain of it. Hence, if there be a breakdown in the marriage mechanism, this would predictably occur across the board, in a bilateral form.

So again, we have a new urban subculture among women, and this tribe proposes to call itself the freemales.
Toward the end of the article I will briefly discuss the pros and cons of "freemale" as lexicon, but in the meantime other priorities will detain me. I am interested in the freemale thing not as terminology, but as a development that might portend something upon the smoldering, bomb-cratered battle plain of the gender war.

There is, as I have suggested, a unity of transmitted effects along with an underlying symmetry of etiology in the current anti-marriage trend among men and women. And I will state my own position briefly: it is the feminist wedge campaign, driving men and women apart and making them into separate political interest groups, which fosters the spreading aversion to matrimony. This is not hard to understand; a moment of thought reveals the plausibility of it.

Thus far, two points of similarity are apparent. One is the breakdown of marriage, which impinges on both men and women. The other is the wedge-driving effect of feminist innovation, which likewise impinges upon both men and women, giving rise to the aforesaid breakdown.

Yet beyond those two points, the applicability of the term "both" rapidly tapers off. It may be true that men and women are "both" shunning marriage, but they are doing so for unrelated reasons! And that sets a seam in the fabric. Let me put it simply: feminist innovation has operated differentially upon men and women, generating a
formidable conflict of interest between theman unlikenessand forcing them to think in mutually conflicting terms about matrimony altogether. They no longer have a mutual stake in the business of marriage, and the idea that they DO have such a stake lingers only as a sentimental echo of vanished times. And the blood-sucking parasites known as jewelry merchants make a fat little killing from that sentimentality. . . .

You know what those merchants need?? Jesus Christ to bust in and violently overturn their display cases!!!

But yes, men and women now view marriage in radically different terms. Consequently, they view non-marriage in radically different terms as well
one sees that is logical! So let's dive into this and unpack it.

Earlier, I mentioned the marriage strike. And I will now assert
nay, promulgate!as a point of political dogma, that only men can be marriage strikers. The marriage strike is purely a MALE project, and must in no way be conflated with any female culture of marriage-avoidance. To do so, would bestow upon women a gravitas, and a crown of thorns, to which they are not entitled.

Women have a lot to gain from marriage, and men have lot to lose
far more than women do.

Thanks to feminism, a woman can treat the matrimonial parchment like a tabula rasa, and write the script as she deems fitting. And she can tear it up whenever she wants to, and "make out like a bandit" in her divorce settlement, and drag the children along just like all the other loot she manages to haul away.

And thanks to feminism, marriage is for men a peonage contract
at the very best, it is life under a Sword of Damocles; at the very worst, it is a death trap. A man who marries signs his life away to a potential betrayer, one who can lie about him with the law to back her up, one who can reduce him to beggary and destitution, to living in his car, even to a jail cell. Such is the value of male life under the feminist regime.

What I have just described is what the law permits to happen, and what police, social services, legal professionals and court systems connive and wink at. No, women cannot be marriage strikers or warrantably call themselves such, for they have nothing to strike about.

But although women cannot be marriage strikers, they are certainly free to be forsakers of matrimony. That much, at leas
t, offers a road fairly to be trodden by one and all. Now, there are precisely two ways that a woman can forsake matrimony: either by declining to get married, or after the fact by declining to stay married. Let us examine both cases.

A woman who never marries in the first place, forfeits those benefits of marriage which feminist innovation has made uniquely available to women as a group. And her reason for following this course can only be that she perceives a greater benefit in remaining single.

On the other hand, a woman who marries and later divorces puts herself in the way of collecting those feminist-bestowed benefits
at the expense, let it be noted, of her erstwhile husband. She may or may not play the shark in such a case, but either way, her motivation to forsake matrimony can never be likened to that of a male marriage striker. For even if she is rightfully escaping a bad marriage, it is only her particular marriage that is unprofitable to herand not the institution of marriage as such.

Once again: the institution of marriage is, on balance, a sweet deal for women and a venture fraught with peril for men. The feminists
years ago set a goal to destroy traditional marriageand they have resoundingly succeeded. "Holy matrimony" is now in the condition of a wrecked ship on a shoal waiting for the next storm to pull it apart and sweep it away.

But meanwhile, marriage
(thanks to feminist innovation) is a golden opportunity for women to plunder men. And that is why the rise of the "freemale" is a point of interestbecause here we have a group of women who, clearly, would as soon forgo that opportunity.

And we are bound to wonder why. But let me explain. First, consider the GENERAL alienation (between the sexes overall, in the world at large) spawned by feminism's wedge campaign. Second, consider the SPECIFIC conflict of interest that men and women experience in the marital realmthat women are able to profit disproportionately from marriage whereas men find the cards stacked heavily against them. This means that women have a strong mercenary incentive to get married even against the alienating impulse of the wedge effect! It is paradoxical: they may be rowing their boat against the stream, but (at least in theory) they know it is worth the effort for the "benefit package" that awaits them.

A freemale therefore, is a female for whom the wedge-generated aversion to matrimony outweighs, for whatever reason, ANY possible benefit of matrimony
up to or including the benefit of divorce piracy. This group of female citizens (unlike the marriage strikers) has no political quarrel with the institution of marriage, but only a personal disinclination to the married state of existence.

(We all know about the growing numbers of "professional women" with their hypergamous woe-is-me concerning the lack of "good" men who wish to marry THEM. How this figures into the present discussion would be a whole other discussion in itself
although I could briefly speculate that what we are seeing in the case of the "freemale" is a group of women who have decided to "make lemonade from lemons". I mention this in passing so as to make clear that the thought had not escaped me.)

The freemale wants to be free. Free to be herself, free to follow her dreams, free to flow with the efflorescence of her spirit, free to live (as she might phrase it) a more empowered and fulfilling life. Marriage would stand in the way of all this, since it would require the sacrifice of money, energy and life-space to the complex demands of a potentially offspring-producing partnership. And given the toxic impact of feminist innovation upon the culture as a whole, such partnership is a less viable prospect than it was "in grandpa's day".

Feminism has "set enmity" between men and women, who are ever more inclined to eyeball each other suspiciously and to make uncharitable imputations about each other's motives
all of which sets in motion a vicious downward spiral of action and reaction. Furthermore, the muddying of cultural waters, the growth of trivial freedom, trivial distraction, "diversity" and other centrifugal tendencies, has caused people to grow apart from each other, so that prospective marriage partners are less likely than ever to be "on the same page." Among other consequences, the marriageability quotient has declined for both sexes, and people are naturally less disposed to marry when they behold the lamentably common outcome of so many partnerships involving partners who lack the necessary value structure to undertake marriage in the first placein a cultural ecosystem which no longer supports those values.

Such is the wedge effect. And in contemplating it, we are driven to conclude that to avoid marriage is, by almost any measure given the objective state of the world, a rational policy. And the fact that such a policy would tend to make matters worse, in no way undercuts its rationality. Such are the paradoxes of our present historical situation.

, the "freemale" has made a rational life choice: to not get married. And she has made a second choiceembedded in the first by defaultto forgo the lucrative possibilities of the marriage racket. And is the second choice motivated by ethical considerations? No, on balance I would deem that unlikely. Understand, it is not unethical to get married, but only to behave unethically within marriageand if one were so inclined, it were a simple matter to marry and then NOT cash in on the marriage racket. The "freemale", by declining to marry, indeed forfeits the potential benefits of the marriage racket by placing herself beyond all possibility of obtaining thesewhich reflects creditably upon her as suggesting that she "hasn't got it in her" to seek such things. But all the same, it seems clear that her core motivation to avoid marriage is rather a personal distaste or disinclination toward the married state as such. Yet I would hasten to add, that in view of what the world has become, such a distaste is quite understandable.

One finds cause for celebration, it may be, in the existence of a class of women which has divested all interest in the pivotal segment of feminism's anti-male apparatus. No "freemale" will ever inflict 911 Sudden Divorce Syndrome on any hapless husband! How could she? She hasn't got a husband! And no "freemale" will ever commit paternity fraud. How could she? She has sworn never to be an "out door"! All of this is significant when you consider that here we have a demographic which may ultimately number in the low millions.

And it seems clear that the freemale culture takes fierce pride in the virtues of self-reliance
be this economic, emotional, or what-you-will. And assuredly, I can see where frisky and self-reliant would naturally combine, given that friskiness implies resiliency. A freemale pays her own way and paves her own waythat much is central to their credo. In this respect, they endorse what you might call "feminism", although it is not by any stretch the feminism of counter-feminism's dark analysis. Rather, it is a pristine and bucolic old-school notion of what feminism was "supposed to be", lingering like that little creature called "hope", in the bottom of Pandora's box, after all the plagues and sorrows had escaped into the world. It is a very quaint notion of feminism. . .

But quaint or otherwise, this new female tribe forthrightly proposes to make its way in the world without, apparently, treading upon the backs of men. And insofar they ought, in principle, to be commended.

Now, we MRAs are obsessively political creatures, always calculating the angles. So we ought to assay the political usefulness of the "freemale" tribe to the non-feminist sector. But that is not a topic I'll trouble myself to explore here, other than to remark that this "tribe" is quite unlikely to be monolithic, and that if we seek to know their usefulness, that one salient fact would hold the key.

But hey, what about the word "freemale"? Just the word itself, I mean. The discussion, which I was invited to partake in, centers chiefly upon that point. How does the term freemale work, purely as self-identification for an emerging demographic cohort?

Simcha Whitehall's essay furnishes a list of other names which have been proposed for this segment of the female population:
cougar, spinster, playgirl, bachelorette. All of these terms have something wrong with them.

Cougar is permanently tainted. It translates as "lecherous old broad". Trust me, you'll want to stay away from this one. Shun it like the plague, for plague it is!

Spinster is a buggy ride down memory lane to bygone centuries. It signifies "old maid at the spinning wheel." This word has antiquarian interest and, I suppose, more inherent dignity than those other terms on the list. Which isn't saying much.

Bachelorette is a cheesy knock-off version of bachelor. It is awful! It makes me shudder! It should make you shudder, too!

Playgirl is even worse than bachelorette. Do you REALLY want to be a female Hugh Hefner? This word is ten times cornier than the male version, it reeks of perpetual adolescence, and people will make 'rabbit ears' behind your head. Get it? Rabbit ears??

And that brings us to our special guest of the evening: FREEMALE.

This word is said to combine freedom and female. However, when you look closely you will see that the word in fact combines free and male. And although I could allow that this coinage puns cleverly upon the sound of female, I must in fairness add that the pun crashes before it gets off the runway. It never gets airborne. Trouble is, the gap between free and male is loaded with a compression spring, and the two particles insist on springing apart to form the phrase FREE MALE. I'm afraid there is just no help for this—the conceptual dissonance won't allow it any other way!

Now, to my way of thinking, the use of "free male" to describe a woman presents a notable obstacle, and that is, that women are not normally male. Hence, this would not appear to be the best terminological choice in the present case. The free part I can understand, but the male part escapes me. I cannot truly decipher the sense of it.

The phrase free male might better be applied, for example, to marriage-strikers, or to members of the MGTOW brotherhood—who are in fact male, and aspire to "male freedom" even though they aren't a bit frisky. But upon reflection, I wouldn't apply the phrase to them either, even if it does sound more politically suitable. The problem is that the compression spring here becomes a tensile spring and snaps the two particles back together into freemale—which immediately evokes female. Again, the conceptual dissonance won't allow it any other way.

If there is a lesson to be drawn from all this, I suppose it would be that men, who currently have political gravitas on lockdown, are licensed to identify themselves in ringing, richly resonating political monikkers such MRA, MGTOW, Ghost Nation, marriage-strike, and even (forgive me!) counter-feminist!

But the time of political gravitas for women has gone a bit astern. And that is why it might seem difficult for unmarried women with no children to devise a suitably stylish "handle" for themselves. However, I could recommend "single", or "unmarried", as elegant, straightforward solutions. And I would alternately suggest that this group of women, with their growing numbers and increased social acceptability, needn't be self-conscious to the point of wearing any "badge" whatsoever. They can settle quietly into the landscape and quietly prosper according to the customary way of doing things.

And the word "freemale"? For reasons I have given, and others I haven't, I don't recommend it. It will most likely have a brief shelf-life and need to be "pulled".

'Tis rubbish; toss it in the tip!

Ahhh. . . . brutally honest! That's me. But then I'm a damnation MRA preacher, half horse and half alligator! And that is how people like us roll, ennit? ;)

Monday, June 16, 2008

New 'Survey' That Smells Fishy

From an e-mail recently recieved:

"This study looks very bogus, particularly the 63% face sexual harassment claim. How was sexual harrassment defined? How were questions worded? Did participants know what the study was about and its intended consequences before being questioned? Were males asked about sexual harrassment using the same definintion (for a control group)? "
I do agree that the study looks bogus. Somebody has some explaining to do, and by that I mean that the people who did the study ought to be very, very public about the exact nature of their survey instrument. They ought to do so in very exacting and tortuous detail, in a manner that would satisfy the rigorous stipulations proferred in the e-mail quoted above.

When you follow the link to the article (at the Computerworld website) you will discover over 100 reader comments. One of these is my own, as follows:

"The complaints voiced by the various women were centered upon a variety of 'intangibles' -- things that are difficult to define, or to validate in purely objective terms. Consequently, it should be a point of interest to ascertain whether a feminist worldview has been imported into the discussion at any stage."

This once again illustrates how, in my own considered opinion, it "ought to be done". The comment is brief, and the tone is purposely staid and stodgy. But I accomplished one very important thing -- I violated the oh-so-ungolden silence which surrounds the abysmal F-word! And that was basically all I set out to do.

And although I have not read all of the comments which were posted, I know that none of the ones that i DID read contained any trace of 'feminist' or 'feminism'. Mind you, some of the comments were quite good, and certainly originating in our sector. However, they did not use the F-word!! And a fair number of the comments were slamming women, but: they said nothing about feminism!

So. . . . I was obliged to make good on their omission. I mean, WTF, the first step toward breaking the power of any taboo is to VIOLATE it!!

Which, once again, I did. :) I did NOT slam women, but I did (just lightly) mention feminism!

It was simple.


ADDENDUM: I have just re-visited the above-referenced thread on the Computerworld website, and I am gratified to note that at least a couple of people AFTER me have left comments which included some variant of the F-word! :)))

Sunday, June 15, 2008

Another Rape Liar Spills Her Guts to the Police

From the Newport News, Virginia, Daily Press:
"NEWPORT NEWS - A 15-year-old Newport News girl has been charged with filing a false police report after she admitted to detectives that she fabricated a rape accusation against her mother's boyfriend. . ."
Read the full story here:

Hmmm. A single-mother scenario, as you will observe! And not only that, but a single-mother's boyfriend scenario -- but with a reverse twist!

Other than that, let me add this: If it were possible to make rape vanish from the world by waving a magic wand, I would certainly wave that wand.

However, no such technique is available to me. So, other than not raping anybody, and possibly contacting the police if the occasion calls for it, there is virtually nothing I can do "about rape" other than caution women to eschew the kinds of behavior that might increase the likelihood of such an attack. But since that might be construed as blaming the victim, I won't even do that. I just won't do anything at all. Why should I? It's not my problem. . .

And even if I wrung my hands and acted sensitive and got emotional about the whole deal, it would STILL not be my problem!

So really, the only "sin" of which I am presently guilty (in this present writing) is the sin of "not getting emotional about it."

Oh very well, guilty as charged! Now throw me in jail, smartypants! You know you want to. . . ;-)


Addendum: Here's an extra little goody for you. This 4-page autobiographical narrative tells of a rape liar who suffered a horridly bad conscience about her deed and was driven to confess it to everybody in sight. She even made a virtual career of her atonement. Download the PDF here:


Wednesday, June 11, 2008

No Men's Rights in 2008 Election

I just got an e-mail from Jim Peterson of Veterans Abroad. Been a while since I've heard from him. Anyway, he shared with me a letter of his which has recently been published by Jenn Sierra, a conservative female blogger. The letter is interesting, especially where Jim compares the parliamentary governments found in European countries, to the system we've got in the USA. (Jim lives in Europe, hence the word "abroad.") I have pasted the text below, almost exactly as it appears in Jenn Sierra's blog -- with most of the links still embedded:
"Men Sacrificing their Rights to Feminists - and it’s Not an Issue in the 2008 Election

"» by Jenn Sierra


"…from Jim Peterson, of Veterans Abroad:

"It’s been awhile since I last wrote about the acute men’s rights problem in the US today. Except for a promising challenge against VAWA [Violence Against Women Act] in a federal court in New York City (presented by men who can prove that foreign women married them for citizenship and then pretended the husband was abusing them in order to speed up the immigration process), there has been little to report in the fight to stop men from slowly losing more of their rights now that the Bush Administration completely caved in to victim feminists.

"Here, however, is a good article from Marc Rudov (whom I often disagree with): Men’s Silence Is Women’s Gold

"Men’s rights do need to be discussed as part of the 2008 election process. If America had a parliamentary system, as many countries have here in Europe, there would be a party in the center representing males or libertarians holding 5% of the vote while holding the swing vote on every issue. I live in Germany where men are thus protected from opportunistic politicians in the two main right and left political parties.

"Because the USA has an all-or-nothing 2 party system with both parties ignoring the male vote (how many times did you see any media or candidate say they want the male vote), men can only influence politics by refusing to vote (or helping to teach the Republicans a lesson in November).

"Meanwhile, I would like to see you help overturn the IMBRA and VAWA laws. I have written enough about them.

"You don’t agree with the Republican judge who said “There is no fundamental liberty interest in an American contacting a foreign citizen”? You do not agree with the foundation of both those laws which has the US Government and Bush Administration stating that men who date and marry foreign women “tend to be abusive losers with control issues?”

"And you cannot agree that marriage is something that men should be intrinsically punished for entering into? VAWA makes it much smarter for men to just keep long term girlfriends."

As an addendum, let me just say that the "long term girlfriend plan" won't be an option forever -- they'll find a way to make it unfeasible, or make it pointless. See, for example, THIS:

Monday, June 09, 2008

Review of Counter-Feminist Theory

On this website you will find, amongst a ton of other writings, a series of articles (five in number) collectively titled The Theory and Practice of Counter-Feminism. Or more casually, "the CF series of articles."

Some of you may not be familiar with this entire series, or even any of it. Others of you could possibly benefit from a refresher. So, for the benefit of all, I have hyperlinked all of these articles together, with links at the bottom of each for both "next" and "previous".

I should have done this very first thing while I wrote them, but oh well . . .

So, now that the CF articles are all strung together, you can begin at the beginning and work your way through the whole gol-dang slamboozle, by jimbo!! That would make 3 to 4 hours of reading, since you'll want to take your time, to savor and reflect upon every morsel.

Such reading is highly recommended, because it will "empower" you with a wealth of concepts and generally put you straight on what is being talked about upon this website. You'll be a "cool insider" who is "in the know" and "hip to the arcana" . . . . and won't that be a groovy, liberating sensation, eh? And too, you will be plugged in to the growing inter-cognitional cerebral database and discourse shared by all those others in the CFAN, and in the Sector as a whole, who have imbibed the ideations contained here and are now improvising back and forth, like jazz muscians, upon the various riffs they have acquired!

Yes, when I started this blog way back in October 2006, it was with the intention of creating a systematic body of theory that would have political value, and NOT just ranting and blowing off steam in one-shot blog posts -- although that, too, has value! :-)

But look now, here is the link to the intro post in the CF series:

I am not yet done with this series. There will be 2 or 3 more articles before I call it good. And then I will gather the lot into a PDF file to be made available for download like an e-book.

Tuesday, June 03, 2008

A Lesson in the Finer Points

I have read an interesting online article at the Herald-Sun (of Australia). It seems that scientists in Great Britain have discovered a way to create sperm cells artificially from female bone marrow. That is something - it suggests in theory that women would be able to knock themselves up without any involvement of a male body whatsoever. Clearly, such a technology would have far-reaching consequences, but that is not what I wish to talk about today.

What I wish to talk about is the reader comment that I left. Reader comments for the Herald Sun are strictly filtered: they don't get through until they pass editorial review, and the editors retain the right to edit them.

Well my comment got through, and I was duly informed by e-mail:
"Your comment has been published:
'It will be interesting to see what kind of spin the FEMINISTS put
upon this latest scientific breakthrough. Sexual politics is the
defining subtext of the age, and always bears watching.'"
That was my brief statement. And they didn't change anything either, which I appreciate! Not that there was much to change. But below is a link to the article, which gets into areas of political interest as well:

I like what the author has to say, and it sounds like he might be in our camp. For starters, he mentions a couple of hot potatoes right at the outset - political correctness and social engineering - and a lot of people are in favor of those things, after all! But that our author employs those terms in any connection whatever at least indicates that he discerns the critically important "skeletal" contours beneath the surface layer of events.

And that he regards political correctness or social engineering less than favorably is borne out by the remainder of the article - a dire phillipic against the decline of fatherhood that sounds straight out of Daniel Amneus. For certain opinions occur naturally in clusters, where the possession of some will hint predictably at the possession of others. And in the author's mind, the segue from PC social engineering to the redundancy of males seems manifest.

But the author keeps at least one hot potato under wraps, for nowhere in his discussion does he employ the dreaded 'F word' - feminism! And that omission would incite some of us to say that he doesn't go far enough.

Indeed, some of us would aver that feminism is a causative factor in the present conjunction of circumstance - whether by bringing it about, or by condoning the perpetuation of it, or by both at once! Likewise, I know perfectly well that the artificial production of sperm from female bone marrow would excite the keen interest of any feminist, for it is a development fraught with implications that no feminist could fail to reflect upon.

In sum, feminism enters this picture whether we acknowledge it or not. And the author of the article, Bill Muhlenberg, does not.

And yet, as many observers from our side have pointed out, this is a common behavior among journalists. They fail to go far enough. They neglect to either name feminism as the culprit, or to draw the name of feminism into any sort of proximity that might prove compromising. It appears there is a certain tacitly understood line 'line of death' beyond which the words feminism or feminist may not be spoken or written.

In my reader comment to the article in question, I took steps to supply this lack:
'It will be interesting to see what kind of spin the FEMINISTS put
upon this latest scientific breakthrough. Sexual politics is the
defining subtext of the age, and always bears watching.'
The F word is set in all caps: FEMINISTS. So the point is clear and nobody can miss it.

Also, that sexual politics is THE defining subtext of the age might seem a bit of a stretch to some, but it is at least a plausible assertion, and those who might assert the contrary would have a chore of it. And if sexual politics is not yet the defining subtext of the age, rest assured that it will be by the time we have done our work by drumming it into everybody's brain!

My statement was deliberately short so that it would burden nobody's attention span. However, the most important thing about my statement was its blandness, and its matter-of-factness. I didn't come galloping into town like Wild Bill the MRA with my six-shooters blazing and snorting fire from my nostrils. No sirree! That would be unseemly! That would be bad form! Furthermore, I'd never have made it past the editors. So you see, there is a time to be Wild Bill, there is a time to be bland, and. . . there is a time to be so extra-galactically cerebral that only ten people in the known universe (the right people!) will know what in tarnation you are talking about!

But not only was I bland. You will likewise take note that I made no evaluation of feminism. I delivered absolutely NO personal opinion of ANY KIND upon the subject! None! Whatsoever! I simply wrote the word, but offered no hint that I viewed the actual thing itself through any emotional lens.

Yet say what you will, I broke the silence! I broke the taboo! I spoke the forbidden word FEMINISM -- or "feminists" in this case, to be precise. Shhhhh!

And the intermittent dripping of such breakages will grow into a steady trickle, the trickle into a rivulet, the rivulet into a stream. . . .

It is important to broach the matter circumspectly and mildly at first, and then circle closer and closer to the point. You can talk about nearly anything you wish -- even in a critical, destructive fashion -- if you maintain a vapidly objective and inoffensive tone. Step by step, you infiltrate the heart of their discourse with your counter-discourse, and before they realize what is happening, they're swimming in it! Drowning in it!

Briefly, you can say WHAT you want if you pay close attention to HOW you say it. So, be mild as doves and crafty as serpents. Not only affect blandeur, but eschew red-flag words and phrases -- rather couching these in liquid circumlocutions that will glide, agreeably and unremarked, beneath the perimeter wire. Dismantle your paradigm and lug the pieces separately across the border, so as to confound recognition. Then, in the heart of their territory, do your reassembly work.

For it is even as I describe, -- yea, even so! -- that they have they done unto us! Flux and reflux, my friends!

I am grateful to Julie of New Zealand for sending me this link a couple of months ago. New Zealand, by the way, is a large island about twelve miles off the coast of Terra Australis. And on a clear day you can see it glimmering in the distance above the pellucid azure brine, like a sparkling vision of Avalon! It is a place of unicorns, cloud-capped peaks, enchanted castles, musical waterfalls, mystical rainbows and recursive fractal vortices. . . .

Hitting the Sore Points

Here is another fine comment by one of our CF readers. This comment is from the immediately prior post:
"Thanx for mentioning Susan Brownmiller. You hit a sore spot. I remember quite clearly Brownmiller's hateful diatribe "Against Our Will." It was well received by Time magazine's editors who didn't seem to mind Brownmiller's malicious intent toward half the human race. The subject of rape was a source of natural hysterics for most people. Utterance of the very word was capable of producing catatonic fits. The editors would feel obliged to cut Brownmiller plenty of slack should her rancor override her sanity. As might be expected, Time's editors were grateful for Brownmiller. They even complimented her for her reasoning on a subject where so little reason had gone before. She and other feminists, Time declared, would help us to be "rational about rape." Of course, nothing of the sort was at hand. Brownmiller was not interested in deconstructing sexual assault per se nor reaction to it. Rather, her interest was in construing rape as the sine qua non of male treachery and oppression. She wanted to promote a conspiracy theory that would exploit rape as yet another trump card against the enemy. Her hateful rant was to be ground zero for an endless stream of self-righteous hyperbole with which feminists could propagandize their brand of victimology to the masses. The editors of Time would be ever so obliging to infect the world with it."


Sunday, June 01, 2008

Adolescent Female Lies About Rape

. . . and with tragic consequences:

"SPRING, Texas -- The Harris County Sheriff’s Office said Friday that a Spring teen’s accusations that she had been raped by a classmate that led to a boy’s stabbing was a lie.

"Last month, 17-year-old Joshua Chapa was stabbed near the lobby of Wunsche High School in Spring ISD by the father of the girl who claimed she had been raped. Ruben-Cuellar Roma faces charges related to that stabbing.

"Roma’s daughter claimed that she had been raped while at a house party in late April. The father was at the school the following Monday to talk to school administrators about the alleged sexual assault when Chapa was stabbed.

"Sheriff’s investigators said the girl retracted the story this week saying that she lied about the rape to avoid getting in trouble for going to the party.

"There was no word if investigators would pursue charges against the teen for making a false report."

Ah yes. . . further proof that false accusation of rape DOES IN FACT occur! And that it could very well be a tad more prevalent than the 2% total which the lying feminist Susan Brownmiller has, on no verifiable ground of evidence whatsoever, declared it to be !

I wish I had more on this news item, but from what little is given here I can see that everything is running true to form. The unnamed little perjurer has acted the part of a true feminist, even if she doesn't quite know what that word means yet. Yes, a true feminist I say -- for it is the fundamental fuel core of feminist praxis and feminist morality to LIE ABOUT MEN in order to damage them, in order to cripple them, in order to wreck them in every possible way. And this young charmer has played her role to a perfection that would gladden the heart of many an old man-hating lesbian battleaxe -- they who will have lobbied long and hard to build the kind of culture where every woman will feel empowered to "break the silence" and come forward with these kinds of stories, just as our teen-aged heroine has done!

And not only has a young chap been traumatized by a false accusation of rape, but for an extra dollop of fun somebody even tried to KILL him for what he didn't do! Boy oh boy, the fun goes on and on, doesn't it? And who can even say where the final domino will fall?

Yes, LYING ABOUT MEN is the feminist way -- whether it's lying about rape, lying about child abuse, lying about workplace harassment, lying about paternity, lying about domestic violence statistics, lying about Superbowl Sunday, lying about post-divorce income differentials, or simply fibbing and fudging about history in order to paint a misleading picture of "women's oppression".

And if lying about men isn't quite enough to keep you busy, lying to them can also be a barrel of fun! For example, when confronted with the lies listed above, or anything else of an inculpative character, you can even LIE ABOUT THE NATURE OF FEMINISM ITSELF by robustly declaring: "That's not really feminism!" And then you can reassure the other person that feminism means no harm, that feminism is only about "equality", and that the feminist future will be just peachy-dandy! And if you are personable enough you just might gull some gallant, goodhearted gents into believing this!

Oh, but our gal in the story -- she was quite the little "feministe", wasn't she? Indeed she was, for nothing in her behavior was by any means out of keeping with feminist morality, or any way inconsistent with the true message feminism has planted in the collective mind of women. Feminism has told women next to nothing about ethical behavior toward men, but has told them quite a lot about what they are "entitled" to, and what men supposedly "owe" them. Yes, I call this the REAL feminism, and I invite anybody anywhere to take their cue from what I say and lock arms with me. I realize that self-identified feminists will be unhappy to see their religion so roundly abused, but there is no help for that. The time is long past when they could stand upon the sanctity of their self-definition. Times have changed, and the feminists will struggle in vain to keep control of their narrative, for we have wrested their narrative away from them.

Here is the original news story in its native habitat:

So, the young lady retracted her story? I reckon she must have LOST HER NERVE when those big patriarchal coppers got on the case, eh? Oh well, she's just a tender, budding, larval feminist -- not yet a battle-hardened veteran liar like her Big Sisters.

And what? There is no word if they intend to pursue false report charges? NO WORD? NONE?? As if there could even be any question about that?????

Finally, just imagine if it was the girl's MOTHER who had committed the knife assault. Can't you just hear all the feminist bloggers and commentators making kissy-kissy about that?



Addendum: Kim, on her Equal But Different blog, picks up this riff and offers her own improvisation: