Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Feminism is NOT Man's Best Friend!

But we shall teach the feminists to "heel", and to crap outside anyway. . . won't we? ;)

Here's some more fun with Photoshop. The part of my brain which handles writing wasn't fit to handle much of anything at all tonight, so I let the graphic design lobes take over. That's the right side of the brain, ennit? Anyway, I spent the better part of the evening on this project -- experimenting with this font and that font, this color and that color, until it finally CLICKED! Maybe some of you know how these creative cycles work. . .

Needless to say, poochers is free to a good home anywhere and everywhere. Yes, lots and lots of puppylove to go around, for one and all! :) And if he misbehaves, whack him with a rolled-up newspaper!

And as long as we're riffing on things canine, here's an old classic that MRAs like to growl about! ;)

Okay, it's getting late, so I'm gonna curl up on my blanket in the corner now!

Sunday, July 27, 2008

Falserape Culture Jamming

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Fun with Photoshop! This good old goody from olden CF days seems about ready to be dusted off now that the issue of false rape is rising a bit on the radar scope.

For the record, this puppy is free to a good home anywhere and everywhere! If we intend to jam their culture, we need to jam it GOOD. Here is the ad parody in its original home:

It looks good fresh and piping hot out of your printer, too!

All right, now that you're feeling a bit rabid on the subject of false rape, here's something else to REALLY get you foaming and snarling!

Take care. And don't ever, EVER be alone with any female anywhere, at any time, for any reason. Ever!

Saturday, July 26, 2008

The Last Word

Those who have followed CF for the last few posts, will recall the recent entry concerning the Abyss2Hope blog and its quixotic attack upon the anti-falserape campaigner Archivist. If you need to refresh your memory, see here:

For further refreshment, see the post and accompanying comment thread at A2H:

For the record, I left a total of three comments on that thread, but only the first survived moderation. The second and third sank into oblivion. Contrary to my usual custom, I neglected to save local copies of these comments before posting them, but that is small matter for concern since they were very short and simple.

In the first of the two suppressed comments, I responded to Marcella Chester's response to my own surviving comment. In this response, I put to Marcella three brief but structurally important queries meant to initiate a chain of clarificatory dialogue. Marcella's response, as will be noted, was to drop my statement down the memory hole and to respond to what I hadn't said, or rather, hadn't had a chance to say.

Noting this some time after Marcella's response was posted, I wrote a third comment which did nothing more than request to know why my second comment had been moderated. (I can vouch that neither my second or third comment contained anything of an even remotely offensive or scurrilous nature that would warrant moderation.)

My third comment likewise has not appeared. The total number of published comments on the thread (by various commenters) is now six, and I somehow sense that this is the end of the line. At any rate, I'll not be making any further additions myself.

Admittedly, this has been a minor episode. Still, I like to learn what I can learn from such episodes. In the present case, what I see is an effort to control the discourse, by preventing it from moving along a particular line that would open onto particular avenues, which in turn might lead to particular discoveries.

My policy in such dialogues (which I recommend to others) is to eschew anything like "debate" or "argument", and endeavor merely to elicit the other person's exact standpoint, in the fullness of its naked precision, and in the context of other factors that would afford a possibly unanticipated illumination. Such a proceeding, in my view, is of greater utility in the simple quest for truth -- inasmuch as it frees the questor from the onerous necessity of advancing any particular thesis, thereby liberating more energy in the service of a structured enquiry.

Think of it this way: you are simply a buyer in the marketplace of ideas, and your concern is simply to inspect the wares of the various merchants in their various booths. Is it cracked? Is it warped? So in the end, only YOU can decide how to spend your money. Whoever pretends to make that decision for you, is practicing a form of larceny.

Friday, July 25, 2008

3 Out of 4

The following arrived via one of my informal newswires:
3 in 4 B.C. boys on street sexually exploited by women

Vancouver Sun, Gerry Bellett , Canwest News Service, Tuesday, May 27, 2008

VANCOUVER - Canada's largest study into the sexual exploitation of street kids and runaways has shattered some myths about who the abusers might be - with the most surprising finding being that many are women seeking sex with young males.

"Some youth in each gender were exploited by women with more than three out of four (79 per cent) sexually exploited males reporting exchanging sex for money or goods with a female," said Elizabeth Saewyc, associate professor of nursing at the University of British Columbia and principal investigator for the study conducted by Vancouver's McCreary Centre Society. . . .

"I must admit it wasn't something we were expecting.". . . . . .

I say, isn't that last line just SO precious....??

I can depict to myself, with a small effort of the imagination, the class of lecherous, menopausal, divorced or adulterous females who engage in such traffic. The same kind who go on sex tourism holidays to Jamaica, etc. Well, possibly a notch lower on the economic scale.

Read the full article HERE:

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Another Charming False Rape Apologist

You know, if the feminists ever decide to throw in the towel on the subject of false rape, it will do traumatic structural-political damage to feminism as a movement, and as an ideology! So I don't realistically expect the feminists to budge until somebody fastens a chain to them, and secures the other end to a truck, and pulls them up like a stump!

Anyway, I would like to introduce you to one Marcella Chester, who publishes an anti-rape advocacy blog called Abyss2Hope. And while I'm at it, I wish to thank Archivist of the False Rape Society blog for bringing this to my attention, in the following:

So, Marcella Chester devoted an entire Abyss2Hope post to dissecting (with clumsy scalpels) a certain comment which Archivist had left on her blog in reply to an earlier post. Rather than summarizing it, I will send you there now to read it:

You will note a comment by myself, which quickly passed through moderation. All the same, I reproduce it below:

"Are you muddying the real issue on purpose? I think that you are!

"The real issue is the foundational principle in law known as PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE. It has taken us a long time, and a lot of blood, sweat and tears to secure this principle in the jurisprudence of Western civilization, and I for one don't intend to let it slide down the pan without raising some hell about it!

"The DEFENDANT (i.e. the "accused") is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

"The process of proving the defendant guilty, is known as a "trial". If the defendant is presumed guilty right off the bat, then there is NO NEED FOR A TRIAL AT ALL . . . . . . is there? What the hell, he's guilty -- just lock him up and be done with it! Right?
"Do you find that scenario morally acceptable? Would you be willing to identify yourself as a "perjury apologist", or in the present case, a "false rape apologist"?

"By the way, nobody is apologizing for rape IF it truly occurred.

"However, it must be proven to have occurred, upon a "clear and convincing" standard of evidence, and Sir Matthew Hale's warning should be read to the jury."
I see Marcella Chester as a reactionary, fighting a rear-guard battle to defend the orthodox feminist position on rape against the rising societal tide of false rape awareness. Everything about her bespeaks hedging and stalling, fudging and trimming, equivocating, prevaricating, talking in circles. Archivist (of False Rape Society) states that he does not link to "hate sites". Being myself of a mind that sunlight is the best disinfectant, I do not share such scruples. Thus, I have provided a link as you see above.

You might feel moved to leave a comment at A2H. If so, I would advise that you save a copy on your own computer before you hit the publish button. You might want to share it with CF readers -- and you know, I'm pretty good about not moderating comments on this blog! ;)


Wednesday, July 23, 2008

The Men's Movement is Growing

I am on the mailing list for the What Is Enlightenment? website, because I like to keep an eye on cutting-edge philosophical developments. After all, I do enjoy thinking about things other than feminism! And I wouldn't be much of an MRA if feminism was ALL i ever thought about!

So, I got an e-mail from WIE, and lo and behold, it was unexpectedly about "the men's movement"! The mail contained a link which I share herewith:

As you will see, the Movement is not only growing, but is growing powerfully, tectonically, and from directions that we MRA blogger types (in our narrow little world) don't much think about. So go, and gorge your brain on the variety of material that you will discover behind that link, and be informed of the big, broad, emerging picture. You may not like or agree with everything you find there. . . . but you'll certainly want to KNOW about it!

Real Man Magazine

Yes, I am back online, and sooner than I expected. I am not only reconnected to the web, I am BETTER connected -- once again through my beloved Macintosh laptop!

Several days ago, just before I "blinked out", I received the following e-mail:

Hi Counter Fem:

"We found your website and think that it's a nice compliment to our website - Real Man Magazine - Consequently, we've linked to your website and hope you'll consider linking to ours. You've done a nice job with your site.

"Here's an original article from our site that you might find useful. Feel free to use it on your site with credit and a link back to us. It's called Raising a Real Man in a Metro-Sexual World.

"Good luck with your site. Cheers!"

As you will discover when you investigate the links, Real Man Magazine is just what it sounds like: a cyberspace haven for manly men who enjoy masculine male manly things like drinking, smoking, gambling, hunting, football, bowling leagues, NASCAR, and of course. . . . the Objectifying Male Gaze!! ;)

Now I must be honest; I cannot tell a lie. Although nobody in their right mind would ever, EVER peg me for a "metrosexual", I'm bound to confess that the foregoing doesn't much match your humble blogmeister! Truthfully, I'm more of what you'd call a "sensitive male" . . . .

HOWEVER: Be assured that I'm not the brand of so-called sensitive male who would give the feminists any scrap of comfort whatsoever. In fact, I'm the kind of guy who would make the feminists wish they'd been a damn sight more careful what they'd wished for when they issued their notorious call for such males in the first place! And I stand upon my record, as regular CF readers may judge.

In the long run, guys like me are more effective in getting under the feminist skin precisely because we DO in fact possess a LOT of the qualities which they claim to be looking for . . . along with, unfortunately, a number of "poison pills" which they are loath to choke down! ;) And this is very, very frustrating for them! :(

Psychology, man! It's all about psychology!

Therefore, even though I'm not quite the sort of real man the Real Man Magazine people are talking about, the fact remains that in this strange war we are waging, strange alliances hold the alchemical key. And since the RM folks have linked to The Counter-Feminist, I reckon I must have been rubberstamped by their review committee. So I guess that sort of makes me an honorary club member now, eh? ;)

Well, I do have a rather deep voice. . . . so maybe that is "manly" enough?

At any rate, I shall add Real Man Magazine to my link roll, even if it is the kind of thing feminists hate, and even if by so doing I am risking (just a mite) my carefully crafted stance of moral disengagement. . .

Oh heavens, I suppose I shall "discredit" myself! :(

Oh, bugger all of this!! I'm not mommy and daddy -- it's not my job to filter the fucking internet for anybody! I take for granted that my readers are all grownup, adult people. Yes, even my feminist readers!

And if the feminists look at Real Man Magazine and it lights their fuse, that's tough tampons!!!

Okay, I am all through with writing now. So I think will go and drink rot-gut liquor, and roll in the gutter with the hogs for a while . . . .

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Feedback. . . and FAST!

The Counter-Feminist is syndicated, via RSS, to several other places on the web. And at one of those locations, scarcely three hours after I'd published the immediately foregoing post, the following comment was added to the thread. The comment is extremely good, and just the sort of thing I wish to share with my readers and with the world:

"Re: Equality: The Value of a Male Life is Equal to a Female Lie

"I have a first hand experience where my son was blamed for "sexual assault" of a young teen-aged girl. The "assault" quickly turned to "sexual assault" and then "rape" in the community. It was in the local paper of the SMALL town we live in. Because this "incident" apparently happened during a school function the police that were called in by the girl's mother said they were going to turn the matter over to the school to handle. (The community could have had the common sense to put two and two together....a legit "rape" or "sexual assault" case wouldn't be passed off to a school principle to deal with but of course no-one paid any attention to *that*.)

" was absolutely brutal...the whole community threw their two cents in, the school board administration behaved in what I saw to be a truly "sell out" pathetic fashion and I was deeply disappointed and ashamed of how they turned on this young boy to prove that they "took a stand against bullies" just because this was the fashionable thing to do as though there was some big message here for the teenage boys of the"watch out because we're watching you and this could happen to YOU if you're not careful".

"It was a horribly costly thing....the school board's lawyers (were there to cover their own asses in case we decided to go after the school board)... which, by the way the taxpayers had to pay for I'm sure. "Big" meetings where we had to sit in front of many and plead our "case" was a very frightening kangaroo court for both of us.

"It completely turned my family upside down....I was a basket case and could hardly believe that this could happen to us. I behaved *very* poorly to my son and the very first person he had to defend himself to was me. his own mother. Being female and someone who is "terrified" of rape, I was tough on him. Here's the thing, the stories were so convoluted and not one of the other boys that were there spoke up in his defense that at first I honestly thought there something wrong with his story and so he couldn't possibly be telling me the truth.

"When I think about how rough I was on him my heart breaks at how that must have been for him. Having his own mother screaming like a bloody banshee and taking out every thing I ever had against a man out on him (or so it seemed....I *really* behaved like an idiot).

"My kid got suspended from school....we had to grovel to get him back in. He had to undergo counseling at the school (what everyone thought was for the "infraction" but as I attended a few of these sessions I learned that it was really to help him cope with the nightmare of all that happened *and* once again "the powers that be" had to come out smelling like roses somehow, even if it was only to our family)

"It was the worst Christmas for my family. I *know* that incident scarred my relationship with my son. I behaved badly and he certainly had the opportunity to really get a good look at who would be in his corner during his times of need.

"Here's how the big "community saga" ended. The girl admitted to all the kids at the skating rink 3 months later that she had lied. In fact, my son only placed his hand on her shoulder. He was a sweet 11 yr old when that happened.

"I get it. You *bet* it's nasty out there for men. And what makes it scarier in my eyes is when women don't see it, don't want to see it and don't care.

"Thank you for your post. In my responding it actually gave me a chance to voice my feelings to someone who I think would even care.

"I believe that what is going on is having a *huge* impact and it has to shift otherwise all hell's gonna break loose."

In reply to this, I left the following brief statement on the thread:

Donna, your comment has floored me. I am. . . .SPEECHLESS!

So I won't try to say very much, because I'm pretty sure it would only sound lame .

HOWEVER. . . I will take your words and post them on my blog (the Counter-Feminist), because more people need to be exposed to such things.

Oh yes, some of my readers are feminists. And boy... they REALLY need to get their faces rubbed in such things!!

All the best to you! :)


Monday, July 14, 2008

Equality: The Value of a Male Life is Equal to a Female Lie

The following appeared as a reader comment on the immediately foregoing post-- which featured a news story from Germany, about a female thief who "flashed" and cried rape in order to thwart apprehension:
"How utterly frightening that good men are immobilized by the threat of a false rape accusation. Frightening, but understandable. It would not have been worth it for this man to risk a bogus sexual assault charge just to do a good deed -- it is, sadly, better for him to allow the lying thief to go free than to risk having his entire life destroyed by a false rape claim. I would urge every man to do exactly that.

"Why have we come to this deplorable state, where a lone woman has such power over virtually any man or teenage boy? Where she can immobilize any member of the so-called "stronger sex" with nothing more than the threat of a lie?

"We've come to this state because the radical feminists have somehow managed to convince persons of good will that every cry of rape means that some male "must have" done the "worst" act imaginable, and that false rape claims are a "myth," a "bugaboo," the product of some misogynist's "imagination."

"And when men and boys are arrested for this crime, they are presumed guilty. The news media -- which guards the accuser's anonymity with the same tenacity that Clark Kent guards Superman's -- at times even seems to relish the opportunity to humiliate, degrade and, yes, destroy the life of an accused male on the basis of nothing more than a lone woman's or girl's uncorroborated, unsubstantiated allegation.

"And men sit back and allow it to happen to other men because "he must have done something." Few men will bother standing up for other men -- until a false claim happens to them. And then we realize that we are all at risk. Solely because we were born male. "

"Few men will bother standing up for other men". Aye! 'Tis is a bitter message and a bitter truth these words convey!

Happily, the times are changing. Far too slowly for people like us, but nevertheless: the times are changing! For in fact, there ARE men in this world who WILL stand up for other men. They're out there; they exist! And the world contains more such men today, than it did a year ago. And a year from now, it will again contain more such men than it does today! This is progress; this is motion; this is movement! Call it a men's movement, if you wish. It is all about men standing up for other men!

But now let's talk about the featured news story. I have lately been sensing an incipient demographic groundswell against feminist rape hysteria. It is clear to me that a LOT of men out in the hinterlands, beyond the radar scope of officially sanctioned public discourse, know exactly what is going on with the issue of false rape, and they are MAD AS HELL ABOUT IT! And justifiably so. . . wouldn't you say??

And of course there is plenty more for men to be angry about. I could rant on and on about ALL of the feminist social/political/cultural violence against men, but now is not the time for this. Our subject, for the present, is the growing anti-male false rape juggernaut -- and so I will confine my remarks to that realm.

My friends, we live in a socio-political pecking order which systemically deprecates male life to the value of garbage. But male life hasn't always been rated so low; the transformation has come about due to an evolutionary change in thinking. Men have always shouldered the greater burdens in society, and braved the buffeting winds, and endured the sacrifice of their very lives when that was necessary. So in a way male life has always been "valued" less, but only in the sense of being more expendable. In the past, however, men enjoyed certain emoluments on account of all this -- and a certain respect, even awe, was accorded them.

But feminist innovation has brought about a number of mutations, particularly to the status of men within the social order. The evolutionary change in thinking has followed in the wake of female supremacist policy, which has sought to justify its general power-grab for women by depreciating the value of men altogether, in order to pave the way for such machinations. It was needful to introduce ideas that would have been considered "unthinkable" if they had been stated too abruptly and openly. So the task was to turn the unthinkable into the thinkable, but in a manner that would pass unremarked owing to the guile, gradualness and stealth of its execution.

So how do we turn the unthinkable into the thinkable? Simple: we promote unthinkable to the category of the thinkable. And how do we accomplish THAT? Simple again: we erode, little by little, the entire thought-foundation which constituted the unthinkable's unthinkableness in the first place. And then we bootstrap the identical process through repeated cycles to the next level, and the next and the next. And at each loop in this iterative spiral, not only does the formerly unthinkable become thinkable, the formerly thinkable becomes unthinkable because you literally cannot think it! You no longer have the equipment to do so!

What I have just described applies to a lot of things, not merely the topic of present discussion. So stash it in your brain -- you'll find use for it!

In the case of false rape, or feminist rape hysteria at large, we have seen a progressive movement toward the culturally embedded "unthinkable" conviction that male life is worth considerably less than female life. This has been rendered thinkable owing to a steady, orchestrated campaign of character assassination, over many years, directed toward the male population as a whole. In other words, it is now "thinkable" that men do not deserve equal protection under law in (for example) such matters as rules of evidence, and the reason this is now "thinkable" is because "everybody knows" that "men are violent", or that rape is an expression of "patriarchal violence", and so on.

And how does "everybody" supposedly "know this"? Because the anti-male talking points of the feminist world-view have, due to a never-ending ambient drizzle of reiteration and virtual carpet-bombing of the collective mind, installed themselves to the point of permanence and untouchability -- at which point every path of so-called discovery becomes an exercise in bias confirmation. Accordingly, "everybody knows" that women are better people than men, and that men are the problem, and that male life therefore has less value than female life, and that men don't deserve equal protection under the law because "everybody knows" that men are oppressors and more likely than women to be liars. Because of course "everybody knows" that men are the problem!. . . . .

And women, as "everybody knows", never lie about rape! And how do we know THAT? Simple: because Susan Brownmiller as good as told us so, and hundreds of other people took their cue from Two-Percent Sue and repeated in their various books and factsheets the unsubstantiated "fact" that only 2% of rape allegations are false, which clearly "proves" that when a woman says "he raped me", the odds are overwhelming that she is telling the truth and that he is lying -- because of course, "everybody knows" that men are violent, and that men are the problem.

To summarize: It is now "thinkable" (or at least not unthinkable) that a male citizen should be convicted of rape and locked in a cage upon a standard of evidence that would formerly have been considered risible -- and still is, for many other crimes. This state of affairs has been rendered conscionable because men have been methodically smeared and denigrated through deliberately orchestrated propaganda which has aimed (consciously or otherwise) to lower the value of male life to that of garbage, so that equal protection under the law may be taken away from men with no sense that any wrong has been done to them. Such a thing is now thinkable, and indeed certain people "think nothing of it".

All of which (among other things) goes a long way toward explaining why certain people are able to break such wind as the following: . . .with absolutely NO sensibility of the cognitive dissonance, and zero self-transparency as to the abysmal ignorance, appalling arrogance, dizzying effrontery, and brass-faced moral hypocrisy of what is being asserted or requested. Everything you read on that web-page is rooted in the feminist world-view, and is consequently a product of FEMINIST SUBJECTIVISM - whose manner of formation is suggestively sketched in some of the foregoing paragraphs.

I proffer, by way of comfort to all my friends in the Movement, a simple plan to foil such impudence on the part of the enemy: Just say no. . . and walk away! Just say "I disagree." What can they do, kill you? Throw you in jail? All you must do, is make it clear that you don't share the feminist world-view. State this boldly. It has the powerful effect of "compiling" all your separate objections or criticisms into a global re-format. You are no longer slogging along in the "interpreter" mode of line-by-line fisking, or tit-for-tat arguing. Oh certainly, if that sort of thing is your gig, then by all means do what you do best! But the way I see it, that's like mowing your lawn with scissors when I have just offered you a shiny new rider-mower!

Think about it. The biggest mistake that MRA debaters make, is to argue from within the feminist world-view! They do this all the time without even knowing it, and I wish they would knock it off!! It puts them perpetually on the defensive and squanders their energy in a task not unlike shovelling mud uphill! But if they would manfully and categorically proclaim the autonomy of their paradigm as a preamble to ANY debate, it would reverse the whole balance of power and turn the tables on the enemy! It would leave the feminists with only two options: to either debate the MRAs within the non-feminist paradigm, or to meet them in some kind of limbo space between the two paradigms and "negotiate from the ground up." Neither position would serve feminism to advantage.

And now, after a long road bristling with fruitful digressions, we return to that female piece of scheiss who lied about about rape in a manner so original and brazen. Ah..the little hussy! She was composed of pure brass, was she not? And to think, this occurred in Aachen, the ancient seat of government for the illustrious and most patriarchal Charlemagne!

Truly she was a bold one, our gal! And she lied about rape! She did this in the most flippant, flagrant and unscrupulous way you can imagine, and she knew exactly what she was doing. She lied about rape! She understood her game to perfection, and to assume otherwise in not an option. She lied about rape!

Granted, she immobilized a man not with the "threat" of lie, but an actual one. But small matter: the "threat" was real enough, or at least he believed that it was, and she knew enough to know, or at least shrewdly guess, that she could rely upon such an effect. And so, she lied about rape! And why not? For her, it was profitable. It . . . empowered her! And immobilized him.

And the consequences have a branch structure, for having robbed "granny" of her "identity", and having thereupon lied about rape to escape the judicial consequences of this robbery, our doubly-empowered robber can empower herself still further by means of additional robberies, at her leisure, in front of a computer screen.

Women can, do, and WILL lie about rape, or anything else -- for the most far-flung reasons you can imagine, and others you can't hope to imagine because they are flung even farther! And they are capable of doing so with no conscience, no morals, no scruples whatsoever -- at the drop of a pin! I say capable, and by that I mean simply that it lies within the capacity of their universal human nature. The claim that women lie about rape is neither a myth, nor a bugaboo, nor the product of any overheated misogynistic imagination. It is a claim which the evidence appears to support, and which ought therefore to be taken seriously. Very seriously. There may be ugly consequences if we fail to reckon with this.

But for now, I leave you with the assurance that men are far more awake to the crisis than their workaday silence might incline you to believe. And they are learning to stand up for each other too, although you mightn't yet think so. But in good time, rest assured, you will know so! Meanwhile, I and others like me are working to boost things along by inspiring people with our impassioned words and exhortations. Please join us if you've a mind for such work -- the field is wide open!

Yes, men will learn to stand up for each other! At least, some men will. Other men not only won't do this, but will mock the ones who do, and lie about them, and even undertake to repress them by violence! So the battle line forms directly down the middle of maledom. Keep your eye upon that line; watch it grow sharper and meaner and deadlier. Be prepared for what is coming down the pike, and stay ahead of the game!

My friends, I thank you! :)


Sunday, July 13, 2008

A Seriously Funny "Rape" Story!

Here is a creative, ingenious new way to "cry rape". Yes, I expect the growing false rape industry will become quite the leader in cutting-edge innovation as time goes on:

"A thief in Aachen escaped arrest by exposing her breasts and accusing her would-be captor of rape, police in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia said on Friday.

"The exhibitionist thief had mugged a disabled 66-elderly woman, stealing her identification and money from her waist pack. When the German granny called for help, a bystander tried to detain the thief, but she tore open her blouse and shouted 'Help! Rape!' and escaped.

"The 39-year-old man was so stunned and unnerved that he let the wily thief go, police said, adding that the woman managed to cover herself before slipping away."
This story is funny on the surface, and about half an inch down. Deeper than that, it gets mighty unfunny mighty fast!

Link to the original, if you're interested:

Saturday, July 12, 2008

More Rape Liars Who Got Got Away With It

The story in brief: Two females, aged 14 and 34, filed a false rape report with the police in Brighton, Colorado. After some time, the cops offered immunity from prosecution if the females would confess. Which the females did. And apparently, a deal's a deal; they will not be prosecuted.

Mind you, I'm not clamoring for their blood the way some people would do -- although it certainly wouldn't break my heart if they did some serious jail time. I'm far more interested in the purely political angle, and the propaganda angle -- that here we have more evidence that women DO IN FACT lie about rape! Ahhh.... keep that evidence coming! (And it is -- in spades!)

Does anybody out there have the moxie to inform me that only 2% of rape accusations are false?? I say this NOT because a growing body of high-profile news stories concludes a contrary case -- although it certainly helps! -- but rather because there was NEVER any evidence to support that 2% figure in the first place!! Only the word of a lying feminist named Susan Brownmiller, who singlehandedly injected this canard into the culture of law enforcement and jurisprudence, where it has lodged like a triggerfish in a rock crevice ever since!

Susan Brownmiller is the original rape liar! And if there were any NATURAL justice in the universe, TWO-PERCENT SUE would be locked away in a federal penitentiary for the balance of her natural days! Oh, she's a real feminist all right; and she has empowered women. . . hasn't she?

Now, back to the news story we are discussing. This item is captured on a YouTube video, and I will send you there shortly. But first, for "vox populi" interest, I'd like to share a small (mostly unedited) sampler of the viewer comments that were left for that particular item:
"an 11 year old girl just did this to some janitor at her school this week. He lost his job over it, and even if he's proven innocent he probably won't get it back. It's far too easy for women to ruin peoples lives this way. . . . and that's how they want it. get it through your heads -- THIS IS A WAR"
"women are given a licence by gov't to do absolutely everything without little or no consequences. Lives get destroyed. Society is fucked, and finished."
"The DA is afraid of losing the Feminist vote. So he's letting a scumbag mother and her follower daughter go. It's acceptable to take a man's freedom, destroy his family life, and lock him in a cage, all without ANY eye witnesses to the alleged crime and NO EVIDENCE...but unacceptable to lock up women who falsely accuse? What the hell's the matter with people."
"i think i died a little inside when i watched this..."
"Why is making a false accusation classified as a misdemeanor? Also, if there was such a thing as "The Patriarchy" these women would have gone to the Big House."
"It is shocking how easily any man's life can be destroyed by any woman falsely accusing him."
"Disgusting. This is why feminists should be euthanized."
"Man sowas macht mich echt krank
the same shit here in germany"
"If people aren't going to be charged for falsly claiming rape then we should just legalize rape and be done with it."
"Rule of law my ass. What about the innocents who were falsely accused ?
Fuck this. Being born male in this country automatically puts you on a sex offender registery."
Yes, any time spent heaping coal upon the false rape fire is time well spent. So here's another shovel full! The sooner we break the silence and bring on the crisis, the sooner we get this shit straightened out! Burn, baby, burn!!

And now, the link to the YouTube video:

Remember that rape is not the only thing that feminism has empowered women to LIE ABOUT in their judicial dealings with men. Truly, we have heaps and heaps more for which to thank feminism in this respect. So I'm sure you'll wish to make an installment on your debt of gratitude by taking a feminist out to lunch, eh??

By the way, Susan Brownmiller's official nickname is now Two-Percent Sue. Do you suppose we could popularize that one, and make it stick?

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Feminist Wage Gap Story Has Another Crack for the Light to Shine Through

A recent article in the Irish Times (of Ireland) informs us of a looming development in the Irish medical profession: "Medical crisis grows as female GPs avoid full-time posts."

In a nutshell, you should not plan on getting sick or hurt in Ireland due to the growing number of woman doctors who work shorter hours, on average, than their male peers, making medical professionals scarcer all around. You can't take for granted that you'll find a doctor when you need one. This story also provides an indisputable instance which shoots feminist wage-gap theory squarely in the ass!

"THE MEDICAL manpower crisis is even worse than previously estimated, with patients almost certain to experience difficulty accessing GP services, new research has shown.

"Researchers from the department of primary care and public health at Trinity College Dublin (TCD) have found that women GPs are only half as likely to work full-time at partnership level as male doctors. . . .

... a senior medical source described the study as "a severe wake-up call. Clearly we have got the balance wrong gender-wise. We must now rectify this because political correctness will not look after patients."
I certainly cannot fault this "source" for his application of the term "political correctness". But isn't it politically incorrect to use that term at all, whatsoever? Last I checked, the PC folk were a tad tetchy upon that point! ;)

Saturday, July 05, 2008

Another Feminist "MRA Expert"

What I'm about to share with you is a likely steamboiler, so here's a word of advisement: Ice is better than fire!

Below is a reader comment I left on a feminist blog called Female Impersonator, in response to a Jeff Fecke style post about "Men's Rights Activists". You all remember Jeff Fecke, yes? Well, let's just say that the piece you'll soon be reading would make Jeff very, very proud! But first, here is my reader comment — which may or may not survive moderation, but still, I have preserved it for posterity:

Be honest now, did you steal the pie metaphor from me, and then "retrofit" it? Of course, I don't know this for sure—but if you did, it would have been sporting of you to link to the original. Here, I'll do that now:

Equality: A Zeno's Paradox

Anyway, I invite you to nip on over to my blog, the Counter-Feminist, and introduce yourself, and I think that you will meet some very interesting MRAs indeed. Y'know...well-educated, intellectual types whom you might find challenging . . .

Think you can handle it?

I'll let them know you're coming. :)

Or you can just keep hiding in your little echo chamber. It's your call.

A word of explanation: When you read the post, you will see that the author (Jen) uses a pie analogy very like one that I used in an early CF article—see the link given above. And I have a gut feeling that Jen cribbed the idea from me, although I could be wrong. Oh, I don't plan to sue for plagiarism . . . but you know, i AM a bit miffed that my very elegant trope, which I crafted to such telling effect, was so completely "raped" with no sensitivity to what I was communicating. Mind you, I'm not seeking an apology or anything of the kind. Not a bit. But I feel like sharing this so that some of you regular CF readers could try your intuition on it. Did she or didn't she crib the pie metaphor. . ?

Now, although I am sending you to read the entire post, I can't resist offering some snippets as a preview:

"They [the MRAs] speak out about the "violence" that the feminist movement has done to men. They talk about the Femi-Nazism of the government that punishes men for being masculine. They rage against women who ask ex-husbands for child support and alimony.

"Basically, they think that society is out to hurt men by making them act like humans.

"Their basic tenement is that men should be free to act like men. By men, they mean homophobic, hyper-masculine, violent, abusive, irresponsible failures of humanity."

Yes, I know, you're about to blow a gasket after reading that, aren't you?? Well. . . don't! Here is what I want you to do instead. I want you to relax in your favorite chair, have a beer if you like, take a long, slow, deep breath, and then close your eyes. Then I want you to do a visualization/meditation exercise where you picture your entire body becoming a solid block of ice. Yes. . . . the watchword is cool! And yes, you can do it!

In fact, my friends, you'd damn well better LEARN to do it! The trick is, that you are controlling your so-called "male violence", but in a way that will make the feminists wish they had been a sight more careful what they'd wished for! So do it now: fire in the belly, ice between the ears! Combine that with a sly, crafty, sense of humor and a WINNING ATTITUDE. . . and there is no force that can prevail against you!

All right, here is the blog URL for you:

So Jen -- y'all troop on over here! Don't be a no-show, okay?

Or else we're bound to wonder why. ;)


Addendum: Percy, at Antimisandry Forums, has just written the following comment in response to the syndicated version of this CF post over there:


"So, I go out in the early morning and hitch the steed up to the plough and spend a week ploughing a hundred acres. (this is a full year after removing all the stumps and rocks - it took a while). The following week I dig a long ditch to bring water from a river a few miles away to irrigate my 'fresh' field. Lazy, slow, git; it takes a few weeks. Then I purchace sacks of seed and walk the field for a few days, scattering the seed. Its a pleasure to just walk for a change.

"A few months go by and I shoot a whole lot of crows - they were trying to eat my seeds - which is handy as I am hungry.

"I build a windmill. I had fun doing that and used the wood from the trees I cut down last year. Waste not, want not.

"The harvesting of the wheat takes another week or so of early mornings and late evenings, and then on with the threashing.

"At last, all these ears of wheat, ready for the mill. I grind and grind, happily. 'It's all grind', I think to myself.

"I give the flour to my Mrs who makes a nice pie (with crow in it).

"I say "I deserve half".

"She tells me I am greedy and oppressive and I have to give slices to the women next door on either side and across the road.

"I eat crow !"

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Women As "Property"

Here is another one of the many fine things which arrive in the Counter-Feminist inbox:
"Reading the last entry about a woman who falsely cried rape.. I was impressed with a post by 'anonymous.' I also went back and reread your IDEAS WHICH GO AGAINST THE GRAIN.

"anonymous said among other things:
According to modern sensibilities a woman's sexual favors are hers to bestow, whenever to whomever she so pleases.The idea of a womans sexuality as "property" is thus retained, only it becomes the EXCLUSIVE property of the female.

Now, female vanity is such that while making great efforts to display their "valuables" thereby increasing their allure and hence their power, they simultaneously would have us know that the attainment of their precious favours is of such an inestimably high value that a mere glance constitutes a violation of their ownership of such an oh so fine commodity.

In effect what they are saying is "we possess a quality that you, dear fellow, desire to such a degree that we can move you to uncontrollable fits of passion while we ourselves are impassive to any quality you may possess".

The goal sought after of course, is to create a psychological atmosphere wherein the female can create such a differential between the value of her sexual favours to the male, and the males sexual favours to the female, that the male must perforce compensate the female for even the slightest consideration.This opens up a gold mine of opportunity for the shrewd and the unscrupulous.

Hence the feminist preoccupation with this theme. Hence the superficial contradiction between girls "letting it all hang out" and girls' volitional participation in any matter sensual as being infinitely fine and therefore infinitely difficult of possession.
"Bravo anonymous! You put it so well!

"I too have read with appreciation Fidelbogen's IDEAS WHICH GO AGAINST THE GRAIN.. Here are some of mine..

"Let's reexamine the rhetorical arguments in regard to "woman as property."

"In the beginning, the story goes, civilization of the patriarchal sort began with men's appropriation of women and children as property. Then followed the oppression of women along with the repression of female sexuality, i.e. marriage followed and the rest is history.

"The notion of 'women as property' is a powerful rhetorical device for feminism. It serves as the basis of an explanatory paradigm for women's oppression. However, as far as I know, there has never been an analysis of property's rhetoric in feminist literature. Feminists are allowed the power of their rhetoric – a metaphor of balance among similarly named concepts – to speak for itself. Both the significance and the truth of such statements as, 'Men viewed women as mere property,' are simply assumed.

"Rhetoric’s ability to mask what should be obvious makes it a most powerful tool in shaping our understanding of abstract concepts. Analyzing why linguistic devices of this type are inherently so persuasive may ultimately prove fruitful in working out a coherent view of property's rhetoric. For instance, to say 'My wife,' or 'My husband' are both proprietary assertions. However, the feminist charge is that men's proprietary claims are both pejorative and oppressive while women's are not. By way of another example, both men and women view each other as 'sex objects.' Here too, the prejudice against men is the same. Men's sexual desire for women is typically considered degrading or dehumanizing while women's desire for men is not.
As might be expected, most of our society's judgmental attitudes toward male sexuality are not original to feminism though feminists have been more than happy to exploit them. Such moral judgments endure (they are several hundred years old) not owning to their veracity but because they belong to moral tradition. And not surprisingly, they are made all the more easy because they coincide with traditional sexual stereotypes of men and the sexual roles both men and women inherit. .. In short, they are part of 'the game.'

"Let's take for example the sexual double standard. From the legal scholarship in this area, one learns that the sexual double standard was created in a patriarchal society where the nuclear family was the primary social unit. In this traditional social structure, women either were denied legal personhood completely, causing them to be viewed as property of their fathers or husbands, or were granted limited rights as guardians of the family unit. A young girl's worth depended on her ability to secure a marriage that would promise her economic security. Her ability to marry, in turn, depended on her sexual purity. Thus, a girl's virginity was her greatest possession, her bargaining tool in securing a socially acceptable future. An 'unwise' disposition of a girl's sexual 'treasure' was thought to harm both her own value and the entire social structure in which she existed. The restriction of female sexual activity operated to prevent this result.

"Of course, this origin story of the sexual double standard has its limits. After all, many so called 'patriarchal' societies have not been so repressive of female sexuality as we've been led to believe they must. Anthropology has provided numerous examples, even societies that are polyandrous. Also, whether or not women were, once upon a time, viewed as non-persons or 'mere property,' is pertinent in principle only to those who see the sexual double standard in terms of repressive patriarchy. That is to say, this view is only one rather ideologically motivated interpretation of women's previous status vis-a-vis their freedom of action and choice. For instance, it is altogether possible that women 'saved' themselves until marriage of their own accord, not as function of their status as men's 'mere property,' if indeed that has ever been the case. After all, women are not simply preserved for marriage, rather, marriage is preserved for women. Indeed, one might say everything revolves around women --- courtship, weddings, marriage, children. Men are seen as peripheral to the game. This is why women are escorted, cautioned, and defended. This is why women caution, secure, and defend themselves. Withholding sex from men is really an exercise in self-restraint. That women would not otherwise restrain themselves more so that men (possibly facilitating a double standard) were it not for patriarchy is pure conjecture as is the modern belief that men alone determine all sexual praxes. According to Richard Dawkins, (The Selfish Gene: Battle Of The Sexes P 162) the female of the species is generally more fussy about with whom she mates. (I realize that's a shameless appeal to authority but I just couldn't help myself.)

"But why argue anthropologically or biologically? Let's turn to some more tangible examples pertinent to my point....

"If insight and blindness are inevitably linked, then one of the blind spots of feminism is that it tries to blame the sexual double standard on some imagined dominance of men is sexual matters while ignoring the full complicity of women in the traditional moral order of things. (I've point this out elsewhere) Anyone old enough to remember reading Ann Landers and Dear Abby (The Twin Queen Bees Of Virginity) can attest to this complicity. Both syndicated columnists talked about sex as if it were an exclusively female preserve; a kind of female commodity that men wanted and women either gave in to or withheld. They were also fond of comparing sex to the hunt and warning young girls that if they 'gave it away' their boyfriends would lose interest. The game would be over. As might be expected, both women talked about virginity strictly in terms of a feminine ideal. All of this was, of course, a ploy to keep young women chaste by making them wary of young men. . From a morally traditional point of view, this is quite understandable. After all, it is women who have made a practice of withholding sex from men before marriage not the other way around. The ideal of virginity is the sublimation of this practice, along with notions of feminine innocence, purity, virtue, self-respect, reputation, and, of course, the age old idea of a woman's honor. Far from being imposed upon women, these ideals with their attendant beliefs, values, and moral sentiments have been embraced and often fiercely defended by women. Not only have these sexual attitudes been integral to women's vanity and sense of pride, they have nurtured notions of feminine moral superiority and conferred women their sense of control over men and their own bodies. (Feminists still carry the torch when they speak about 'taking ownership' of one's body -- albeit in a supposedly more progressive sense which is, frankly, lost on me.) Both Ann Landers and Dear Abby were bastions of traditional morality. Both were widely read and immensely popular with women.

"Oddly enough, women gave all of this up -- well not quite all of it -- during their revolution in order to be the sexual equals of men. (As if women weren't equal enough when they were above men) And all of this was predicated on a curiously deluded sense of male sexual freedom that men themselves could only dream of.

"Not quite convinced?

"Let's hear from the usual suspects again:

"Let's suppose two undesirable consequences flow from valuing a young girl's chastity. First, when legal practices incorporate and reinforce social norms that treat women as little more than possessions of men, the laws respond perversely to protect the male property interest, rather than to compensate for the harm suffered by the female. In other words, gendered laws identify and punish those who, by taking a daughter's virginity, devalue a father's possession; they largely ignore the feelings of the daughter herself. Moreover, the idea that a girl's value depends on her sexual purity leads to the conclusion that a girl who has engaged in consensual non-marital intercourse has 'devalued' herself. This conclusion, in turn, fosters the belief that unmarried women fall into two separate categories: those who are sexually pure and those who are not. A dichotomy of this sort not only harms the individual woman who seeks the law's assistance but also perpetuates pervasive stereotypes of all women as either 'innocent victims' or 'temptresses.' According to this view, the law must care for and defend 'innocent victims' (chaste females), but 'temptresses' (unchaste females) do not deserve the 'benevolent protection' of the criminal law.

"Sounds pretty good, right?

"Not quite.
There's a wee problem.
And that is:

"There is little to no proof that the laws have ever responded perversely to 'protect the male property interest, rather than to compensate for the harm suffered by the female.' This is because the assertion is largely a modern day feminist fiction. It is what is called by philosophers and historians as a 'just so story.' Firstly, it amounts to so much petty moralizing about the past, the presumptions of which are ideologically motivated. Secondly and more importantly, we cannot know the accused's state of mind; we don't know what fathers (past tense) were thinking. In any case, implying that father's had little or no concern for their daughters is imputing too much. We actually just don't know how they felt. Lastly, fathers did not operate in a vacuum. Mothers clamored for revenge for their defiled daughters as well. In societies that arranged marriage, compensation for infractions was generally made by one family group to another. The archetypally dominant father running everything from on high while every other member of society sat around passively waiting for commandments is a religious (and now feminist) myth.

"It is also worth noting that just because legal scholars and feminists label the world 'patriarchal' does not mean that the control of women is first principal in laws concerning sex or life in general. As for the 'innocence' of women, women have been no less responsible than men in promoting the view that women are less responsible agents. After all, it is a fundamental tenet of feminism that women are less responsible agents. Current legal scholarship, influenced by modern feminism, has redoubled the mistake of presuming feminine innocence by making women the 'innocent victims' of patriarchy. Indeed, perhaps nothing has promoted the idea of women as 'innocent victims' more than feminism. That the 'good girl, bad girl' dichotomy is more or less the result of women's having brought their own morality down upon their own heads is ignored. That women have been complicit in viewing sex as a female commodity is ignored. That women have consider themselves 'used and abused' more so than men for having suffered no more than men is ignored. --The list of things ignored is by 'feminist scholarship' is rather long.

"Finally, if it is instructive to consider the double standard in the light of masculine schemas, it is also instructive to consider the double standard in terms of feminine schemas or strategies. The idea that current and past sexual standards exist to advantage men is not something anyone should accept on blind faith. As I have said before, male and female roles are defined by the expectations of both sexes. The claim that 'men define women' and the trend to root the double standard in patriarchy are part and parcel to the same tendentious ideology. Namely feminism.

"A final word about the sexual double standard:

"In feminist lore, the sexual double standard is talked about in terms of some conspiracy on the part of men to privilege themselves with more sexual freedom than women. Again, it's affixed to a largely imagined dominance of men. Seldom does anyone point out that women are conferred a more protected and untouchable status. While I've heard many moralists whine about the double standard, I've yet to hear one complain about this particular aspect of the double standard. That's because they subscribe to this aspect of the double standard as in 'don't fuck my daughter.' You see, far from being regarded as 'mere property,' it is far more likely young girls are viewed as mommy's and daddy's little princesses. In their parents eyes, young girls' bodies are literally likened to sacred temples into which one cannot enter lest they be desecrated. No such sanctity or lofty moral sentiment is ascribled to the young males body. In which case, I should think that we will never see the sexual double standard entirely expunged in spite of the recently celebrated 'liberation of female sexuality.' (I put said liberation in quotes because I believe that women have more or less magically construed a language of male repression and then feigned to liberate themselves from its strictures. Ironic, isn't it? )

"Society presumes the male the aggressor and discriminates against him as such. Females are viewed the passive receptors of male attention and are discriminated as such. In short, the boys get the blame and the girls get the shame. Feminists are naturally quick to resent the resulting discrimination against their own gender but rarely question society's sexual stereotypes of men. In fact, it's more often the case that feminists exacerbate negative stereotypes of men."
Fidelbogen says: One point that I would add by way of summary: the so-called "liberation of female sexuality" has been, in hindsight, little more than a scam of the bait-and-switch variety. The same applies to those vague and vapid declarations that feminism would "liberate men too" (as if that genuinely meant something) by drafting wifey into the workforce!

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

A Sanguinary Turbulence

The following eminently fitting response was given to the previous post, by a reader who very clearly gets it:
"Stories like these, of men falsely accused of rape and wrongly imprisoned, make my blood boil. These men are not only victimized by their accuser but by the courts, the prison system, and society as well. That society makes such a radical distinction between sexually and non-sexually related crimes is revealing in itself. We are neither as liberated nor rational about sex as we would like to believe. Men accused of sexual assault can receive sentences more harsh than those accused of murder and are held in far more contempt. That sexual assault cases can elicit so much unpurged anxiety and neuroses should, at the very least, cause us to ask why. That there are few if any penalties for false accusation concerning such offenses is not merely an oversight, it is judicially embedded sexism of the most pernicious sort. Exceedingly irreparable harm is done through insidious and willful neglect to protect citizens from false accusation. There are no greater examples of injustice both offensive and injurious to the health of a body and mind than the damage incurred by false accusations and zealous policies that imprison men for crimes they have not committed. This is especially true when the accusations pertain to a crime so highly politicized and irrationally responded to as rape."
What more can I say?

However, it is clear to those of us who follow such things, that false accusation of rape is nothing less than a social cancer and a ticking time-bomb, for which FEMINISM must be held accountable! Oh yes, and I'm calling Susan Brownmiller front and center. . . among numerous others! (But I have arraigned Susan elsewhere already!)

Brotherman, the feminists don't give a good goddamn, if some filthy lying skank perjures herself and sends your innocent ass up the river for twenty years of involuntary sodomy and possibly worse. Her word is holy gospel with the weight of lead upon the balance beam of justice, because as the feminists are so dutiful to inform us: women don't lie about rape! Yes, women don't lie about rape, women never lie about rape -- and because women never lie about rape, that means that we must always believe the woman, through every stage of the criminal justice procedure from the very first police interview to the final deliberation of the jury or the final deliberation of hizzoner upon his lofty judicial bench!! Women never lie about rape, and so we must always believe the woman! And why? Because. . . women never lie about rape! See how that works?

But to a feminist that is all jim-dandy because, although it is true that men can suffer, they cannot be oppressed -- and the distinction between suffering and oppression is a very crucial one, you understand! And that means that the mere suffering of men (or of any particular man) is nothing to get fussed about, because in the grand political scheme of things it is only oppression that truly matters. And once we clear the decks of all that bad oppression everyone will be "equal" and no longer able to oppress each other because all the power will then be "equally" distributed. So bearing these remarks in mind, it is easy to comprehend why a man who gets railroaded by a rape liar is not being oppressed. Nor is any other man, who gets railroaded in any one of the many other ways, that women are now permitted to railroad men. For you see, equal protection under the law is not a "men's right", it is simply a "male privilege". Do you follow me? This means that men are only being made to "suffer" loss of "male privilege", but they are not being oppressed! Do you see the difference?

So my friend, if you end up in the Big Hotel and the booty bandits are beating at your back door one night, you might find it helpful to repeat to yourself like a mantra, that "this is not oppression", and "women never lie". And you may find additional chicken soup for your soul in the wise words of the oh-so-feminist Catherine Comins, that "men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes benefit from the experience." Remember that she said "sometimes", which means that she wasn't necessarily referring to YOUR particular case. Therefore you will know enough not to take such a statement personally. Do you see what I'm saying?

Now go HERE: