Sunday, May 31, 2009

Lying About Domestic Violence
- Podcasts Continued

Here, I link you to the second and third parts of the podcast series ( by Amfortas and Christian J ) whose first part I shared in a recent post:
Lying-about-domestic-violence-part-2
http://tinyurl.com/nc793u

Three other sources of ‘official’ data which are routinely manipulated and presented to support DV lies are analysed by Amfortas and compared to Independent University research which completely contradicts the ‘official message’. "It would be generous to think that this manipulation and bias was just the result of incompetence. But as we can see there is something far darker behind it. It is corruption. It is deliberate."

Lying-about-domestic-violence-part-3
http://tinyurl.com/l8hel3

Christian J narrates how the 2006 Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey completely contradicted the Government’s 1996 survey. He also points to the attempts by feminist bureaucrats to manipulate by having ONLY female interviewers to bias the results. Results show women twice as safe as men. The Government has thrown a blanket of silence over it. Feminists maintain an undemocratic stranglehold, expropriating public monies for their anti-male ‘Industry’.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Misogyny: A Feminist Production

In the feminist lexicon, the word misogyny is before all else a semantical device. A stratagem. A stretcher. It is meant to encompass, and to stigmatize, anything that might directly or indirectly block feminist innovation. The success of this stratagem has been considerable, though far from complete. They want to get as much artificial mileage out of the word as they possibly can, but in practice they haven't stretched the meaning of misogyny quite so far as they would like because there isn't enough fabric to accomplish that without partly uncovering their intellectual chicanery. But they keep trying.

They are hyping this word noticeably more than they used to. They have given it a special rank in their arsenal, and they appear to hold high hopes for it. To hear them talk, you'd think misogyny packed a megatonnage comparable to racism, fascism, antisemitism or that Marxist-Leninist classic, imperialism. Personally, I don't see what the hype is about. All they are doing is sculpting a bogeyman. And yet, be advised: whenever they gob you with this word they are shoving you into the same ballpark with Ted Bundy.

When evaluating people like feminists, cynicism is a good bet if you aim to hit the bulls-eye on a high order of statistical average. So I will offer you a cynic's definition of misogyny, or rather I will cynically suggest to you what a misogynist is according to real-world feminist usage:
misogynist, n. a person who believes that women are responsible adults, and holds them accountable when they fail to act so.
In the real world, feminist use of misogyny and misogynist typically comports very well with the posted definition—which is to say that if you fit the given profile, the odds are good they will call you a misogynist. I, the present writer, do fit the given profile. And yes, the charge has occasionally been laid at my doorstep. You may judge if this has thrown me the least bit off my stride.

There is a fine line which separates bona-fide woman-bashing from fair criticism, and my sport, if you will, is to play "chicken" with that line. But I always keep to the correct side of it. Now the feminists would dearly love to recalibrate that line so far in the direction of abject male timidity that any critique of any woman, or of women generally, is ruled out of bounds. Finally, they wish to pull ALL opposition to their plans within the perimeter of so-called misogyny. I say they would dearly love this, although the outcome has eluded them in practice. But I consider it an exercise in political hygiene to stay on the cutting edge of the battle by crowding the zone and choking it to the very last centimetre: they want to push their envelope as far as they are able, so I push the opposing envelope with all the audacity at my disposal in order to block them and cancel their energy. Considering the phenomenal audacity of feminism itself, one fights fire with fire.

Misogyny. Even with the best will in the world, this term is operationally unclear. But as an item of feminist lexicon, that's the whole idea! It is meant to trigger emotion and nothing more, being little better than a handy-dandy smear word—and whoever would make it a political pejorative is either dishonest or mentally lazy. In truth, the word sounds like clinical terminology—and so ought its usage to be constrained, because certifiable misogynists are a rare class of humanity.

Most of the so-called misogyny that you'll hear from people like MRAs is merely an artifact, arising from their lack of rhetorical discipline—their emotive use of language, their want of concision, even their want of wit. They are like oxen cavorting on the high crags and ledges where only mountain goats ought to venture. But all they are really doing is voicing their disenchantment at the deplorable state to which many women have fallen—and I must in good faith acknowledge a kernel of truth in their observations! In some cases you might arguably call them "chauvinistic"—another feminist word trick, by the way. However, "chauvinism" is a separate item: it is not the same as misogyny and should not be conflated with it, even if it often accompanies it.

To deplore the existing state of women, as to deplore the existing state of anything, is to admit the possibility of pathology in theory and call attention to it in the event. For example, if there should be an outbreak of feline eneritis in my town and I were to remark upon the prevalence of diseased cats, would that make me a cat hater? Or if the case involved Dutch Elm disease, would it prove that I hated elm trees?

Misogyny is said to mean "hatred of women". At least that is the core of the idea, although the feminists and their cohorts have given it a fuzzy perimeter—making the word signify, in some mysterious way, ever-so-much more. But for now I want to keep things simple, so I will proceed with simplicity.

"Hatred of women" means disaffection toward a plurality of people, since women is the plural of woman. So clearly, if you think every female on earth is swell you can rest easy: you are assuredly not a misogynist! But how if your case is the extreme reverse? Do you contemplate everything female with ice-cold fury and do you spit like an angry cobra any time a woman comes near? Well then, I think it is safe to call you a misogynist; I can't honestly think of a better name.

Between those outside field markers lies a continuum of possibilities, and the more thoughtfully we investigate this continuum the more difficult becomes the question of who is or is not a so-called misogynist. Finally, the idea itself becomes so thoroughly problematized that no entirely coherent understanding of the word is even possible. Such is the outcome of our investigation.

A moment's thought makes clear that the extreme cases noted above are, for all their polar opposition, equally irrational. Either possibility bespeaks a suspension of critical powers in favor of an extraordinarily peculiar monomania. By contrast, a healthy person of robust intellect allows that the human fabric is not morally monolithic, and does not flinch either to behold people in their flawed diversity or to draw distinctions of a judgmental character.

Feminism harbors man-hating at its core
—and it seeks to rationalize this. So the feminists have adopted the idea of woman-hating in order to invert their own hatred of men and project it onto the non-feminist world. They aim to provoke the exasperated anger of non-feminist men in order to "prove" the existence of misogyny as a societal pandemic. And that X number of genuine misogynists do exist, naturally facilitates conflation and makes their game easier.

In the molten core of its worldview, feminism is hostile to the very idea that men should criticize women for any reason whatsoever. And so the universal admirer of women described in the first instance, weird and unreal as he sounds, is the feminist ideal of the perfect man. He is a silly, servile wretch who waits at the bottom of a slippery slope down which feminism wants every man to slide. To resist the slide is "misogynistic". To resist angrily is "angrily misogynistic". And so on. Therefore it becomes wonderfully easy to find "misogyny" everywhere you look, and if not. . . just goad somebody into it!

Misogyny is an accusation hurled too casually by the feminists and their cohorts. For example, it is plausible to suppose that a misogynist dislikes the majority of women yet makes a few exceptions. But if a man should dislike certain broad categories of women while leaving equally broad categories unscathed, the case becomes problematic. So where must we draw the line? The questions go on and on; the ratios and permutations never end. However: the organic drive underlying all feminist innovation is to gradually squeeze all male opinion into a corner where all independent judgment within this realm becomes nearly impossible. Crudely stated, the feminist worldview will ultimately accomodate nothing short of abject pussy-worship.

Truly, the way some people use this word, you would think that misogyny meant any adverse remark under any circumstance about anybody or anything female. However, in the name of lucidity, coherency and intellectual honesty, I would insist upon some very simple criteria. A body of speech or writing may be classed as misogynistic if, and only if, it meets either or both of the following conditions: a.) it contains globally pejorative statements of the form 'women are X', or b.) it persistently and overwhelmingly portrays females in a negative light while expressly calling attention to their femaleness.

In the foregoing paragraph I have solved the entire problem. The rules laid down there should be stringently applied at all times. If this were done, all confusion and intellectual dishonesty surrounding the word misogyny would vanish outright from the realm of public discourse. No further feminist chicanery would be possible. Mind you, the test would NOT infallibly identify every possible misogynist, as an individual—for admittedly some might escape the net. What the test would do, however, is demarcate the bounds beyond which the quest for so-called misogyny would no longer yield dependable results and would therefore fail a societal cost-benefit analysis.

But I would like to seize the offensive and turn the tables against feminism as such. What is presently most notable in feminist rhetoric is the amorophous, variable, and inconsistent application of the word misogyny itself. The word is applied haphazardly to a gamut of operations, conditions, behaviors or mental states which lack organic continuity amongst themselves and don't always reliably signal disaffection toward women as a class. Simply put, when feminists talk about "misogyny" they are talking about a range of things that barely cohere with one another.

Clearly, we need to put asunder what feminism has dishonestly joined together, so do a mental inventory: break apart "misogyny" into its separate ingredients and compose a checklist. Let us say your list embraces 12 items. Study those items one by one and make an honest decision: is the behavior in question something that only men do, or is it something that both sexes do about equally? If the latter, immediately cross off that item as a thing of no further utility in the field of anti-male politics. For if women do it too, it is no longer a male issue but a human issue. So if "misogyny" refers to 12 different things, then we must use a separate word for each item. And if the word misogyny itself is to be used at all, it must be used in a constricted way and not tossed indifferently into the same salad with 11 other things.

Given the inherent mendacity in the way this word is bandied about, I am not in duty bound to take it seriously when it crops up in speech or writing. I am entitled in all cases to view it as a suspect item. And there is no harm in that, since it is only a word. And in back of the word it is only a concept. That said, bear in mind that the feminist concept of misogyny is naught but a mental model of reality. It is not reality as such, and worse, it may be wildly different from reality. So we are entitled to question it.

And now, being the mountain goat that I am, I will demonstrate some appalling leaps upon dangerously narrow cliffs. Observe:

It has been said that the abstract creature called "men" can "stop rape". Okay, fine! I'll grab a beer and sit here watching and see how "men" accomplishes such a feat. I'm sure it will be interesting. But seriously: the anti-male social order in which I'm embedded doesn't pay me enough that I should trouble my head about women's issues. In a purely objective sense, given the present political status of men as a group, NO male citizen is obligated to so trouble himself—although assuredly, at his sovereign pleasure, he has the option of so doing. Now I understand that certain women may have had an unpleasant experience involving somebody male (e.g. getting raped), but the minute they adopt feminism as a moral-political stance upon this earth, they forfeit any actual or theoretical claim upon my sympathy. And such a counter-feminist reaction, in light of its narrowly political constriction, cannot be accurately deemed misogynistic.

What I have sketched in the foregoing paragraph sounds harsh. However, it is an asperity which permits of no egress. I am simply describing the objective state of the world as my conscience guides me to do, and being a man of conscience I can do no less.

So: are we to believe that disaffection toward the opposite sex exists ONLY among one sex? If misogyny exists among men, what constrains us to assume that no mirror equivalent exists among women? Which is the more extraordinary claim: that such feelings occur in both sexes, or that they occur in one sex only? To be honest, I could as easily credit the latter as believe that X volume of water poured onto a dead-level surface and spreading in the natural way, would halt arbitrarily at some straight-edged boundary with nothing purely topographical holding it in check.

My customary modus operandi is to lean with the more plausible explanation. And as it happens in this case, experience lends further weight given that my personal observation of the class of females called feminists leaves me in no doubt that the female counterpart of misogyny is alive and well upon our planet. So if such feelings occur in both sexes, how can we hope to rationalize the inordinate, one-sided attention focused on the MALE version of this syndrome and the virtual green light given to the female version?

If we cannot properly rationalize this, I believe that we can at least partly explain it. Simply put: if I were a feminist I would see no political advantage in calling attention to the brazen double standard, and I would either ignore man-hating among women or seek somehow to exonerate it.

However, I am not a feminist. Rather, I am a male non-feminist. And so I freely direct attention to man-hating among women: I neither ignore this nor seek to exonerate it. And too, I candidly acknowledge the existence of men who dislike women and will testify that I have occasionally met such individuals. It does not interest me to make excuses for them nor, to be honest, does it interest me to assume any posture toward them whatsoever. They are small beer in the scheme of things and they are welcome to their opinion. Thought is free. A man's mind is his castle, and I wouldn't dream of intruding because I am not a totalitarian.

And seeing that "misogyny" is socially interdicted while its counterpart "male-bashing" is socially licensed, I cannot in good faith summon any special moral urgency as regards "misogyny". If men are saying snarky things about women then, given that an equal but opposite traffic flows from the female side as well, I can't honestly see what the problem is: the currents balance each other and cancel out to something like zero. So I wash my hands of it. All of it. "Misogyny", whatever the exact meaning of that term, can fend for itself. I shall neither help nor hinder. It is no worry of mine.

Yes. Men and women sometimes snark about each other. They sometimes take cheap shots at each other. They sometimes take the low road with each other. That's life; get used to it! However, some men and women rarely or never partake in such games while others, it might seem, do little else. Between those endpoints stretches a varied continuum. And I, the present writer, being an ethereal philosopher with an elevated viewpoint, see no need for the snarking .
However, if the case goes beyond mere snarkery, to the point of physical violence or some egregious offense, then I would recommend the alleged offender be given due process in a court of law under applicable statutes. Such offenses may or may not flow from a misogynistic mindset, but they are not misogyny in themselves and must be regarded separately.

At all events, I will use context-sensitivity in every case, whether or not to align with any feminist moral injunction. So rather than apply feminist ideology as a template or filter, I will formulate my judgment upon the existential factuality of the matter at hand—which could differ wildly from case to case. In the instance of a word-trick like "misogyny", I will assess as I deem fitting and not allow feminist semantics to cloud my understanding. In this manner I will assert the vitality of non-feminist agency and autonomy.

If so-called "misogyny" is the only weapon men have got, then make no mistake, they will use it. It would be fatuous to expect otherwise. For if men and things male are under siege in society at large, it is only natural that certain men will mount a critique of women by way of counterattack, and that this critique will sometimes have a the character of misogyny imputed to it by others—particularly by feminists, who are trigger-happy that way! Such are the inevitabilities. And I the present writer can assume no responsibility for this. I will suavely counsel men to go easy on the woman-bashing rhetoric, but there is a limit to how far I will venture in the field of admonition. It is no task of mine to be a feminist enforcer; if the feminists don't like what disaffected men are saying they are free to speak for themselves in their accustomed manner as they have always done. They certainly don't need any help from me.

So what, really, is misogyny? Would it be propagating the idea that "women are the problem", in the same way that feminism propagates the corresponding idea about men?

Men are the problem: The more you propagate that idea through the culture, the worse the problem will become. I, the present writer, take no responsibility for any dysfunctional male behavior, en masse, which may afflict the world in years to come if my words go unheeded. I wash my hands of all that. Nor would I answer for any ill-fortune that might befall the reader who is presently scoffing at this. That individual has been informed, and has free choice to either modify his presentation or carry on as accustomed.

If broad masses of women are passively implicated in the feminist assault upon men, and if such women do not eventually show signs of awakening to the crisis and amending their passivity, then it may be predicted that the sum total of misogyny upon the planet will show a net increase. Over the course of time women in significant numbers would need to demonstrate that they "get it", by standing up noisily against feminism and in favor of equitable treatment for men. Failing this, more and more men will conclude, A.) that most women don't get it, or B.) that they do get it, but prefer to benefit passively or complicitly from the status quo. Both A. and B. will foster the growth of disaffection toward females, and men will be the least blameworthy party to the conflict. Assuming certain trajectories, there would be no help for any of this. The only possible help would be to modify the trajectories.

Feminism, both openly and covertly, both directly and indirectly, both consciously and unconsciously, encourages the growth of man-hating. It follows therefore that a symmetrically corresponding growth of woman-hating ought not only to be anticipated, but positively welcomed by the feminists as symptomatic that feminism has been SUCCESSFUL. For it is naturally to be expected that if women hate men, men will reciprocate—and it would surely demand too much of human nature to expect otherwise! It is a simple case of action and reaction.

Think about it: when you drive a wedge between Group A. and Group B, does it draw those groups closer together? Or does it drive them apart? Does it foster trust? Or does it foster suspicion? Does it augment the fund of good feeling on both sides? Or does it deplete that fund? I know that you know the answer.

Jesus Christ said "love those who hate you", but that sets the bar unmercifully high for the majority of people. We cannot take for granted that most humans would measure up to such an inhumanly elevated standard. And it would be stupidity of the most blazing kind to construct public policies or cultural institutions upon the back of any such assumption. The popular feminist saying that "men must control themselves" is a filthy, abhorrent, man-hating maxim. In fact it is thinly veiled sadism, and more to the point, a license for women to behave sadistically toward men—who must "control themselves" by turning the other cheek! But again, we mustn't count upon the "imitation of Christ" as a normal occurrence. A certain number of saintly chaps, no doubt, will obligingly undertake this. However, we mustn't expect the male population at large, in point of statistical averages, to endure any such arrangement of life. Nor would such arrangement generate a stable social order. In my considered opinion it would generate a social time bomb!

Shall we ever hear a feminist declare that women must control themselves? No, we shall never hear a feminist say any such thing and that is exactly the point! So kindly don't ask me why the growth of misogyny is inexorable under the impulsion of anti-male politics! Puzzle this out for yourself; it is not quantum physics! As anti-male toxins continue building up in the social ecology, predictable consequences will continue to follow. The underlying nature of feminism cannot and will not change. So does anybody care to argue that injecting anti-male toxin into the social ecology will foster a more kindly male attitude toward women?

The feminists—or the women's movement as they have the nerve to call themselves—have made a certain "bed" for women-in-general to lie in. And unless women-in-general wake up to the harsh reality of all this and take a militant stand against it, they shall indeed have no choice but lie in that bed which their excellent superfriends the feminists have created for them. It is written in the nature of things. I am the messenger; don't shoot!

If you proclaim that "men must clean up their act" without equally proclaiming that women must clean up their act, then in the long run it is not quite reasonable to ask men to clean up their act, is it? I at any rate will preach no sermon upon that text. For men are sensitive creatures, and the hypocrisy of this would not be lost upon them. And I would not willingly play the hypocrite in their eyes.

We live under extraordinary political circumstances. Things are not normal. The time is out of joint! Oh very well, call me a misogynist. It's only a feminist word trick after all! And if you insist that women don't even need to clean up their act, then I would beg to remind you that some people (including a lot of women) would beg to differ. I would further make plain to you that the time for argument is past and that those who disagree with you are driven by the power of their convictions: you can stand them up at the gates of hell and they won't back down! So it looks like you've got a tussle on your hands. And the more you multiply your aggression the more you will multiply your enemies.

Remember that feminism doesn't merely poison the world against men, for in a social ecology the poison goes everywhere and poisons everybody. I'd like to say "poison in-poison out", but in this case the principle does not apply because there is no "out" for the poison to go to. There is only one social ecology, it stops where the noosphere stops, and so the poison can only accumulate. The good news is that the social ecology can, in time, heal itself—but only if the source of the poison be exposed and rendered inoperative. And I think you know what the source is.

It ought to be clear that if you set about to annihilate so-called "misogyny" from the world by witch-hunting or thought-policing it to death you will solve absolutely nothing. Instead, you will make the world profoundly more wretched and more conflicted. The mystical affliction will not go away, I can promise you that. And I can promise you more: it will grow and grow! The more you scream and point your finger, the faster and farther it will spread. It is like pestering somebody with the question "why are you so mean?", and watching that person grow steadily meaner and meaner. Figure it out, moron!

No, this "misogyny" is not the source of the poison. Does "misogyny" meaningfully exist at all other than as a feminist propaganda device? That is a serious question and ought to be distributed for general discussion.

However, let's wrap this up tersely. The real issue is not "misogyny" but rather ill-feeling between the sexes. Between: that is the operative keyword! Any idiot can see it's a two-way street, so I must conclude that the feminists are either in a state lower than idiocy or the most evil liars and manipulators ever to walk the planet. Yes, I say it is a two-way street. Bad feeling between the sexes is mutual: they are both giving each other the hairy eyeball! It makes no sense whatever to say the traffic flows in only one direction.

Ill-feeling between the sexes means the mood gets uglier on both sides. On the male side this translates as misogyny. However, when you shine that hypocritical feminist spotlight on the male side alone while giving women a pass, men will take it unkindly. Why? Because they are not idiots. And so they will rebel! They will raise a ruckus! They will kick like mules! Their disposition will grow worse and worse—as rightly it should!

We must define our higher task not as witch-hunting "misogyny" to extinction but as preventing the growth of ill feeling between the sexes. An ecological approach to the problem would set the locus of difficulty within the encompassing inter-relational space between the sexes and not upon one sex or the other. Any other approach would be sexist.

Accordingly, our work belongs to the ecumenical human condition. The first step toward setting the work in motion would be to cut feminism entirely out of the loop. An ideology which encourages one sex to hate the other cannot plausibly be part of the solution.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Write to Your Congressman

Federal legislation (H.R 2115) is now pending to create an Office of Men's Health in the USA. It is in the committee stage. As you may know, an Office of Women's Health already exists, so a counterpart version of this seems only fitting. After all, if women are to be the "Royal Sex", then certainly some manner of noblesse oblige is in order, yes? Peasant rebellions can be nasty, so it is best to keep the peasants happy, or at least humor them occasionally.

Click here to send a pre-drafted letter to your Representatives

I think it is an excellent idea to establish such an office in the government. It's all about symbolism. The very existence of such a thing would send a political message that would make the feminists very unhappy—and in the long run that would not be good for their health. (For example, it might drive up their blood pressure!) And if it is bad for the health of feminists, it cannot help but be good for men's health!

So, do visit the link above, and read all about H.R 2115, and give it your careful consideration.

Friday, May 22, 2009

More Feminist Lies Corrected Here
—Get the MP3

The following arrives from England. It says "To All MRAs Worldwide", and is sub-headed "Urgent!"
"Other parties have also been included in the BCC file including Church organisations and media reps. . . .

"Enclosed with this email is an attachment of an MP3. file. It is a segment of a BBC program that investigates the veracity of statistics, in this case, domestic violence statistics. I would urge ALL MRA's that have web sites to post this segment on their sites. I would urge all others to pass this segment (or a link to it) to their representatives in government, to newspaper and other electronic news media as quickly as possible. Also, please check with other organisations that are working with, have an affiliation to or are otherwise connected with Men's groups, however loosely, to see if they have heard this important information. If we are to pull down the feminist lies, we must have the truth. This is one such bullet in our gun.

"If anyone has trouble receiving or opening the attachment please contact me and other arrangements will be made to get it too you.

"Details below:

"More or Less - Fri, 15 May 2009
Tim Harford takes apart a rogue statistic on domestic violence which has been circulating since the 1990s, questions news reports which suggest that the recession is hitting white collar workers hardest and reveals a new mathematical riddle - the Kate Bush conjecture.
"An Open University co production for BBC Radio 4. Broadcast on:BBC Radio 4, 8:00pm Sunday 17th May 2009 Duration: 30 minutes. . . .

"PLEASE NOTE: Here is a link to the BBC program in full. This link will not last long as the programs are taken off the player after one week or so. That is why I have recorded the relevant segment. Also, you may not be able to use the link from countries outside of Great Britain. I am not sure.

http://tinyurl.com/qlt3oh

I've had no luck with the BBC link above, but you can try your own luck.

As you'll have noted, my correspondent kindly supplied the relevant MP3 as a mail attachment. I have embedded this below, in widget form:



And here is the MP3 for direct download, in case that works better for you:

http://tinyurl.com/q2tfpn

Monday, May 18, 2009

Lying About Domestic Violence-Part 1

Amfortas and ChristianJ have produced a series of hard-hitting podcasts which have high counter-feminist value, and deserve a listen. So, LISTEN!

Yes, even you feminists. Especially you feminists; if you don't listen to those podcasts, I will hold you responsible for your omission, and I won't cut you any slack. It's not our job to educate you about these things, so take your goddamn feminist privilege and stuff it, and then get your arse over there and listen to those podcasts! Oh, and you'd better spread the word amongst da sisterz also.

That's right, Feministgal: I'm talking to YOU TOO, grrl!

At any rate: the following podcast is by Amfortas, and is titled Lying About Domestic Violence-Part 1. It deals with the situation in Australia, but hey, we're all in the same boat everywhere!

The link below will send to you to a hosting page which features this particular podcast. You can either play the podcast directly from the page, or download the MP3 to your computer:

http://tinyurl.com/qkaue4

Over the next little while, I will gradually post more of these.

Look! Another Counter-Feminist!

Porky the Counter-Feminist pig. That is what the blogmaster calls himself. And look at the URL of his blog, which is: http://counterfeminism.info/

The blogmaster seems to be Australian. I think you will find his blog witty, sarcastic, and fun to read.

Hmmmm!. . .Now I'm just waiting for him to become a hardcore counter-feminist, who can sling the jargon. You know, toss around stuff like femplex, or perpetual revolution, or feminist subjectivism, or feminist worldview, or anti-male politics, or ecumenical human condition, or or disaffection spectrum, or Real Feminism™, or non-feminism, or NF sector, or duluthosphere, or rhetorical discipline, etc. . . etc . . . etc.

About half an hour ago, as I was reading Porky's blog, I was made aware for the first time that Marilyn French, of "all men are rapists" fame, has bit the dirt and gone to whatever circle of Dante's Inferno people like her get sent to. Well, de mortius nil nisi bonum and all o' that, but here is the story:

http://counterfeminism.info/?p=548

Thursday, May 14, 2009

More About Feminist Rape Culture

As usual, I am too tired to write anything. So I will send you over to the False Rape Society for the most recent item posted there. It is important material, it is written in peak form, and you really, really ought to read it: http://tinyurl.com/ryvxba

Yes, I would say the feminists are colluding and coordinating widely in order to carry their revolution to the "next level" in the field of rape prosecution. They are agitating, they are preaching, they are propagandizing, they are floating proposals. And they have densely-membered networks and a worldwide political machine at their disposal. You can safely hazard your last yen, euro or shekel that Susan Caringella is not operating in a vacuum!

Please remember that the typical feminist would see YOU in prison on a false rape rap just as soon as step on a cockroach. Your life, your pain, your suffering, your value as a human being on any level . . . means little or nothing to the average feminist if you are male!

Brotherman, you are entitled to be EXACTLY that cynical about ANY feminist you meet, bar none!

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

The Dogged Pursuit of Equality

The graphic image you see here, shows a billboard which existed somewhere in Australia several years ago. It depicts a modishly dressed female controlling two naked men on a leash—as if they were dogs.

Images such as these arrive in the world at a particular time in response to historical energies. These things don't just happen. Rather—being the articulation of deep-seated emotions buried in the collective psyche and squeezed to the surface by the interplay of shifting forces—they happen for a reason. Now, in order to downplay anything resembling seriousness, you might wish to inform me that such things are only a hip, sophisticated, avant-garde "joke". And you might desire to make clear to me also, that only my want of sophisticated avant-garde hiptitude blocks me from understanding this, and from taking it in the proper spirit, and so joining the ranks of those witty avant-garde boulevardiers who toss these things off lightly with a glass of absinthe—or whatever the bloody hell they toss it off with!

Oh, bugger all of that! Listen, I'll tell you what. Here's the plan:

We shall design another billboard of the same size. On it shall be depicted a man wearing a black leather outfit reminiscent of an S.S. officer. We'll show this man holding a leash, and controlling two women—as if they were dogs. Picture to yourself those naked females, with their little fantails poised way up in the air, and their swingin' little knockers knockin' together pendulously. Got that?

All right, good! Next, let us install our new billboard directly across the roadway, opposite the original. So that henceforward, the passing stream of motorists and pedestrians will be administered the very same message with a double-sided treatment; they can swivel their gaze from one to the other, and back again, and the two hoardings will offset one another in a perfectly equilibriated equation.

Well, we all know what happens next. A gaggle of feminists finds the second billboard, and screams bloody murder about it, and demands that the horrid thing disappear post haste. But I would defer to their request on one condition only: that the original billboard across the way be likewise banished from the public eye.

I will not budge an inch; I will not bate a grain. Either both billboards stay, or both billboards go! That, my friend, is non-negotiable. End of subject.

But you know. . . the Larger Thing that I'm really talking about here, is calling the dogs off. Of course, you knew all along that I was talking about something larger, didn't you?

Mind you, we know perfectly well who let the dogs out in the first place! They did! But see, the problem is, they didn't let ALL the dogs out; they only let their OWN dogs out!

So in the name of consistency, under the sacred banner of No Double Standards, I INSIST (dogmatically if you will!) that ALL of the dogs be turned loose so they can run wild, wreak havoc, spread wrack and ruin, and knock over every dog-gone garbage can in every flea-infested alley from here to hell and back!

Yes, bring on ALL the dogs!!!!

OR . . . call off all the dogs!

Woof-woof!

Hey, I'm down with either scenario!

So what's it going to be then, eh? ;)

Monday, May 11, 2009

Fidel Opens His Political Overcoat
and Exposes Himself!

My Political Views
I am a center-left moderate social libertarian
Left: 1.08, Libertarian: 2.48

Political Spectrum Quiz

OR. . . what your average (radical) feminist would scornfully call a "liberal dood".

(Ha! And you thought MRAs were a pack of right-wing authoritarian patriarchs . . . didn't ya..? ;)

To be honest, I'm not sure how much that quiz is really worth. I know I had a tough time selecting the perfect answer on a lot of those questions.

I think it reflects mood as much as anything . . .

If the objective situation of the world changed in a dramatic way, chances are my political label would be something rather different.
-----------------------------------

FASCISM . . . would straddle the vertical axis near the top of the chart, extending a short distance into both the Left and the Right regions.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Go and Read About It

I was googling around, and I happened upon the following. I don't know if the False Rape Society featured this item or not; memory fails me:

http://tinyurl.com/pjgsgo

Observe: She wanted to whitewash her guilt for having SEX, so she invented a story about RAPE! And the poor "schmoe": he never even saw it coming. . . did he? Just think: he could be any man; he could be Everyman! So little by little, more and more men are learning from hard experience to distrust women . . aren't they? Consequently, they are growing steadily more and more "misogynistic". . aren't they? OF COURSE they are! Can you blame them? There is no rational reason why they shouldn't be!

And the poison: it spreads and spreads. . . doesn't it? And friends, we all know who introduced this poison in the first place. . don't we? Here's a clue: I don't blame "patriarchy".

Wrongful accusation of rape is certainly not a rare occurrence. I almost want to say that news items of this kind are "laughably common", but it's no laughing matter! It's no joke! False rape stories are a bumper crop, hanging in fat clusters everywhere like grapes in a vineyard. And I really ought to write something ingenious about "grapes of wrath", but right now I'm too tired to weave such a clever trope.

Now, I find it bloody difficult to comprehend what certain people mean, when they declare false accusations to be a "myth". The continual stream of horrid evidence from the news media ought to make these people wonder about that—or so you might reasonably assume. And too, their behavior is infantile, for to merely circulate the phrase "myth of X" does not, in itself, suffice to establish that X is a myth.

But seriously: any person of normal intelligence ought to suspect that where there is smoke, there is fire. Those two things, "smoke" and "fire", are known to occur together extraordinarily often. So while the former does not infallibly signal the latter, it does so frequently enough that when you smell smoke in a building, you'd be a criminally negligent moral imbecile not to investigate.

Well-attested evidence now soars to dizzying heights, that false accusation of rape is real and destroys the lives of innocent men. However, such people as feminists and their political allies decline to take this information on board. They scoff at it; they minimize it; they trivialize it; they downplay it; they ignore it; they obfuscate it; they talk past it or around it. In fourteen-hundred different ways, they simply refuse to square up to it!

I see two possibilities: they are either profoundly stupid, or profoundly evil.

Saturday, May 09, 2009

Words From Across the Pond

The following reached me via e-mail from George Rolph, a celebrated MRA in the Sceptered Isle of Albion, a.k.a. England. George also CC'd this to a passel of British reporters, news agencies, parliamentary critters, and so on. It is so good, how can I possibly not share it? I think it has something for everybody in this globe-spanning movement of ours; aren't we all struggling with incorrigibly evil, arrogant people who wish only to sweep us out of the way like dirt? Yes, I think we can all relate to this. And I've got to say one thing: George certainly hasn't lost his touch! ;)

[This commences with a citation from an online encyclopedia. Immediately after, George R's own words begin.]
Medieval Life
Feudalism

The Feudal System was introduced to England following the invasion and conquest of the country by William I (The Conqueror). The system had been used in France by the Normans from the time they first settled there in about 900AD. It was a simple, but effective system, where all land was owned by the King. One quarter was kept by the King as his personal property, some was given to the church and the rest was leased out under strict controls.

The King
The King was in complete control under the Feudal System. He owned all the land in the country and decided who he would lease land to. He therefore only allowed those men he could trust to lease land from him. However, before they were given any land they had to swear an oath to remain faithful to the King at all times. The men who leased land from the King were known as Barons, they were wealthy, powerful and had complete control of the land they leased from the King.
Back

Barons
Barons leased land from the King which was known as a manor. They were known as the Lord of the Manor and were in complete control of this land. They established their own system of justice, minted their own money and set their own taxes. In return for the land they had been given by the King, the Barons had to serve on the royal council, pay rent and provide the King with Knights for military service when he demanded it. They also had to provide lodging and food for the King and his court when they travelled around the country. The Barons kept as much of their land as they wished for their own use, then divided the rest among their Knights. Barons were very rich.

Knights
Knights were given land by a Baron in return for military service when demanded by the King. They also had to protect the Baron and his family, as well as the Manor, from attack. The Knights kept as much of the land as they wished for their own personal use and distributed the rest to villeins (serfs). Although not as rich as the Barons, Knights were quite wealthy.

Villeins
Villeins, sometimes known as serfs, were given land by Knights. They had to provide the Knight with free labour, food and service whenever it was demanded. Villeins had no rights. They were not allowed to leave the Manor and had to ask their Lord's permission before they could marry. Villeins were poor.
From http://www.historyonthenet.com/Medieval_Life/feudalism.htm

[George Rolph's commentary follows:]

"It will be noted from the brief breakdown of the feudal system above that feudalism and modern society in Britain have great similarities to each other and that we have not come very far since 900AD. In fact, it could be argued that the feudal system is alive and well in this land and many others today but has been renamed democracy. There are minor differences in structure and practice from the old feudal system, but not much. The rulership of the king has been replaced by parliament but that is just a power shift. We still have robber barons in the form of powerful businessmen and they control vast amounts of our daily lives while they invent new ways to steal the low wages they pay to us, from us. Politicians bow down to them and the whole political system and legal system is geared to their needs. The population always come second to the interests of business and as such, the population are paid lip service too in election manifestos. What business wants, business gets. When business decided they wanted a common market in Europe we, the people, were taken into the Common Market without our consent. The politicians then decided they wanted to build a political empire in Europe to regulate and control the markets thus created and we got the E.U. In the E.U. there is a statutory body of unelected officials who hold great power over the lives of ordinary people that those people have no control over at all and which is riddled with corruption. They have a legal system that is imposed without the consent of the people and which, little by little, is robbing the people of the member countries of their freedom to self determination as a sovereign nation and of their cultural difference. This, of course, is treason; but as the serfs (you and I) have so little power -- apart from the illusory power of general elections -- the legal niceties can be ignored and coercion (otherwise known as persuasion) can be employed to make us all conform. The illusion of referendum has been used to give the E.U. a cloak of respectability but when a nation votes no to closer integration, the E.U. simply waits a while; adds some pressure and then tries again. What politicians want, politicians get.

"What politicians and business both want is your land, your money and your compliance. So the new barons are businessmen and the new knights are politicians. The new villeins (serfs) are the rest of us.

"I made reference to the illusory power of elections. Let me explain what I mean by that. In Britain today there are three parties that hold all of the power of the state in their hands. The smallest and therefore least powerful of these, are the Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dems, as they are known, came from within the established power system and so did not have to work their way to the top as other parties would have too. They are an offshoot from the two main parties. The two big hitters are the Conservatives and the Labour Party. No other party is allowed to get anywhere near the reins of state and mechanisms are in place to see that no smaller parties can ever raise the funds needed to take on the big boys. If another party tries and looks like it might be successful in gaining a modicum of power, the political spin machine swings into action and, with the help of a compliant press, ridicules and dismisses everything the smaller party says. The Lib Dems managed to break into the system and remain there because they are willing to play the game and keep the system just as it is. Thus the status quo is maintained and the corrupt system remains secure. Behind the walls of their barricades against real democracy, the ruling elite lead glittering lives and can make vast fortunes for themselves by job swapping, stealing public money (That's your money) and the use of the honours system. When election time comes the people are given a false choice. "You can vote for any of the three parties but if you vote for anyone else you are wasting your time because we will not let them into power." is the message given. Thus, the election is never fair and democratic at all. If it were, any party would have a chance to govern the country.

"Why is this system the way that it is?

"At the top there are the glitterati. That is, big business interests, judges, barristers, senior political figures, senior policemen, ex military figures, the old aristocracy (what is left of it) and the new aristocracy now in the House of Lords, the press barons, certain celebrities and the bankers. These few live very nicely thank you on the backs of the working people (the modern villeins). Almost every single one of these tiers is soaked in corruption because, behind the wall they have built around themselves, they are free to do whatever they like and what they like to do most is protect the walls and live expensive lives. This breeds in them an arrogant complacency and a feeling of immunity from censure by the majority of the people. Laws that apply to you and I, for example, are routinely ignored by this elite and if they do fall foul of them and cannot wriggle out of it because of the public gaze, their friends ensure that the punishment is kept as light as possible. In this way, fraudsters in the city that steal millions from the tax payers get a slap on the wrist, but four or five working class lads (modern serfs) that rob a train of six million get thirty year sentences, for example. So we see that we have a two tier legal system. A two tier justice system. A two tier lifestyle system and a two tier economic system and this is all wrapped up inside a single tier political power system which is itself maintained by what is known as, cross party consensus. That is, the modern "barons" and the modern "knights" conspire to keep things just as they are. The motivations for this, are ultimately of course, power and greed driven, Pavlov dog style, by massive egos.

"Those running this system are nothing if not cunning. They know that they cannot keep a system based on massive greed, and egos running unless they can persuade the people to let them. They are acutely aware of just how outnumbered they are behind their walls. After all, they are a relatively small group of people. So, in order to keep their edifice going they have become incredibly skillful at manipulation and lying to the common men and women. To do this they needed to create outlets to enable them to be able to speak to as many people as possible. They also had to be certain that the people running these outlets were all on their side. Some judicious and careful public and private appointments would have to be made. The careful placing of "yes men" in positions of public influence, such as, within media outlets and local councils, police stations, schools and so on and the creation of a huge amount of quangos (Quango=Quasi Autonomous Nongovernmental Organisation that is supposed to be independent of government but which actually does what it is told because it is run by yes-men and yes-women) ensures that everyone stays "on message" and does not give the game away. The rewards for playing along can be massive indeed and are often utterly corrupt. For example; the BBC plays along nicely, thank you. For this loyalty they are given huge amounts of tax payers money, ostensibly to make television and radio programs but also, to line their pockets with. This ensures that if they stumble across anything that the public will not like and the systems cronies are getting up too, they will sit on it, keep the people ignorant but still look professional and independent. Those within the BBC that preach the right messages get promoted and are paid very well. Up to six million pounds a year some of them! The rest get lower tiered jobs and constant bombardment with BBC loyalty propaganda to ensure they keep their mouths shut. As an added incentive, they get huge housing help, for example. All paid for by the countries villeins and that by compulsion in the form of a 'telly tax'. The same things happen in slightly different ways in newspapers throughout the land.

"All of this has happened incredibly quickly. In the nineteen forties, if a politician wanted to speak to the people he had to call public meetings or stand on a soapbox in a public place because so few could afford radios and no one had TV's. His capacity to con the people was limited by the amount of people he could actually reach with his message. As a consequence, corruption was relatively rare on a domestic level and most of it happened in the form of overseas activity or sexual scandals at home. Now and again a corruption scandal broke, but relatively speaking, they were few and far between, At least, that is how history tells it. We must keep in mind however that just as gangsters in the States have held politicians, businessmen and policemen in their grubby hands for many years, so have newspaper magnates and businessmen here.

"The great lie, still told today, is that British politics is less corrupt than other countries. You have to have been born yesterday to believe that. In fact, because of the way the system works here in Britain, more of the corruption is just better hidden than in other countries with other systems. The advent of mass television ownership brought with it new challenges for the corrupt and they quickly saw that they needed to gain control over this new and growing medium or the game would be up. It was because of that need that the judicious appointments were made and the right people were placed in the right positions within the new media. Bingo! Instant control. When people got suspicious that this had been done and the wool had been pulled over their eyes, lots of speeches were made about our glorious "free" press and the independence of the BBC etc. This propaganda would be backed up quickly by the organisations themselves and so a stream of reassuring messages went out to the public from the ruling knights and barons that all was well and the people should slip quietly back to sleep.

"Now, ordinary British people are funny lot. They will put up with injustice, unfair and over the top taxes, blatant corruption and even downright disgusting legal corruption from the courts against them for years on end and simply moan about it all now and again. Slowly though, their anger is likely to grow. Their voices change from a low background murmur of discontent to a rising wail and then, finally, to a roar. Today, their voices are reaching up to the level of roar and the corrupt know it. They can hear it and they are getting nervous. So nervous in fact, that recently they have been asking British squaddies if they would be prepared to shoot their own people if ordered to do so. They are right to be nervous. They know better than anyone what the British are like once their anger levels rise high enough. The people of this "sceptered isle" can become very dangerous indeed and organise very quickly against those who are robbing them blind. History has demonstrated that again and again. The last corrupt fool who took the British people for granted on such a scale got his head cut off.

"Up until now, the electoral system has always worked to quell that anger. The problem facing the corrupt today is that people are starting to see though that bullshit too. They know their votes are useless because whichever party they vote for will just bring them more of the same. They also know the press have been lying through their teeth at them for years. The pennies have been dropping all over the place. They see the robber barons and knights destroying the peasants livelihoods; their financial security; spiritual base; stealing their hard worked for pensions; indoctrinating their children with ideological crap in the classrooms; stealing their national identity and pride; giving their country away to foreign interests; often leaving them homeless while those responsible for the decimation of their property values give themselves huge bonuses and are bailed out by the government giving them the tax payers cash! They see mental feminists attacking their family life; injustice for their abused sons; courts operating two kinds of justice: One for the rich and another for the poor and so on and they don't bloody like it. The elite few will use whatever force they can muster of course, to protect their corrupt little system but they are incredibly arrogant and stupid if they think that force alone will stop the British people from getting their hands around their nasty little throats. The people of these islands have proved again and again that they are tough, inventive, clever and they are not easily frightened when push comes to shove.

"None of this needs to happen of course. This fake democratic system could reform itself by opening up the voting system to allow more parties to have a greater say. They could reform the legal system by ridding us of corrupt judges and lawyers. They could make parliament truly representative again by quietly losing a few millionaires who are still trying to rob people through expenses and letting the ordinary people in. They could open up the Bills system to allow the people to make and present Bills to parliament for fair and robust debate. They could shut down the quangos, the fake charities and the local government organisations known to be on the take. They could democratise the press by putting it in the hands of the people and splitting up the huge and corrupt monopolies that now exist. They could start sacking the blood suckers in the civil service and in Parliament and in the legal halls and in the courts. They could outlaw political ideology from the classrooms and on and on. They will not of course. They did not get where they are today by being honest. So, this feudal system, disguised as democracy, will roll on until it becomes so rotten that the people can't stand the stench anymore and they rid our land of it. Unless, that is, the ruling scumbags can find a way of diverting us all again.

"Hmm!

"Another war perhaps? A nice big "terror" attack in central London or some other big city? A pandemic would come in handy right now. Huh?

"Ooops. Nearly got paranoid there.

"George Rolph.
London."

Thursday, May 07, 2009

A Little Bit of Russian Humor!

Ahh . . . yes! From the glory days of the Soviet Union! And I haven't the least doubt that my wise, keen, crafty "comrades" will find something universal about this that we can all appreciate!
"A man entered a Soviet clinic and insisted on consulting with an ear-and-eye doctor. He was told that no such medical specialty ­existed. He must see either an eye doctor, or an ear doctor. Still he persisted in his demand. An exasperated official finally asked him why he wanted such a consultation. 'Because,' the man replied, 'I am always hearing one thing and seeing another.'"

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

False Rape is Red Hot and Getting Hotter

Let me say this. I believe that false accusation of rape is a WORSE crime than rape itself. For one thing, false accusation is a reprehensible lie. And rape, say what you will, is not a lie. Furthermore, the lack of moral conscience inherent to a false accusation is plausibly greater than that involved in raping somebody, since it entails either one, or possibly both, of the following: A) personal malevolence toward the victim, or B) the desire to generate a cover for your own wrongdoing. Rape, by contrast, does not involve B., does not necessarily involve A., and often involves neither of them.

The consequences of a false accusation are, for the victim, potentially far more devastating than the consequences of rape. A rape victim will not be treated as a criminal, not be subjected to the mercies of the prosecutorial system, not be wrongfully sent to prison, not be raped in prison, not have her life destroyed, and not be made to register as a sexual offender. The rape victim will possibly (though not necessarily) suffer emotional distress whose degree may vary quite a bit. Additionally, the rape victim will possibly (though not necessarily) become pregnant or contract a sexually transmitted disease. Most or all of these consequences are, however, remediable, and not of a magnitude comparable to what the victim of a false accusation would suffer. A rape victim can easily gain sympathy, pick up the pieces, and live a normal life again; such a victim is not stigmatized. On the other hand, a victim of false accusation will struggle to gain sympathy, and will live as a marked man for the rest of his days.

Considering the possible consequences to the victim, and considering that the false accuser is likely to be aware of these, it is plausible to argue that false accusation is the manifestation of an inherently more evil, or "sociopathic", personality. The victim of false accusation, on the other hand, will likely be any old good-natured "chump" who was in the wrong situation at the wrong time.

Since we are not required to endorse feminist rape theory, I will lean to the intuitive and simple, and postulate that the average rapist rapes because he seeks sexual gratification. He wants to get his rocks off. And I can demonstrate the likelihood of this very simply, to wit: that tumescence of the virile member argues, ipso facto, a condition of sexual excitement. Now, while it is certainly not a crime to seek sexual gratification, the rapist goes about this in an unethical manner proscribed by law—that is what makes his action criminal. However, it is important to bear in mind that the rapist seeks only his momentary selfish pleasure, whereas the false accuser of rape is not only aware that her action might have irremediable long-term consequences for the victim, but is in many cases malignantly determined to inflict those very same consequences.

Once again, I would remind you that the victim of false rape accusation suffers worse consequences than does the genuine rape victim. A classic feminist rejoinder would be, that "men cannot possibly know how it feels to be raped". My reply to that would be two-fold. Firstly, that the administration of criminal justice should not be grounded in such intangible subjective, and finally irrelevant criteria. And secondly, that if men cannot know how it feels to be raped, it is equally true that women cannot know how it feels to be falsely accused of rape. Furthermore, what the victim of false accusation suffers contains more of the tangible and objective—which is why we can evaluate it as tangibly and objectively worse.

Finally, I should touch upon a rather fine-spun argument that some might try to launch against me. It might be argued, that I have only spoken of the social consequences (to the victim) of false rape accusation, and that by so doing I have obfuscated the purely inherent evil of such an offense, and thereby established the basis for a false comparison between rape and false rape accusation.

But this argument, being fine-spun, is made of delicate tissue that quickly goes to pieces. For in this case, to take away the social consequences (to the victim) of false accusation, would be identical with taking away the punitive consequences—for in the event, the two are inseparable. And if, having done this, you set rape and false rape accusation side-by-side in their abstracted purity in order to evaluate them in a "pure" way, you thereby negate the possibility of any comparative moral evaluation. It would be as good as allowing that rape accusation (false or otherwise) would factualistically have no consequences, and once you took THAT idea on board, you would have no choice but disallow (for consistency's sake) any moral imperative that rape itself should generate punitive consequences!

Which means, that you will have shot yourself in the foot at the starting block. So, if you had any thought of arguing along the line which I've dismantled here, I would advise you to scrap that plan.

In conclusion, as stated initially, I believe that false accusation of rape is a worse crime than rape itself. I aver this principally for two reasons. Firstly: that the suffering of the victim is—by any tangible, objective standard of evaluation—likely to be greater. And secondly: that the offense flows from an inherently more culpable state of mind.

Thus, false accusation of rape is the greater sin; the "greater of two evils."

I believe it is time to come down hard on false rape accusers. Really hard! And I believe it is time to shatter the silence on this presently taboo subject. Really shatter it! We must break the choke-hold which radical feminists and their political allies currently enjoy in the realm of public discourse. We must drag them off-stage, kicking and screaming, with the old vaudeville hook! Either that, or plaster them with rotten tomatoes.

Real victims of rape, if they are really telling the truth, should have nothing to fear. The worst that could happen, is that their case will be thrown out for lack of evidence. But if they are lying, they should expect to be publicly humiliated and then trucked away to the penitentiary for some extremely hard time.

And if you insist on telling me that false accusation of rape is a "myth", then I would politely recommend that you be crucified upside-down in a barrel of shit.
--------------------------------------------------------

And now the good news. False Accusation of Rape a hot issue, about to become explosive. Yes, upon my word, the feminists are about to get their ass roasted and served to them on a paper plate with a side order of french-fries and coleslaw. And they KNOW it!

I send you now to the False Rape Society:

http://tinyurl.com/chub6j



Labels:

Saturday, May 02, 2009

The Real Feminism: As Real as it Gets!

Well, I am on the web again! The crunch settled itself faster than I thought it would. So, today I would like to introduce you to a Real Feminist™. But first, let me back up a little bit in order to put things in perspective.

When I got back online, I checked my e-mail and found 68 accumulated messages. Most were spam or low-import material, but about one-fifth of them were interesting. Amongst that redeeming remnant was a brief communique from the False Rape Society, from which I share the following extract:
I must share this with you because few others would appreciate it as you do. As I was reading excerpts of the book I referenced in the post linked below, I became so angry that I actually shook. It is the single biggest threat to men, as a class, of which I am aware (putting aside conscription, I suppose) because, I believe, it would cause incredible numbers of young men to be imprisoned for the crime of rape. . . . We really need to be vigilant about this one.
The e-mail included the following link to a post on the False Rape Society blog. Go, and read all about it!

http://tinyurl.com/dfgetx

So, now you know who this Real Feminist™ is. Her name is Susan Caringella, she is a professor at Western Michigan University, and in my considered opinion her name ought to be trumpeted far and wide and carved high upon the Feminist Wall of Shame alongside the name of Catherine Comins. (Remember her? The one who said that men unjustly accused of rape may sometimes benefit from the experience . . ?)

I fired off the following message to the FRS. There is something to be said for striking while the iron of outrage is sizzling hot—the words are from the heart, and the spontaneity speaks very, very directly. That is why I feature the e-mail now, although it is somewhat edited for style and clarity:
Thank you VERY much for sharing this. I have been disconnected from the web for a while, and I just got back on yesterday. . . . so that's why it took me so long.

Anyhow. . . .

This is what we can logically expect from feminism, and it is ALL that we can logically expect from it. Feminism cannot and will not change, EVER!! It is a radical anti-male hate movement, and no two ways about it!

As I have explained many, many times, feminism is perpetual revolution: it will not change and it will not stop, because it cannot change or stop!

So all I've got to say is this: if they want a war, let it begin here!

IF any such laws ever got passed, I would officially go on record abandoning ALL moral concern about the issue of rape, and absolving myself from ALL sense of social responsibility about it WHATSOEVER! Right down to the very last particle!

To be brutally honest, I would no longer even give a rip if anybody got raped! Unless it were some worthy individual whom I personally cared about, I would shrug my shoulders and say "whatever!"

If I knew of a rape in progress, I would decide by a coin toss whether to call the police. . .

Or I might not even do that much!

I would absolutely stop caring. I would wash my hands of it. All of it. I would become brutally cynical and callous, and more coldly indifferent than the Arctic ice cap itself!

I would LAUGH OUT LOUD BITTERLY, and spit in the face of any feminist who screeched at me upon the theme of "rape culture" or "misogyny " or "men can stop rape"...etc....

Then I would smile like a smug bastard and say "it's not my problem."

And then I would completely turn my back not only upon the issue of rape, but upon ALL concern for ALL women's issues of ANY KIND, whatsoever!!

AND THEN. . . . I would urge every male person on earth to follow my example.

And I would preach radical male separatism. . . .

That is what I would do, IF such laws ever got passed!

But you know, the way that men are being treated in today's world, it is simply a matter of time anyway, before an ugly, catastrophic social explosion occurs. Which, incidentally, is exactly what some people WANT to see happen! For example, it would make the feminists happier than pigs in shit to see such a thing happen!

Once again, thanks for nudging me awake. I will blog about this in the next few days, but I need to set my thoughts in order.

-Fidelbogen-
SO. . . . let me summarize with acid clarity what is unfolding. Susan Caringella, feminist sociology professor at Western Michigan University, has proposed a legislative agenda for legal innovation within the canons of jurisprudence that would make sexual intercourse a presumptively criminal act. This means that any woman you have sex with (including your own wife, naturally!) could charge you with rape, and YOU would bear the burden of proof that the intercourse in question was not, in fact, rape!

In case I wasn't clear enough, let me put it another way: it means that if you merely have sexual intercourse you can be indicted for rape, and you will be guilty until proven innocent. And if you fail to testify and give evidence on your own behalf, you will probably end up in the slammer because the prosecution is not required to prove a bloody goddamned thing!

(I should parenthetically add that it would still be unnecessary for any sex to have occurred AT ALL. It is still possible, as always, that your accuser will invent a tryst that never happened. On a personal note, by way of illustration: a certain young girl once claimed, to a third party, that she had "gone out" with me—when in fact I barely knew of this girl's existence! A trivial incident to be sure, but revealing: it leans in a certain direction. And such incidents make sobering food for thought.)

Bear in mind that these legal proposals are from a feminist—that they are fully in keeping with anti-male politics and coherent with the feminist worldview. Yes, this is Real Feminism™. It is not semi-feminism, quasi-feminism, faux-feminism, pseudo-feminism or . . . . . . marginal feminism! It is the genuine article by any standard of measurement; it is the authentic core; it is downtown center city. And being such, it is the standard by which I judge any person rash enough to identify with feminism in the first place; it is the presumptive yardstick to which I hold that person accountable.

So perhaps my fulminating e-mail makes a bit of sense now. However, take note of the big orange "IF"! You see, I framed the entire proclamation as a future conditional, which means that I do not claim to be recommending or doing those undoubtedly controversial things which I describe, but rather avowing that under hypothetical conditions, I would recommend and do such things. And more to the point, that under those same conditions, I would be morally justified and perfectly within my rights to recommend and do such things.

I say this because the hypothetical condition in question is SO intolerable, SO abominable, SO appalling, and SO morally grotesque that it ought to ignite revolution, radical protest, social upheaval, civil war, boiling chaos, and angry, droning clouds of hornets miles high and dense enough to blot out the sun! It ought to spark an essential conflict that would rend society straight down the middle like a sheet of rotten canvas, and mark a complete turning point in history. Yes, the conditions would be precisely that radical!

As we know, the prosecution of rape is already rigged against men. If you are male, you already cannot expect justice in that domain, for the system already does not protect you. Owing to feminist innovation, a double standard is at work, and you already do not enjoy equal protection under the law. You can already be railroaded into prison on little or no evidence if a lying woman points her lying finger at you. And why? Because, among other reasons, years of feminist propaganda have saturated the culture of law with the unexamined shibboleth that "women don't lie about rape."

And now, Susan Caringella, feminist sociology professor at Western Michigan University, wants to stack the cards even more against you!

But in truth, it doesn't make a lick of difference whether anybody thinks women do or don't lie about rape, or what anybody thinks the exact ratio of such mendacities might be. That whole conversation misses the point. All that genuinely matters is the
evidence presented at trial: does the prosecution have a case? Yet as matters stand, the mere unsupported testimony of a woman can suffice to obtain a guilty verdict. And feminism, in its drive to "get more convictions" and put more men in prison by lowering the standards of evidence in rape trials, is directly responsible for making this possible. For years, feminist activists and legal scholars have been pulling for such innovations, and as we now see, Susan Caringella of Western Michigan University is pulling for more.

If it be an embedded axiom in the criminal justice system that "women don't lie about rape", it means that in the eyes of the law, every man who pleads 'not guilty' to a rape charge is presumptively a liar. So if the purpose of a trial is to adjudicate facts in order to ascertain truth or falsehood, then under feminist jurisprudence the trial procedure becomes a hypocritical farce—in fact, a kangaroo court! If women don't lie, then why bother with a trial in the first place? I am not being facetious. I mean that very seriously.

We should either take equal protection under law seriously, or we should chuck the whole charade altogether and just send any man straight to prison with no questions asked whenever a woman says "he raped me". If we straightway adopt this method, it ought to make Susan Caringella and her sisters very happy, for that is exactly the future they wish to make real.

Which brings up the next point. Susan Caringella and other
Real Feminists™ are evidently unhappy about the current state of rape prosecution culture, and wish to make what they consider improvements. Now it appears to me and to others of my persuasion, that the current state of rape prosecution culture is an appalling calamity not only for men who get snagged into the prosecutorial machinery, but for all men everywhere without distinction. So for better or worse, I find myself in a state of essential conflict with Susan Caringella and anybody who might align with her—which by the way is a critical mass of influential people.

I too would like to make improvements to the state of rape prosecution culture, but in the opposite direction to what Susan Caringella and her cohorts would propose. I would modify the system so as to restore an evidence-based standard of impartiality, whereas Susan Caringella and her cohorts would modify it so as to eradicate impartiality down to the final crumb, and supplant it with a feminist-based (or female supremacist) system of judicial practice. That is what they are pulling for!

Again, it would seem that Susan Caringella and her cohorts are not happy with the current system. And why might this be? Simple: because it has too many holes in it. Not enough men are being convicted of rape and sent to prison because too many people in a position to influence the outcome are still constrained by earlier, non-feminist norms of so-called justice and fair play. Too many people are still constrained by doubts and scruples and squeamish fears of convicting somebody who might be innocent.

Therefore, Susan Caringella steps up and proclaims "away with all of that!" Susan and her dauntless cohorts propose to rend the Gordian knot in a swift, bold stroke, by a revolutionary method called reversing the presumption of innocence! Granted that presumption of innocence is a sacred pillar of civilization secured and set in place only by hard-fought battles involving a lot of blood, sweat and tears, but in Susan's universe that is a only a technicality which misses the point. In Susan's universe any man is a potential rapist, and more significantly, any man who denies committing rape is a liar until he proves otherwise—and no woman needs to prove a bloody goddamned thing because in Susan's universe women don't lie about rape!

Such is Real Feminism™. And let me tell you something: if you find Real Feminists™ like Susan Caringella as morally repulsive as I do, then it would be unwise to call yourself a feminist. At all. Whatsoever. I tell you this for your own good. Disown the word feminism altogether, because you probably don't want to be shoved into the same box with people like Susan Caringella. For if you insist on calling yourself a feminist, that is how you shall fare! Protest to all you like, but plenty of people simply will not have the patience to listen, and they will treat you like an unclean thing. So make it easy on yourself and take the easy road.

As for Susan Caringella and her Real Feminist™ sisters, they should be forced to make a snivelling, grovelling apology to every man who has ever been traumatized, sent to prison, or otherwise had his life destroyed by a false accusation of rape.

I would like to conclude on a somewhat happier note, so I will send you once again to the False Rape Society blog. As you will discover, the FRS posse has scored one hell of a coup: a guest editorial in the UW-Madison campus newspaper! By Jove, I'm right proud of them, and I expect their little fait accompli to make some waves that will spread widely:

tinyurl.com/c2d4k4

Labels: