Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Proof? How Much Proof do you Need?

The following item of vile, man-hating propaganda has recently appeared in the New York Times.


I would remind all neophytes, or anybody who has wandered in here by chance, that such statements as the above-linked are routine and commonplace, so much that they blend seamlessly with the cultural atmosphere and nobody says anything about them. It is considered socially acceptable to say insulting, degrading things about the male sex, and even to print such remarks in a highly respected journal like the New York Times. This is so mainstream, and so normal, that the New York Times is not a bit ashamed of itself for doing such a thing. 

Men, as a social class, are treated like a moral punching bag. It's just the way things are. And misandry (the hatred of men), runs like a poisonous undercurrent through the entire culture, bubbling up in a variety of forms here, there and all over the landscape. Why yes, even in high class publications like the New York Times!

But try publishing an article of a moral tenor like the above-linked, while swapping out male for female so it becomes a woman-hating statement instead of a man-hating one. Just try that. Then sit back and enjoy the shit storm that we both know would follow.

Of course, that is only fantasy. In the real world, the New York Times would never remotely publish any such article. And we both know it. Respectable society has ordained that it's okay-fine to treat men with crass bigotry -- but mind your step around the ladies, mister!

It is an extra treat to savor the oh-so-savvy reader comments, mostly from the college-degreed chattering classes who compose the NYT readership. They may be cultured and sophisticated and all o' that, by they appear to lack a certain down-to-earth humanity. Wouldn't you say? And the relevant moral urgency in the present case eludes them. Don't you think so?

In conclusion:  every time I encounter something like this New York Times article, it's as though another chunk has broken loose from any feeling of moral obligation, on my part, toward any woman anywhere. I've watched those chunks rush away downstream for a good long while now, and it's a wonder I've anything left at all. 

Words to the wise. 


Update: Since I posted this item, the New York Times has "gated" the article in question, so that you must log in (as a subscriber, I assume) in order to read it.  Sorry about that. But in brief, the article is an opinion piece in which Greg Hampikian of Boise, Idaho, muses in an oh-so-jaunty intellectual way  about male disposability in the realm of reproduction and child-rearing. We've heard such talk repeatedly over the years, and it certainly does run true to pattern. It also links up (albeit implicatively) with Radfem essentialism and genocidalism -- for which, see the Agent Orange files, here:


Thursday, August 23, 2012

Yee-haw! Lasso that Perpetual Revolution!

Pecos Bill, the legendary Paul Bunyan of cowboys, riding a tornado like it was any ol' twisting bronco in the rodeo. And I think this is the very image of what we are involved in.


Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Plastering the Rancid Heart of Enemy Territory

Feminists are aggressively territorial animals; have you ever noticed that? Not only do they handle disagreement piss-poorly, but they go rabidly on the attack when their physical "village precinct" is violated by unabashed display, or even mere suggestion, of an alien (to them) worldview.

From the earliest glimmerings of pro-male consciousness near the end of the 20th century, clear down to the present day, we have an unbroken chronicle of such behavior stockpiled in our collective memory.  You have only to breathe the tiniest hint that "something is not right here", or "men are being treated very wrongly", and you will be greeted with silence, with mockery, or with hysterical demands to. . . shut the fuck up!! This was true in the 1990s -- and we were far more polite in those days! And it remains every bit as true today, in 2012. The foundational state of things has changed very little, although we've gotten louder, meaner, and at the same time more wily and sophisticated. And the feminists have reacted to our gradual evolvement of methodology by running progressively more complicated editions of what they have always done -- but their attitude has not changed! Not a whit!

In the early days, we never, ever but NEVER talked about "fucking their shit up" or anything of the sort. We grew into that state of mind by slow increments, as we realized that being nice to a bunch of assholes was complete futility, and that we had nothing to lose by turning the heat up. People are not born radical, you know. They become radicalized, and for a reason. We ourselves have been a case in point.

So now we are going on the offensive as never before, and quite predictably, "offending" them. But I'm afraid that's the only way you can ever deal with a corrupt, bloated establishment. You kick it, and hold your nose when the jet of foul gas shoots out under pressure.

Apropos of all this, our very own KARMA MRA MGTOW -- the pioneering "poster boy" from the land down under -- has made a lightning blitzkrieg run on feminist turf.  The turf in question is Monash University in Melbourne, and as I gather, the action occurrred less than 24 hours ago.

Our dauntless lad plastered his MRA MGTOW karma all over the Monash landscape in the form of pro-male posters, of which the accompanying photograph will give you a general notion. Click on it if you want a more legible view.

Anti-male elements on campus were shocked, offended, scandalized by the appearance of this alien worldview. Apparently they found it "disgusting" that the public should be informed that women commit roughly half of all domestic violence. Open dialogue about the state of reality is evidently not a priority for these people.

It's like the 1990s never went away. Yes, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Except that they've gotten worse in this case.

The Monash action made such an impression within the campus community that it garnered headlines in a local news journal,  the Waverley Leader:

When you read the linked article, you will see that the feminists are up to their timeless, time-worn tricks. Take the following, for example:
Monash Student Association president Esther Hood said the inflammatory posters were “disgraceful”.
“To imply that women are responsible for half of domestic violence cases is not only disgusting but grossly innacturate,” Ms Hood said.
 Well, Ms. Hood has made clear that she disagrees with the message on the posters. Fine, she is entitled to her opinion. I mean, we all have opinions, right? But I'd surely appreciate a more detailed statement of  Ms. Hood's opinion, so that if I feel inclined to do so, I'd have equal opportunity to tell her how grossly inaccurate and disgusting it is. And I think the best plan would be for Ms. Hood to personally print up her own posters with her own opinion and plaster them all over campus. I'm pretty sure nobody would lift a finger to stop her. So why the hell can't she get her lazy ass busy with that project, eh?

 The comment thread was a delight to read. Most of the items on it were solidly, and I mean SOLIDLY, on the pro-male side. But I'll start with one that wasn't, or rather, a single sentence from it. It is from one who signs as "Brigitta", and the person she's addressing seems to be Paul Elam:
"You show no sign of compassion or empathy towards anyone."
Now, I left two comments, only one of which got through moderation. What follows is the one that didn't make it, and it pertains to Brigitta's remark above:
"@Brigitta: You have suggested that Paul [Elam] shows "no sign of compassion or empathy toward anyone." To me, that sounds like an incredible statement with no evidence to back it up. But perhaps I am missing something here. So I was wondering if you'd care to provide evidence that Paul [Elam] is lacking compassion or empathy toward "anyone". And while we are on the subject, would "anyone" here care to show signs of compassion or empathy toward men, who are half of all domestic violence victims?"
And I will conclude with my favorite comment on the whole thread, which nails feminist hypocrisy to the barn door with a fat crimson streak running down from it.:
"I've seen university posters across the country demanding that the working classes rise up and over throw the government by means of bloody revolution and NO ONE bats an eyelid at them. Why is it normal to on a university campus to advocate violent Marxist revolution, but to make the very reasonable point that women are as much a part of the problem of domestic violence as men are, unacceptable? Also, who gave them the right to decide that freedom of speech doesn't extend to the viewpoints of the people posting this posters? How dare they silence people they disagree with yet enjoy the freedom to spread man-hate and bloody revolution? "
Well, by now we've had enough experience with such activism to know what will happen when pro-male ideas are shoved unapologetically in the world's face. Yes, we've been down this road a few times, and we know what to expect. And that is, that anti-male elements in the vicinity will react swiftly, primitively and viciously, under the impulsion of fear and guilt.

 Curse me, but this is delicious. And getting tastier by the minute!

I understand that the news of the Monash action also got some local radio play. I was sent an audio file of a campus feminist being interviewed, but this was in a strange format that none of my applications could handle. Damn!


Monday, August 20, 2012

Todd Akin, Feminist Biologist Extraordinaire!

Todd Akin, Republican senatorial candidate from Missouri, has said something stunningly brilliant. In fact, it's the most stellar saying I can recall for a long little while, and Einstein himself would certainly strangle Mr. Akin in a fit of jealous rage. Anyway, I'm sure you've heard it by now. Akin was arguing against abortion, but whatever your stance upon that hotly contested issue, his words will make you drunk with amazement:
“If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,” Akin said on KTVI-TV in St. Louis. 
He is saying that, well, rape never got anybody pregnant. But wait, he specifies "legitimate" rape! So I guess he wasn't talking about the illegitimate kind, right? Yeah, that's it! If you are "legitimately" raped, you will not get pregnant. So, does "legitimate" mean that you deserved it? Or, as seems more likely, does "legitimate" mean authentic? Does it mean that the act in question genuinely was rape, as opposed to, say, consensual sex? All right, I'll take a flying guess that is what Mr. Akin means.

Still, I'm confused. We all know that consensual sex can turn into rape several days later, if the rapee reflects upon it and, in retrospect, feels violated.  After all, our good friends the feminists assure us that when a woman feels she has been raped, then indeed she has been. So all she must do is go to the police and report having been raped, and the report will be duly filed and proceedings initiated. Trouble is, in the time lag between the initial non-rape, and the eventual "legitimate" rape which it retrospectively turns into, a pregnancy might get under way. I mean, a zygote might even find time to become a blastula!

So, it must be that the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down, right? I mean, the minute a woman decides that yes, it was a legitimate rape, her body goes into auto-abort and terminates the pregnancy. Is that how it works? Yup, by golly, I reckon that must be how it works. Mind-zap your way into feeling that you were raped, and you will not get pregnant! It almost sounds like the morning-after pill, doesn't it? But it's way cheaper, so even Sandra Fluke could save some money that way! :)

My heavens! What amazing progress for women we see nowadays! First, feminism balloons the once-constricted possibilities of the rape phenomenon to include all manner of things you would scarcely imagine. Next, the wizard biologist and aspiring U.S. Senator discovers a new form of natural birth control that can be actuated by, yes indeed. . . rape!

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right. . . .

Roll 'em up together and, by gumbo, you've got yourself a winner's blend!

More here:


Friday, August 17, 2012

The Original "MRAs"

I can now state for a fact that the MRA acronym dates back to at least 1990. That is how long the Australian Men's Rights Agency, a men's and fathers's advocacy org, has been in existence.They have a very nice website, here:

You'll enjoy reading about what they do, and you'll also enjoy digging through their archives -- evidently dating back to primitive BBS days. Lots of news stories and good information on topics of interest.


The Life of Willi Münzenberg

A short read, but intriguing and illuminating. Gives an acute sense of history in its archetypologies of occurrence: