Sunday, June 24, 2007

Heading off the femicunts

I received a publication from a friend by snail mail and the section enclosed by the red caught my attention. The publication is Reader Magazine and on page 14 they are trying to get people to contact California senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer (who are both worthless feminazis) to pass The Convention on the Elimination Of All Forms Of Discrimation against Women (CEDAW) and they are packaging it as though women were really suffering,which they are not. I contacted them and told them that women are definitely NOT suffering,in fact it was men who are suffering at the hands of this matriarchy more than women ever will.

The more of us they hear from the louder our voices will be heard.

To contact them:

phone: Tel: 909-335-8100
Fax: 909-335-6777
snail mail: The Reader Magazine
10 East Vine Street, Suite 210
Redlands, California 92373

(update: I hope that email address works now. If your email came back undelieverable welcome to the club. Hopefully the correction should do it.

6-28-07-My eletter just got spitted back at me so the "info" part of the address isn't any good which is odd considering this is the only email address they gave. Oh well,let's try "letters".)

The following is the eletter I wrote to them:

This is in response to your advertisement that The Convention on the Elimation of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) is justified when it is not. Women in the U.S. do not suffer discrimination nor do they face discrimination in the western world. Women attend univerisities more than men do,women have special programs that are denied men and women can get out of crimes that men cannot. To pass this legislation in the U.S. is akin to giving money to rich people as though they were poor. In fact it is MEN who face more discrimination more than women do.

Here are some examples:

All of below from the book 'The Myth Of Male Power' by Dr. Warren Farrell:

1. Selective Service-chapter 1,pg.28-'a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do':

"In post offices throughout the United States,Selective Service posters remind men that only they must register for the draft. If the post office had a poster saying "A Jew's gotta do what a Jew's gotta do' or if 'a woman's gotta a do...' were written across the body of a pregnant woman... The question is this: How is it if any other group were singled out to register for the draft based merely on its characteristics at birth-be that group blacks,Jews,women or gays-we would immediately recognize it as genocide,but when men are singled out based on on their sex at birth,men (and women from what I,MM,have seen) call it power".

Same chapter,pg.30: 'Our slogan for women is "A Woman's body. A Woman's Choice";our slogan for men is "A Man's Gotta Do What A Man Has To Do".

2. Rape-"The Politics of Rape"-chapter 14,pg.322

"To my considerable chagrin,we found that at least 60 percent of all rape allegations were false"-Dr. Charles P. McDowell,Supervisory Special Agent,U.S. Air Force,Office of Special Investigations.

These are cases where women deliberitly LIED. Why did they lie?

These are the reasons and percentages: Same chapter,pg.325

"Spite or revenge-20%,to compensate for feelings of guilt or shame-20%,thought she might be pregnant-13%,to conceal an affair-12%,to test husband's love-9%,mental/emotional disorder-9%,to avoid personal responsibility-4%,failure to pay or extortion-4%,thought she might have caught VD-3%,other-6%.Total-100%".

3. Women-only defenses-"Women who kill too much and the courts that free them:the twelve female only defenses"-chapter 12,pgs.254-282 (to keep this short we will only cover three)

1.The "innocent woman" defense "I am starting with the 'innocent woman defense' because it underlies all twelve defenses. At first I called this the 'Female Credibility Principle' because of the tendency to see women as more credible than men because of being thought more innocent. However,even when women admitted making false allegations that they were raped or that their husbands abused them,for example,their admission that they lied was often not believed. Therefore the belief in the innocent woman ran even deeper than the tendency to believe women."

Farrell gives an example such as:

*Bessie Reese was angry that he husband was leaving her so she poisoned the lunches of her husband's travelling companion's children and those children died. Her husband's friend,James Richardson,was falsely convicted of killing his own children and sent to prison even though he had an alibi and he sat on death row for 21 years before being exonerated for the crimes. Reese had confessed to the crimes while he sat in prison but nobody believed her and she was no innocent little girl. She was set free after being found guilty of poisoning her first husband and guilty of shooting her second,only this time she did a short stint in jail. The only way Richardson was freed was on racial grounds (Reese is white and Richardson is black). Why was she never considered a suspect? Because the local sheriff was having an affair with her and covered up for her.

2.The PMS defence ("My body,no choice")

"In,1970,when Dr. Edgar Berman said women's hormones during menstruation and menopause could have a detrimental influence on women's decision making,feminists were outraged. He was soon served up as the quintessential example of medical male chauvinism. But by the 1980's,some feminists were saying that PMS was the reason a woman who deliberately killed a man should go free. In England,the PMS defense freed Chrisitine English after she confessed to killing her boyfriend by deliberately ramming him into a utilty pole with her car; and,after killing a co-worker,Sandie Smith was put on probation-with one condition: she must report monthly for injections of progesterone to control symptoms of PMS. By the 1990's,the PMS defense paved the way for other hormonal defenses. Sheryl Lynn Massip could place her 6-month old son under a car,run over him repeatedly,and the,uncertain he was was dead,do it again,then claim postpartum depression and be given outpatient medical help. No feminist protested."

3.The husband defense "The film 'I love you to death' was based on a true story of a woman who tried to kill her husband when she discovered he had been unfaithful. She and her mom tried to poison him,then hired muggers to beat him and shoot him through the head. A fluke led to their being caught and sent to jail.Miraculously,the husband survived." The husband forgave her and her actions. In fact,a lot of husbands forgive their wives even when that husband has done nothing wrong.

These are just a few examples of female privilege and male disadvantage. Now some can say that women are disadvantage in the non-western world but these are the same people that ignore male suffering in those same regions. For instance men and only men are required to serve in these countries' military and some of these men may not want to do that but they have no voice and no international agencies speaking out on their behalf and if these men protest they take the chance of alienating their government which may persecute them for speaking out and it is these men that must fight a war if their government demands it whereas women are exempt from this just as they are in the western world so passing CEDAW makes very little sense.

Meet H. Rudy Ericson

Rudy is an anti-MRA mangina who claims his zodiac sign is the horse which fits considering he is an horse's ass.

But what does Rudy do when he is not spewing shit on his blog or annoying people in general? Why he likes to read his favorite magazine of course.

Of course Rudy bills himself as a political kind of "guy?" In fact let's see one of his fellow supporters.

I make everything sound so clear cut with Rudy but that is not the case because Rudy is politically confused. Yes,Rudy is torn between two candidates for president and Rudy has to choose one.


Never let it be said that Rudy isn't a patriotic American. Oh no,in fact he is very patriotic as he gives the president the thumbs up.

Just like Rudy.

Serpents from hell

My friend Chris Key has put together a couple of videos highlighting the evils of feminism. Learn and enjoy.

This explains the mentality of women

21 June 2007

EXCLUSIVE Jail act after drug trace find

By Karen Bale

A WOMAN who planned to marry her brother's murderer in jail has been forced to cancel the wedding after being banned from the prison.

Lesley Cameron got engaged to Mark Ronald as he awaited sentence for butchering her brother Scott in a frenzied attack.

She planned to wed the killer in Shotts maximum security prison this summer.

But prison bosses discovered traces of illegal substances on her - and banned her from the Lanarkshire jail.

Police dogs found traces of illegal drugs on mum-of-one Lesley, 28, during a routine search at the prison gates.

A source said last night: "Lesley is furious she has been banned.

"They were planning a low-key but romantic wedding ceremony within the prison this summer.

"Lesley had everything planned out and was excited about choosing a dress and flowers.

"Then, during a routine search as she went up to see Mark, the prison dogs found traces of drugs on her.

"She was thrown out of the prison immediately and banned from visiting Mark indefinitely.

"Lesley is distraught as it means the wedding is off for the time being. She is hoping to rearrange it if she is ever allowed back in to see her fiance.

"She doesn't want to wait until he's released from jail, as it could be a long time."

But the source added: "Lesley's family are delighted. They never forgave her for standing by the man who killed her brother. She has been completely disowned."

Ronald, 32, killed his long-time friend Scott, 31, in a frenzied attack in Beith, Ayrshire, in September 2005.

They argued while watching a Scotland game on TV.

The fight spilled out on to the street and Ronald stabbed Scott several times, with the fatal blow going through his ear..

Scott's partner and his son Kyle, eight, witnessed the attack.

Lesley, who had been seeing Ronald for a year, kept a vigil by her brother's hospital bedside but he died four days later.

Ronald already had convictions for possessing knives and for assault when he murdered Scott.

He claimed he stabbed Scott in self-defence while trying to protect Lesley, who was pregnant.

But the jury took just 20 minutes to convict him.

Last year, Lesley told the Record: "I don't feel threatened by Mark. He isn't violent normally. He was provoked really badly and lost the plot."

She refused to comment yesterday.

Source: here

I've got to comment on this and here it is:

A WOMAN who planned to marry her brother's murderer in jail has been forced to cancel the wedding after being banned from the prison.

This alone just floored me as it truly illustrates the female mentality and what is important to them and apparently men,even men related to them by blood,do not matter. Then some assholes,some even call themselves "MRA's",wonder why I have an attitude with women and it is usually the asshats who are not in it for the civil rights restoration that I'm in it for but are hoping to find a girlfriend,I guess through pity sex and those are the asshats I hate. My message to the asshats: Hey,I'm not in your singles bars so stay out of my movement. But anyway back to the article.

But prison bosses discovered traces of illegal substances on her - and banned her from the Lanarkshire jail.

What fucking irony. Don't expect me to feel sorry for her.

"Lesley had everything planned out and was excited about choosing a dress and flowers.

Yes,this is what matters to them;flowers and dresses. Certainly not the death of a relative and worse yet,marriage to that relative's killer.

"Lesley is distraught as it means the wedding is off for the time being. She is hoping to rearrange it if she is ever allowed back in to see her fiance.

Yep,the whole universe revolves around her. It's just her her her.

"She doesn't want to wait until he's released from jail, as it could be a long time."

This is probably due to the fact he will lose some points with her because he not as much of a "bad boy" as someone who is locked up also once freed he will have other women to look at and she will lose her "queen bee" status.

But the source added: "Lesley's family are delighted. They never forgave her for standing by the man who killed her brother. She has been completely disowned."

(sarcasm)Gee,I fucking wonder why.(/sarcasm) At least there are some people in this article I can respect.

Lesley, who had been seeing Ronald for a year, kept a vigil by her brother's hospital bedside but he died four days later.

Keeping vigil like a vulture. She probably wanted to make sure he was dead.

He claimed he stabbed Scott in self-defence while trying to protect Lesley, who was pregnant.

The old chivilary routine. It's like I said,chivilary is the hiding place of cowards and scoundrels.

But the jury took just 20 minutes to convict him.

The jury didn't buy it. That's a second group of people mentioned in this article that I can respect.

Friday, June 22, 2007

Payback is a bitch

I never quite figured out why the sexual urge of men and women differ so much. And I never have figured out the whole Venus and Mars thing. I have never figured out why men think with their head and women with their heart. FOR EXAMPLE: One evening last week, my girlfriend and I were getting into bed. Well, the passion starts to heat up, and she eventually says "I don't feel like it, I just want you to hold me." I said "WHAT??!! What was that?!" So she says the words that every boyfriend on the planet dreads to hear... "You're just not in touch with my emotional needs as a woman enough for me to satisfy your physical needs as a man." She responded to my puzzled look by saying, "Can't you just love me for who I am and not what I do for you in the bedroom?" Realizing that nothing was going to happen that night, I went to sleep. The very next day I opted to take the day off of work to spend time with her. We went out to a nice lunch and then went shopping at a big, big unnamed department store. I walked around with her while she tried on several different very expensive outfits. She couldn't decide which one to take so I told her we'd just buy them all. She wanted new shoes to compliment her new clothes, so I said lets get a pair for each outfit. We went onto the jewelry department where she picked out a pair of diamond earrings. Let me tell you...she was so excited. She must have thought I was one wave short of a shipwreck. I started to think she was testing me because she asked for a tennis bracelet when she doesn't even know how to play tennis. I think I threw her for a loop when I said, "That's fine, honey." She was almost nearing sexual satisfaction from all of the excitement. Smiling with excited anticipation she finally said, "I think this is all dear, let's go to the cashier." I could hardly contain myself when I blurted out, "No honey, I don't feel like it." Her face just went completely blank as her jaw dropped with a baffled WHAT?" I then said "honey! I just want you to HOLD this stuff for a while. You're just not in touch with my financial needs as a man enough for me to satisfy your shopping needs as a woman." And just when she had this look like she was going to kill me, I added, "Why can't you just love me for who I am and not for the things I buy you?" Apparently I'm not having sex tonight either.

No,but he does have his pride and that means more than anything a bitch has to offer.

Source: here

Monday, June 11, 2007

Brett Reider

Originally posted by Chris Key

The Brett Reider case is an example of the legal bias that favours female criminals. When a woman kills her spouse, she can claim that he was abusive towards her and that she acted in self-defence. This is known as the "Battered Women's Syndrome" defence. It has been used to acquit female defendants who intentionally killed their spouses. Brett was convicted of second-degree murder for killing his mother when he was 15-years-old. He was sentenced to a jail-term of 11-20 years. A review of the case will reveal why Brett is a victim of discrimination.

The facts.

-- Testimonial evidence -- provided by Brett, his sister, and his friends -- indicates that Brett was battered by his mother on a regular basis.

-- Video footage -- filmed by the family -- proves that Brett and his sister were verbally abused by their mother.

-- Brett's father did very little to stop the abuse. Instead, he would remove himself from the house so that he could 'avoid' being around his wife.

-- While Brett was 15, his mother began battering him because she was unimpressed with the 85 score he obtained on a school quiz. During the incident, Brett killed his mother.


Brett was a defenceless child. He had no one to turn to for help. He was born into an turbulent situation that he could not escape. He was dependant upon his parents for shelter and food. He couldn't support himself financially as he was only a child. Although I am not an expert on the American law system, I wouldn't be surprised if the state he lived in prohibited 15-year-olds from living away from their parents unless they had their parent's permission, or were taken into child services for health and safety related reasons.

Women who murder their so-called 'abusive' spouses do so even though there are state-funded services that offer refuge to 'battered' women. The law offers a lot of help to women who claim to be victims of domestic violence. Despite of all the services that are offered to 'battered' women, there is a legal defence that women can use to kill their abusive spouses with impunity. It's called 'Battered Women's Syndrome'. A lot of female murderers have been acquitted for their crimes by using the "Battered Women's Syndrome" defence.

Based on the fact that murderous women are not held to the same legal standards that Brett was when he was tried, convicted and sentenced, I believe his case is an illustration of the privilege that women hold over men and boys in today's society.

Men's Rights Activists should use Brett's case to highlight the farce that is "Battered Women's Syndrome".

Source: America Uncut Exposed

Tuesday, June 5, 2007


Luke Skywalker has received an proposal for a tactics change. Here is what Luke had to say:

The leader of MENZ (Masculinist Evolution New Zealand) has contacted me with a proposal suggesting a tactical adjustment with respect to Blogger's Choice Awards.

Here is his proposal:

I think voting for Feministing and NYMOM as Worst Blog/Most Obnoxious is back-firing on us.

Both these blogs are now on the first page of the negative categories due to our efforts.
We've unwittingly given them free advertising. Angry Harry's lead has started dropping for the first time.

What we should be doing is voting for all blogs below Feministing and WomenAsMothers in all categories. The aim is to push both of them onto the 2nd page where no-one will see them.

I suspect the fems have already figured this one out, as they haven't launched any kind of counter-strike against AngryHarry.

And here is my response to his proposal:

I appreciate and take note of your concern.

However, a policy change from getting feministing and NYMOM as many votes as possible for Worst Blog and Most Obnoxious blogger to getting them kicked off the front page of those categories (to eliminate any free advertising that they might be getting as a result) is a major decision change, and one which we would all have to talk about before pulling the trigger on it.

But as for me, my vote would be a "no" on this, because:

1.) NYMOM is not a threat to Harry because she isn't in the running for Best Political Blog, really only feministing is the threat.

2.) We've already worked hard to get NYMOM and feministing on the front page for Worst Blog/Most Obnoxious, and there are a lot of negative comments from antifeminists on their vote pages, and it is helping to show people what horrible blogs those really are.

3.) Angry Harry still maintains an 89 vote lead over feministing at the time of writing this email, and his lead has been hovering around 90 votes for the past couple days. It hasn't really "started dropping", as you say, it has just leveled off, that's all.

4.) If need be, we could get in contact with some antifeminists who haven't been part of the blogswarm yet, and get them to vote and participate in the blogswarm.

5.) A more probable reason why they haven't unleashed a bigger counterstrike is that they aren't as coordinated as we are, and they aren't as energized as we are. There are a lot of feminist bloggers who know about this, but aren't doing anything more than casting their own vote, because I've seen their names on the feministing vote page.

--Anyway Rob, I'm still going to run your proposal by some people who are higher up on the chain than I am.

If they agree with you, then that will be that, and I'll send a notice to everyone on the blogswarm that policy has changed, and we are now going with your new plan. However, if they do not agree with you, then policy will stay the same as it was.

Like I said in my response, this is a major decision change, and should only take place (if we decide that it ought to take place) after full discussion...

The following is my response to Luke about this:


I did some checking on femintamponstring and NY loud mouth mom and found that they both moderate the comments on their blogs so I would imagine the MRA/masculist view would not be allowed on either of their blogs so masculists/MRA's have to post on the blogger's award comment section to be heard on these issues.For instance from feminsting's rules about comments:

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

and from NYMOM'S rules about comments:

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

How about a quote about how NYMOM really feels about fathers and their role in their children's lives:

Dare I say the unthinkable: the person who purchases and prepares the food is the one most responsible for whether or not children gain weight and that is still the mother. Fathers are bit players in this regard as they are in many other areas involving children not ‘on the frontline’ as they wish to paint themselves, but backup and support to mothers.

And if any father's rights activists have a problem with her line of thinking then she has this reply:

Too bad if they don’t like it…

Source: here