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.

35 comments:

MikeeUSA said...

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

And in response, the more anti-man hate speech laws to protect women they will pass. I think our only option is armed revolution and the execution of our anti-man opressors.

I sent letters about how women's rights is bad for men to: My represenatives, my senators, the vatican, the saudi arabian embassy (here I was congratulating them for allowing men to vote, but asking them to never allow women to vote).

I didn't get any responses.

We are hated the world over, we don't matter unless we cause damage.

PS: I need your help on this:
http://mikeeusa.blogspot.com/2007/06/kicked-from-video-game-mapping-contest.html

Fred X said...

Off topic- Masculist Man, yesterady, you mentioned over at my blog your interactions with Trish Wilson and some mangina

Have you a link where I could see the debate?

Fred

Fred X said...

PS- Oh, I checked Rudy's blog, and it seems he has deleted your comments where you debated him

One thing I will say is this:

Even though you and FS/ACLAF don't get along, at least none of you deleted the others' comments

I don't delete comments either

But the fact that Rudy censors shows him to be the right royal cunt that he is

Masculist Man said...

But the fact that Rudy censors shows him to be the right royal cunt that he is

That's okay,he just handed me victory and since he didn't come here shows he is a bigger pussy than everyone thought. Did he do the same to you?

Off topic- Masculist Man, yesterady, you mentioned over at my blog your interactions with Trish Wilson and some mangina

Have you a link where I could see the debate?


Sure here it is. I've never posted on her blog because I know it will be deleted or altered so I don't bother. As for the mangina look for a response by Tom Smith.

I'm mentioned in one of Bob's posts.

Masculist Man said...

And in response, the more anti-man hate speech laws to protect women they will pass. I think our only option is armed revolution and the execution of our anti-man opressors.

We are hated the world over, we don't matter unless we cause damage.

Okay,not a problem.

MikeeUSA said...

"Posted by: marc at Mar 10, 2004 3:39:58 PM

Hi Trish, Tom Smith here of The American Union of Men. I'm sorry that you so misinterpreted the nature of my list and the posters on this particular subject and remind you that much worse is said on feminist lists on this subject as well as others. The two posters you quoted here are the more provacative in the group and certainly don't speak for the group. "

What the hell is that? Why do these "group leaders" fold under women's pressure and abandon men who actually believe in men's liberty?

We need a violent revolutionary group against women's rights.

It will probably be about 10 years before one comes into existance, however.

Masculist Man said...

Mike,

That would explain why we're not getting anywhere considering some guys are pussies and I'm tremendously overjoyed that I'm not one of them.

armchair activist said...

I am interested as to why men's rights has to be tied so closely to aggression towards women? Why not want rights for both genders?

Equally, I wonder why, even if men suffer as much (or if you think, more than women) why that has to mean that one should oppose the elimination of discrimination against women. Why not focus on the elimination of discrimination against men, instead of trying to oppose the elimination of discrimination against women? Does this mean that you believe discrimination against women should not be eliminated?

I have read with interest a number of men's rights blogs of late, and what interests me is their consistent hatred of feminism because it is men-hating but manifested in a rather contradictory hatred of all women, tarnishing them with one brush as men's rights campaigners complain women do to them.

Is this really a viable strategy for progression? Is progression what you really want at all? The discourses seem very reactionary to me, not unlike, for example a fundemental Christian backlash in a increasingly secular world.

MikeeUSA said...

Armchair Activist: The reason is this: Discrimination and towards men is in women's favor, discrimination towards women is in men's favor.

This is because men and women marry/have sex/etc.

Men (Including me) want nice girls that do as we wish them to do and do not have power over us.

Women want men who will do as commanded and then fall on their sword and die for the woman at the appropriate time.

Since Men and Women want basically the same thing in reverse form both cannot be the victor.

Women want to beable to divorce me at will, take my property, take my children, and turn me into a wage slave for them.

I want to beable to prevent a girl (or girls) from divorcing me, taking my property, etc. I also wish to turn those girls into my personal servants (to play with etc).

The woman wants to be a field slaves' master and the Man want's to be a house slaves' master.

No master can be a slave himself.

That is why it must be one or the other.

http://mikeeusa.blogspot.com
Death To women's Rights.
Viva Men's Liberties.

PS: I hope we do better then the fundamentalists: they lost, Christianity is over, woman's religion has taken over.

armchair activist said...

I think you generalise too much and in speaking for yourself and perhaps specific women you have known, draw too broad a conclusion about human nature. You also take very much an essentialist stance, assuming that gender is the deciding factor in our development and in the people we become. This ignores a great deal of other influences such as class, culture, parentage, and education. It also disempowers both men and women, presuming that neither have the ability to shape their desires, personalities or abilities. Looking at different generations and cultures it is possible to see that our environment and interactions at every level can influence our behaviour. Therefore, a woman may differ greatly to the female prototype you describe, as could a man from the male prototype. The will to power (Nietzsche), however, is an interesting concpet and I wonder if that is one of your inspirations? Yet, in reducing it to male/female interactions, you miss so much of what is a very complex notion. What about the will to power of class, religion, and race? What about the will to power over oneself? Much of your writing seems to be fighting aginst the idea that a female could control you. But perhaps in seeking autonomy, you will neglect authenticity.

MikeeUSA said...

Class is a matter of money.
Culture is a matter of what clothes are in style and what drugs are in vogue.

Neither change the essence of people very much.

Weather you're in America, the UK, India, Pakistan, China, or Saudi America you will find the same chilvaristic behavior from the men and the same natural dislike,distrust,and-will-to-use-as-a-tool attitude in the women.

Masculist Man said...

I am interested as to why men's rights has to be tied so closely to aggression towards women? Why not want rights for both genders?

Whenever I hear a feminist bemoaning "equality" I am suspicious considering their sexist tract record. Feminists aren't interested in equality,they are only interest in female priveledge.

Equally, I wonder why, even if men suffer as much (or if you think, more than women) why that has to mean that one should oppose the elimination of discrimination against women. Why not focus on the elimination of discrimination against men, instead of trying to oppose the elimination of discrimination against women? Does this mean that you believe discrimination against women should not be eliminated?

Women can peddle their own papers and look out for themselves like they always have. Society allows the abuse of men and I am sick of it along with my brethern.
Have you seen the sexism of VAWA II? Where men and children are exempt from protection? (so much for the 14th Amendment of equal protection) Who do you think pressured for the passage of this sexist montrosity? Feminists,that's who and now we have one trying to play the "equality" game. If women were truly interested in equality they would sacrifice a lot of special priveleges they have but they won't so I treat their claims of wanting "equality" as just hot air.
I'm not imagining what I've written because it is fact and these are the things that we KNOW. I always THINK but in this case the word "think" is meant to imply the potential for doubt. There is no doubt on what is posted on the front page.

I have read with interest a number of men's rights blogs of late, and what interests me is their consistent hatred of feminism because it is men-hating but manifested in a rather contradictory hatred of all women, tarnishing them with one brush as men's rights campaigners complain women do to them.

It's just like jews blaming nazis for what happened to them.

I'm glad we have your attention.

BTW,how big is the file on me at feminist central headquarters?

Is this really a viable strategy for progression? Is progression what you really want at all? The discourses seem very reactionary to me, not unlike, for example a fundemental Christian backlash in a increasingly secular world.

Reactionary? Hardly. Society has always favored women over men and always made allowences for them at all levels of society,even the legal area and at the expense of men. There has never been a patriarchy in our lifetime. Now a masculist revolution that truly sets up a society where men are valued. Now that is revolutionary.

MikeeUSA said...

"Now a masculist revolution that truly sets up a society where men are valued. Now that is revolutionary."

I this happens.

MikeeUSA said...

* I hope this happens.

Masculist Man said...

Mike,

Check out what feminist scum said about you.

http://feministscum.blogspot.com/2007/02/pathetic-anti-feminist-blogs.html

MikeeUSA said...

Heh, looks like I've made the deans list.
When people hate me for being anti-women's rights and pro-men's liberty I know I'm doing the right thing.

Thanks for the heads up.

MikeeUSA said...

I responded to Rudy's treats against other MRAs as such:

"Rudy knows your IP, the browser you used, the monitor configuration because the browser tells the webserver all of this information when it connects to a webserver.

Rudy either has access to his webserver's logs, a service that puts a little image and gives him the information of the person who loaded the image, or a php/asp script that collects the info.

Don't be afraid of his/her threats unless you live in the UK. I the UK it is illegal to say sexist, homophobic, and racist things. The UK's government should be overthrown, and their anti-men anti-freespeech politicians and the police who have personally enforced those laws in the past, killed."

Masculist Man said...

Rudy's a moron. He thinks I'm Martha.

caransebes said...

Bachelor, Captain, now Fred X is gone... Soon you will be the last man standing, MM.

Feminists should not long celebrate their victories; with each voice silenced, we march to inevitable confrontation.

Masculist Man said...

Caransebes,

I read your post hoping you were wrong. I hate to see Fred's blog not up and running. I definitely don't want to see MRA blogs disappear.

Fred,if you're reading this what happened?

Feminist Scum said...

spam

Feminist Scum said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Feminist Scum said...

You're a dick head. Spam

Feminist Scum said...

Horse fucker

Feminist Scum said...

Don't like it now do you shit head?

Feminist Scum said...

I think I can do this all day long.

Feminist Scum said...

Prick.

Feminist Scum said...

Masc Man is a stupid cunt.

Feminist Scum said...

Afraid my ass, you little bitch.

Masculist Man said...

FS,

I added substance to your blog,not childish insults. Also I was debating there while you are throwing a tantrum here. I only posted on your blog to back up Veteran and then you whole crew attacks me. That is the difference. Of course any half wit can see that. Too bad for you you are not THAT smart.

Masculist Man said...

Yes,FS,one of your comments was deleted. This is in retaliation for you deleting my question to ACLAF asking him if AFN was on board with our "building bridges". Don't like it don't do it.

Now go fuck off.

Feminist Scum said...

I deleted your post because I told you to keep it to the haters thread.

Masculist Man said...

FS,

That post was a question to ACLAF and not ammo used against you so you should have left the post stay. Besides,it would have probably been my final post on the subject anyway,numbnuts.

Anonymous said...

Masculist Man, do you think Fred's departure has left a huge void in the MRM? It just isn't the same without him or Duncan anymore.

Masculist Man said...

Masculist Man, do you think Fred's departure has left a huge void in the MRM? It just isn't the same without him or Duncan anymore.

Yes,they're absence will be deeply felt. I don't know they're specific reasons for closing their blogs but I have a feeling they would want us to continue to fight the good fight to keep the MRM going along to our goals.