Saturday, July 30, 2011


Ms. magazine is having a campaign to expand the definitions of rape and they lobbying the FBI and the US Attorney General to get them to expand the definition of "rape". Currently both agencies use "forcible rape" as the definition of "rape" which makes sense. The feminists are trying to change the definition to inflate the rape rate and make it sound like a bigger deal than it actually is. If they can get these agencies to expand the definition of "rape" to include a woman regretting her decision to have consensual sex,the woman is too drunk to give consent (who is going to define "too drunk" and how do we define it? Is one sip "too drunk"? Is half a cup? Slippery slope) and/or when the woman retracts consent in the middle of sex and the man takes a nanosecond too long withdrawing. They want to include these things as "rape" too. The reason they are doing this is too inflate the rape numbers and make it sound more widespread than it actually is. That is why we should counterattack and tell these agencies the truth about what the feminists are up to. The FBI cannot be contacted by email but the Attorney General can so when sending email to him let him know that these are the games feminists play. The faster we counteract the feminists the better so don't delay act today.

(UPDATE-Anonymous posted this and it deserves front page attention):

According to this source,

Myths about female sex ofenders

the FBI does not count *any* sexual assault on a man as rape:

"•Carnal knowledge is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th ed. as “the act of a man having sexual bodily connections with a woman; sexual intercourse.” There is carnal knowledge if there is the slightest penetration of the sexual organ of the female (vagina) by the sexual organ of the male (penis).

•Agencies must not classify statutory rape, incest, or other sex offenses, i.e. forcible sodomy, sexual assault with an object, forcible fondling, etc. as Forcible Rape

•By definition, sexual attacks on males are excluded from the rape category and must be classified as assaults or other sex offenses depending on the nature of the crime and the extent of injury."

Maybe we *should* insist that the defintion of "forcible rape" should be expanded to include women raping men, such as female caregivers attacking toddlers, and also men getting raped in prison.

Be careful what you wish for. ladies, you might get more than you bargained for.


Friday, July 29, 2011

Petition to amend the UN circumcision policy

There is a petition addressed to UNAIDS and WHO urging them to stop promoting the misconception that circumcision decreases the risk of catching AIDS. The petition is sponsored by Intact America-an anti-circumcision group. I let them take it from here:


Intact America was in Rome last week for the annual International AIDS Society Conference (IAS 2011). We spoke with hundreds of key influencers and policy makers, sharing the critical message that circumcision does not prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS.

It's critical that UNAIDS (Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS) and the World Health Organization (WHO) stop supporting mass circumcisions, and accept the fact that there are other, better ways to fight the HIV epidemic. We've created a petition to help them get that message.

Will you make your voice heard, and sign our petition today?

We need your help to make sure that UNAIDS and WHO get the message that the mass practice of circumcision is an unethical and dangerous distraction in the battle against HIV and AIDS.

If you hate circumcisions and it's a hot button topic for you then this petition is perfect and it's a great way to make your views be known so if that appeals to you sign it today.


Intrusive congresspersons

Congressman Lamar Smith

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Congresswoman Zoe Lufgren

Congresman John Conyers

There are a lot of bad people in Washington DC and Congressman Lamar Smith is one of them. Congressman Smith has drafted a bill mislabelled "Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011" also known as HR 1981. This bill will do anything but protect children. America,do you know who said the state should hold up the child as the most important part of a country and that people would sacrifice their rights for the child? It was a world leader,do you know which one? Give up? It was Adolf Hitler who said that so you may want to keep that in mind the next time someone in an authoritative position uses the phrases "for the children" or "in the best interests of the children". HR 1981 will in reality increase government power over the people. I'll let Demand Progress take it from here:

URGENT: Congress Pushing Broad New Internet Snooping Bill "A direct assault on Internet users" is what the ACLU is calling it. Yesterday a U.S. House committee approved HR 1981, a broad new Internet snooping bill. They want to force Internet service providers to keep track of and retain their customers' information -- including your name, address, phone number, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and temporarily-assigned IP addresses.

The American Civil Liberties Union, the American Library Association, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Demand Progress, and 25 other civil liberties and privacy groups have expressed our opposition to this legislation. Will you join us, by emailing your lawmakers today? Just use the form at right.

They've shamelessly dubbed it the "Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act," but our staunchest allies in Congress are calling it what it is: an all-encompassing Internet snooping bill. ISPs would collect and retain your data whether or not you're accused of a crime.

CNet Reports:

Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, who led Democratic opposition to the bill said, "'It represents a data bank of every digital act by every American' that would 'let us find out where every single American visited Web sites."

"The bill is mislabeled," said Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the panel. "This is not protecting children from Internet pornography. It's creating a database for everybody in this country for a lot of other purposes."

I'm glad this draconian bill is facing opposition. Perhaps it would be wise to contact Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren and Congressman John Conyers and thank them for standing up to this civil liberties killer of a bill. Also it would probably be a good idea to contact Congressman Lamar Smith and take him to the woodshed on this bill. This bill is very un-American and should be shot down as soon as possible. Protect your freedoms so oppose this bill right away. Also Congressman Smith's partner on this bill is Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz you may want to give her a piece of your mind while your at it. Don't delay act today.


Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Our detractors

I for one love the MRM and the wonderful things that we can accomplish but there are those,women and manginas,that hate us.

Who hates us,Masc?

I'm glad you brought that up. There are three known blogs that are hating on us. First up is some bitch who started ragging on us with this:

My problems with MRA's and PUA's

April 26, 2011

I first encountered MRA’s and gamers 2 to 3 years ago (I was roughly 15 or 16). I started
browsing InMalaFide, Spearhead, Roosh and Roissy but then something started brewing.

Something often baffling. At first they started attacking feminism and other ills but all of
the sudden they started opposing and even blaming the wrongs of our society on traditional
conservatives and reactionaries. They called me a female arrogant supremacist, that I wanted
to shackle them, trick them and how marriage is slavery. That conservatives “pedestalize”
women and how we are influenced by ‘Victorian ideals’ of womanhood. I realized that while
they had some great insight on occasion, many times they were despicable. These days I only
go to Grerp, OmegaVirginRevolt, ElusiveWapiti, Dalrock and websites alike instead of other
websites on the manosphere. They have lost my support due to their altogether misguided
notions and pessimism. In all MRA’s and gamers are not a reaction against feminism. They
only reject one strand of liberalism while accepting the worldview as a whole (and we all
know how that turns out). They, not traditional conservatives, are the mirror image of
Entry filed under: Gender Studies. Tags: .

Conservatives and traditionalists are feminist enablers if they weren't Sarah Palin wouldn't have gone anywhere near the feminist label she embraces and if conservatives and other traditionalists weren't feminist enablers characters like Sean Hannity wouldn't be playing the pro-woman card every time he gets the chance. So if conservatives/traditionalists are going to sell the bullshit line that they are different than their liberal counterparts when it comes to gender issues they better take that sales pitch down the line because I can tell you one thing and that is a lot of MRA's are not buying that bullshit so go sell it somewhere else.

Next we have some mangina that goes by the handle onestdv or maybe it's "onewithstd's",whatever. This is what he and his followers have said:

In my post entitled Anti-Family Attitude of Manosphere, a commenter predictably deemed me the MRA equivalent of a small-penis loser who lives in his mom's basement:

Your true colors are showing. A palid shade of white knight...
Of course, I saw this type of baseless invective coming. Because after all, many MRAs exist
as feminist doppelgangers, eager to shame and insult anyone who doesn't agree with their
gender hatred. This largely explains why many have turned away from The Spearhead. But as
with the perennially unsatisfied anti-racists, MRAs accept nothing less than full acceptance
of their creed. Unless one is ideologically pure, a standard that they move capriciously and
frequently, you're a despicable "white knight".

So just for kicks, let's review what has made me this sort of spineless fellow. Let's see
what unreasonable positions I took in the aforementioned post:

1) The nuclear family is the bedrock of civilization.
2) Women are valuable as more than just prostitutes.
3) A romantic relationship has more benefits than just physical pleasure.
4) Marriage has risks, but sometimes they're very much worth it.
5) Fatherhood is a rewarding experience integral to the emotional health of children.
6) (Modern SWPL) Women can be petulant, mannish, and entitled, but also uniquely endearing
as only feminine women can be.
7) MRAs express a female-like neuroticism because they whine and focus so much on what could
8) A return to patriarchy should be the goal, not men going their own way.
Pretty outlandish stuff, right? But you can never satisfy the MRAs who legitimately hate
women, even when I countenance a return to patriarchy where, in the words of the mainstream,
I want to banish women back to the kitchen. These men, in a position that should stupefy any
reasonable individual, don't see men and women as two necessary components of a stable
society; they actually think "going their own way" will somehow work. Or the really funny
ones that think robots can replace real women. I wonder how many of them have Real Dolls

So where does this come from? I imagine they're gay (destroy heterosexuality as a means of
normalizing homosexuality), bitter (people hate what they're not good at), anti-white
(destroy American whites as a collective by undermining the basic unit the family and trying
to divert the focus to white feminists instead of NAMs), or jealous (if they can't get any,
no one should).
Posted by OneSTDV at 11:20 AM
Labels: Blogosphere, Feminism, Gender

Sounds like this mangina hates the "white knight" label. Too bad you don't like it because you earned it. If you are expecting followers of this moron to be any smarter don't hold your breath,especially when you take a look at the following:

Chicago said...
I don't think there's very many men in the so-called "manosphere"; they cry a bit too much
for my taste.

Sure, there's issues of divorce law inequity and so on but is that all that's really going
on here? Why the neurotic, obsessive fixation on the supposed gender war?

The guy that says paying a series of hookers is preferable to having a reliable spouse (or
girlfriend) is out of it. What, was his own mother a hooker? Would he have preferred that as
his inheritance?

Lots of people out there with all kinds of hangups. They just elevate it all to some
seemingly rational sounding school of thought where they get to petulantly lash out at those
they find threatening.

5/01/2011 12:59 PM

Unlike traditionalists MRA's are opposed to being slaves to a system that despises them and unlike conservatives/traditionalists MRA's see the beast aka the matriarchy for the evil that it truly is. Conservatives/traditionalists will be the last ones to acknowledge that the matriarchal queen is evil and they will pay dearly for this folly.

Cul-De-Sac Hero said...
MRA's need a good kick in the pants to smarten them up. The similarities between some MRA's
and the most extreme feminist man-haters is obvious to reasonable readers and threatens to
undermine the movement before it can accomplish any of it's laudable and necessary goals.
MGTOW may be a viable personal choice but sounds more like a way of rationalizing one's lack
of dates or justifying one's loneliness and subsequent bitterness. It certainly is not a
viable political movement.

5/01/2011 1:30 PM

No,I believe it is conservatives/traditionalists that need the slapping upside the head to make them acknowledge the evil side of women and like most right wing brain dead idiots they would rather go through hell than acknowledge this fact. Not a viable political movement? Tell that to Mary N. Kellett. Tell it to Sharon Osbourne. Not a viable political movement my ass.

Novaseeker said...
What you're writing about MRA's could easily be written about social and Christian
reactionaries who curse modernity with a passion; they would even want to do away with all
of modernity's blessings if it would mean the end of modernity's irritants. I mean, really,
excepting racial preferences and mass immigration from the Third World is it all really that
bad in the West? I beg to differ.

This is the perspective I'm coming around to myself as well.
What we have on the internet are a lot of malcontents with the current setup. The
differences between them are (1) what they see as the source of their malcontent and (2)
what they see as the solution to their malcontent. And, in general, they disagree bitterly
and vehemently with each other over their respective utopian visions of return to a better
world before "X" happened.

That's not going to work, folks.

There are MRAs who are doing real activism work like Glenn Sacks. To me, that's "real" MRA
-- actually lobbying to change some of the laws incrementally (as it tends to work in our
system), rather than writing endless critiques of the current system in the blogosphere and
hoping for some kind of systemic collapse. So many people are highly invested in the idea
that a collapse is imminent -- MRAs, Trads, WNs, racists/anti-racists/anti-anti-racists,
garden variety nihilists like FB, and various strains of extremes on the left and the right
alike. Bide you time, hope for a collapse, and then we can be rid of "X" that we dislike
about contemporary society, and all will be well (or at least better). This corner of the
internet has become a bit unhinged, really.

A far better approach, it seems to me, is to engage with the current reality on its own
terms. You don't have to like the current setup, but you do have to live in it. Even if you
MGTOW, you're still a part of the "system", and don't kid yourself into thinking that there
is a huge groundswell of men doing MGTOW, because there isn't, and there never will be. And
if you're a patriarchal advocate, that's fine and well if you can pull that off in your own
private life despite the general mores, but the general mores themselves are not going to
become patriarchal again anytime soon, regardless of what you advocate. The pendulum hasn't
even gotten to the end of its anti-patriarchal swing yet, frankly. Things are still
progressing further and further away from patriarchy and its norms, and this does not seem
to be slowing down.

Reality is what it is. We don't have to follow social norms if we don't like them. But
building one's life and ideology and worldview around the idea that the current world setup
must collapse in order for things to be okay. Like it or lump it, we need to engage the
world that we have on its terms in whatever way makes sense to us. Just live your lives in a
way that makes sense. Scared of getting married? Fine, then don't get married. Don't like
NAMs? Fine, then vote for people who oppose immigration and don't live around NAMs. But the
fact that you don't want to get married or that you don't like NAMs will not change the
current setup one bit. It's much bigger than you, and far bigger than the discontent that
comes spewing from this corner of the internet on a regular basis.

5/01/2011 3:12 PM

Glenn Sacks is an excellent example but then again so is Harry Crouch,president of the NCFM,Paul Elam,myself and other MRA's that are activist or work behind the scenes to make it a better world for men so let's not forget them.

Whiskey said...
MRA's don't offer a social solution to the problem. Which is the failure to replicate the
nuclear family down this generation. If men go their own way or not, the size of that population is trivial. It would not matter if they went 19th Century Mormon with twelve wives or had no children or girlfriends at all.

What matters is restarting the Nuclear Family above all. Charles Murray is pessimistic for
the Working Class which has abandoned it among Whites, and says the Middle Class is sliding
that way. Only the upper class among Whites retains the Nuclear Family values and behavior.

5/01/2011 3:16 PM

Whiskey said...
Ultimately I'd add that MGTOW, MRA are completely irrelevant. Sperm is cheap, eggs are
expensive. Women alone matter, men do not. Men will be whatever kind of man women want them to be. Since Women decide, and men do not. Outside of a repressive Muslim society anyway
which "solves" that problem akin to getting rid of a wart on your foot by cutting off your

I am not optimistic on the central problem of restarting the nuclear family among Working
Class Whites and Middle Class Whites (Charles Murray notes that only the Upper Classes among
Whites have strong nuclear families, the Working Class has abandoned it and the Middle Class
is in the process). I don't think most White women absent the goodies that UPPER CLASS White
men produce, can be persuaded to trade a "boring" nuclear family against "sexy" single
motherhood with shared Alpha males.

I'll note that choice first came upon Black women, they chose Sexy. Then Hispanic women (if
you trace illegitimacy rates against time, there is a huge change/jump for each cohort).
Driving a BMW and vacationing at Jackson Hole over Christmas is worth putting up with
forgone Sexy. The suburbs (which I consider along with Sailer from 1955-1986 to be pure
paradise for the average guy) not so much.

5/01/2011 3:22 PM

Want to hear something ironic? Whiskey is a Spearhead contributor. Does Wilmer know about these posts?

Walenty Lisek said...
"The guy that says paying a series of hookers is preferable to having a reliable spouse (or
girlfriend) is out of it."

When it comes to the men who talk like this I assume their sexual market value is low and by
low I mean like those "true forced loneliness" guys.

At the start of the video below you can see what a few of them look like. If they can get
women at all, those women would be so undesirable that a hooker may very well be preferable.

These kinds of men don't earn our pity but rather they earn our reflexive disgust. You can
judge a book by it's cover and these guys look fucked up.

5/01/2011 4:49 PM

Ever breakdown the word "assume"? Let's do it: when you "assume" you make an "ass" out of "u" and "me". The way you conservative/traditional assholes brag about how your way of life is better than anyone else's surely means that you guys have a wife and kids and very good home life. Right? Right? *rolls eyes* Jackasses.

PA said...
-- I mean, really, excepting ... mass immigration from the Third World is it all really that
bad in the West?

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

Besides mass non-white immigration, EVERY other problem this sphere discusses would be
self-correcting. Every single one: misandry, low birthrates, hypergamy, political
correctness, black crime, and so on.

That's why race/immigration is in my opinion THE most important problem, and I have little
interest in MRAs who argue that men across races are to form an adversarial front against
women as women.

Novaseeker, I like your comment here and yesterday at Chuck's by the way. I disagree with
your apparent acceptance of the inevitability of global pressures on lower-class Americans,
but your perspective gave me quite a bit to think about and an opportunity to recalibrate my
approach a bit.

-- What we have on the internet are a lot of malcontents with the current setup. ... That's
not going to work, folks.

There are malcontents, wierdos, and omegas in the Sphere, no doubt. Apocalypse-porn addicts
are prevalent here too. Nonwithstanding, there is a lot of very good dialogue on these
blogs, and malcontentment is not the first thing I notice -- what I notice is passion for
change and a clear-eyed understanding of problems that face our society.

These discussions aren't mere bitching sessions. They serve the cause by honing our
persepctive and argumentation skills; they let us know that contra media/education complex,
we're not alone in thinking what we're thinking.

Also importantly, these alt-right blogs have real-life impact in that they filter up to
people in positions of influence like activists, journos, politicians possibly, who borrow
Roissy's or Sailer's arguments.

-- I am not optimistic ...

Really, Whiskey? you don't say...

5/01/2011 5:55 PM

This guy sounds like those white nationalists nuts that better stay the hell out of our movement. I have addressed black-on-white crime but I've also acknowledged the plight of the black man so I like to think I'm being fair about it. The white nationalists are a lot different than that,they will beat up a non-white man and kiss white female ass. They will especially beat up a non-white man because a white female put them up to it. They can stay in the conservative/traditional camp as far as I'm concerned because if they come over to us with those views they won't like the reception.

Anonymous said...
"The pendulum hasn't even gotten to the end of its anti-patriarchal swing yet, frankly.
Things are still progressing further and further away from patriarchy and its norms, and
this does not seem to be slowing down."

It doesn't matter what percent of women are sluts. It just matters how many children smart
women of good character have. There is no other source for good people than good people.

5/01/2011 5:59 PM

Who are these "good women" and how are they different than the sluts? It is difficult to tell the difference between the two and if you fall prey to a convincing liar you are fucked. I suggest the conservatives/traditionalists take the red pill and take it right away. The faster the better.

PA said...
There is also a vocal contingent of MRAs whose roots are in non-Western countries. There is
often a palpable contempt for women as women in their rhetoric. This point of view is very
alien to a European, culturally-Christian man, who traditionally sees women as as partners
and helpmeets subordinate to us as men but equal as human beings and before God.

Meanwhile, non-Westerners, even those from high-functioning backgrounds, generally treated
women as chattle and that sort of twerpish attitude comes through loudly.

5/01/2011 6:27 PM

So does your fucking ignorance. Helpmates? Where the fuck have you been? Guess who files the majority of divorces on the flimsiest of grounds? Your helpmate,that's who. Maybe these non-western MRA's that you spit on have a better understanding of women than you do.

OneSTDV said...
As always, great comments PA.

HalfSigma likes to talk about people possessing gravity and I always think of that adjective
when reading your comments.

That's why race/immigration is in my opinion THE most important problem, and I have little
interest in MRAs who argue that men across races are to form an adversarial front against
women as women.

Of course. I supported this idea in a thread awhile back at In Mala Fide and boy did some of
them get angry. And this is why I added in the non-white motivation at the bottom of this

I believe Chuck has come to understand this as well (I originally thought of him as a gender
blogger and even though he eviscerates them frequently, I'm pretty sure he agrees.)

5/01/2011 7:11 PM

Every man is in the same boat today regardless of color and the conservos/trads don't give a shit but did they ever? No,so fuck them. Like I said earlier if the conservos/trads want to practice racism keep in their own camp because we don't want it anywhere near us.

Guess who else is a detractor of ours lately? Yep,it is Roissy and he said the following:

Men truly going their own, vagina-free, way (and not simply men trying to score internet debate points by claiming to go their own way but still banging on the sly) are likely mating market losers who find comfort in pretending to wish away the allure of women. No one’s buying it, just as no one buys the claptrap by fat feminists insisting that fat women are lusted after by winner men and only social conditioning prevents these men from dating all the grotesque and ill-mannered fatties they really desire.

Roissy,like most PUA's,is a mangina pussy begger. His type seeks approval from women. The only difference between him and the conscious men crowd is that the conscious men crowd can at least acknowledge they are slaves to pussy whereas guys like Roissy like to think that they are in control of women. Game only works as long as women allow it to and if they put their foot down and refuse to abide in it no amount of game is going to accomplish your goals. A lot of PUA's forget this and think they are in charge when in reality it is the woman who is in charge. Also keep in mind that game can be a fasttrack to a prison cell if she hits you with a false rape charge. Something you may want to keep in mind the next time you use game.

Let's see some of the pearls of wisdom his readers post:

Master Dogen-on July 23, 2011 at 3:45 pm

“Men going their own way” should go whole hog and join a religious community, or become serious scholars of something difficult, like ancient Anglo-Saxon poetry or something.

There have always been men in the West who “went their own way.” The thing is, they used to be respectable, interesting, occasionally even holy people. Now they just make a lot of cheap, hyperbolic noise on websites with poor graphic design.

It's strange that Dogen should mention that because that is exactly whom Roissy chose to align himself with,religious fanatics. Don't politics make strange bedfellows.

Artem on July 23, 2011 at 6:10 pm
What’s the difference between a PUA and an MRA?

An emphasis on results in one’s chosen endeavor.

A PUA ruthlessly examines every aspect of his game with the goal of improving his results.

Too many MRAs seem unconcerned that for all their ‘activism’, so feminist seems even remotely worried that MRAs will hold them accountable.

What results have MRAs delivered towards their stated goals?

I've mentioned two that are scared to death of us but if you must know we are currently trying to get VAWA amended. The amended version of VAWA is the PVRA and we are lobbying bigtime on that one. Like I said false accusations are as common as beer in a bar so if you are a PUA you may want to keep your attorney on speeddial.

Doug1-on July 24, 2011 at 1:12 am
What’s the difference between a PUA and an MRA?

Laying girls or not.

I don't need women to reaffirm my manhood. Can you say the same,Doug? Nope,didn't think so.

Neil Hansen-on July 23, 2011 at 4:23 pm

It’s not really a manifesto so much as it’s just a list of truths. MGTOW isn’t possible unless you use prostitutes. No man can go without pussy, unless he is a monk.

I went for coffee today in the trendy spot of my west coast city. Lots of SWPL men and women covered from head to tie with tattoos and piercings. If I had any advice for men today, it would be that women, for whatever reason, genuinely want to be regarded as “hoes.” I do not know what explains this phenomenon. Children are the last thing on a woman’s mind, unless she can have them on her terms, like Madonna. Men are simply optional sperm donors to today’s woman. It actually isn’t that bad for men if women don’t really value men as fathers for their children. We just simply pump n dump and pay the monthly $500 and move on to the next bang. Women get complete control of their vaginas. Not a bad trade-off. So long as women seem to have no concern about the future of society or their children, this is how things will be. And there is some data suggesting that children from single-parent families fare just fine. Mind you I am in an affluent west coast city full of whites and asians. The asian women are not yet ready to be regarded as full-blown “hoes”, so they aren’t sporting the tats and piercing – yet. But the white girls are ready…boy, are they ready. I will admit that single motherhood for latins and blacks is the kiss of death. Gangs and violence will surely follow. For wealthy whites, art school and cinematography follows.

Patriarchy isn’t coming back, not in my lifetime anyway. So I wouldn’t suggest MGTOW; that isn’t possible. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: you don’t even necessarily need game. There are millions of girls in the Phlippines that need loving. If you don’t have game, just save your money and take your vacay in the Phils. A single man can save $20,000 per year. Play video games and get a happy-ending massage from time to time. Make sure you get your Twinrix and Gardasil shots to help prevent STD’s. In the meantime think of your house you can build on the beach in the Philippines.

There is no need to go the way of Sodini. There is no need for MGTOW. I know too many guys with multiple girlfriends in the Phils, Thailand and Indonesia to keep an average man happy.

Yes, I am a little sad that modern women only want to be recognized for their pussies. As I said, I cannot explain this phenomenon. For two centuries they fought against this, and wanted to be valued for their brains. It is indeed a strange world. So when I look at them and see them covered in tats and slut uniforms, I am perplexed. But….fuck it. Save your money boys and dream of SE Asian pussy! There is lots of it!

Then again, you can learn game. Only about 5 or 10% of the male population knows how to practice it successfully. Me, I am too lazy. And the pussy isn’t really worth the effort. It’s just too easy to get a massage and a bj once a month or bimonthly. If this disgusts you, your only hope is Game. Game requires effort and conscious work. And practice. You need to be socially plugged in. Where do you work? Do you have status? You cannot have Game and also be devoid of some status. You cannot have Game and simply work as a shlub somewhere; your work needs to have some Status, witha capital S.

Great post, Roissy. Discrediting MRA and MGTOW needs to happen. MGTOW isn’t possible. MRA is the equivalent of feminism. Game is the only solution, but if you don’t have it, I have a solution of my own:


If there is anyone who is as braindead as Roissy is it is Neil Hansen. I guess these assholes call themselves "pick up artists" because the term "pussy beggers" is demeaning to them. Demeaning but accurate. Asia? Catherine Kieu Becker is from Asia and look what she did to her husband. If you call that "paradise" then you and I have different defintions of "paradise".

Artem-on July 23, 2011 at 6:01 pm

I do agree that a lot of MRAs are whiners. For one thing, for all their ‘activism’, feminists never worry about getting in trouble with MRAs for saying something misandric on national TV.

So MRAs are not really a pressure group if no feminist or mangina is afraid of being held to account by MRAs.

You're wrong and I've already addressed this.

Betadyermom on July 24, 2011 at 11:45 am
MRA seems to be mostly an internet circlejerk which is self-contained in their own little corner of the blogsphere. There doesn’t seem to be whole lot of “advocacy” going on — there’s no organization, no spokesmen, no media talking points, very few allies in academia, etc.

Seems like a lot of MRAs use it as a form of therapy. So, yeah, they come off as whiners — a lot of complaining and not a whole lot of action.

Open your eyes,close your mouth and maybe you'll learn something.

xsplat on July 24, 2011 at 2:13 pm
a lot of complaining and not a whole lot of action.

This is the center of it.

MRAs want to fix the problem. So they talk about what the problem is. Never realizing that social problems don’t have social causes – they have technical causes. Human culture is embedded in the modes of production and other tehnological facets that now make up how it functions.

MRAs can not even see the causes, let alone agree on what effects they’d like to see.

PUAs don’t have to know what the causes are, they are clear what effect they want, and they work towards that. It’s very personal, and achievable, on an individual level.

At least I'm not on the road to getting an STD. Can you say that? You're not one of us and we know how to stratigize to go after our goals so shut the fuck up.

Old Guy-on July 23, 2011 at 8:40 pm
Being a father has its good days and bad days. It is a complex game to play well, and a very expensive hobby. It can become a horror show for the unwilling forced to play. I advise young men to be careful where they plant their seed.

I only discovered the MRM in the last few months, though I have realized the need for men’s liberation for a long time. Unfortunately, the least marketable types seem to be the face of the movement; the whiny bitch MGTOWs and the woman haters.

We seem to be going great guns,not bad for a bunch of misogynists.

I don't know why Roissy and the religious right is on our shit but if the feminists put them up to it then it is very telling of them and where their loyalties are and if feminists are responsible for this it just goes to show we are getting their attention and they are getting very scared. Not only scared it seems but desperate as well. So what do we do? Stay the course and achieve our goals,that's what we do.


Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Support the Partnership Violence Reduction Act

The Partnership Violence Reduction Act (PVRA) is coming up before Congress and it's going to need your support if it's going to become law. You can email your Congressperson and Senators click here and tell them to support the PVRA. The PVRA is a lot better than VAWA when you take into consideration that the PVRA covers:

The PVRA limits the definition of domestic violence to "felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence," so victims of physical violence don't have to take a number and wait their turn.

Abused men who look for help are often turned away, and in some cases arrested. Most shelters only accept female clients. Some shelters that claim to give hotel vouchers to abused men, do not.

The PVRA makes the law gender-inclusive and removes discriminatory policies.

The Partner Violence Reduction Act (PVRA) offers hope to physical abuse victims by:

*Promoting proven abuse-reduction strategies
*Tightening definitions, so real victims aren't put on waiting lists
*Allowing partner reconciliation when the abuse is minor, keeping more families together
*Ending gender discrimination

So when you take the above into consideration it only makes sense to send those emails telling Congress to support the PVRA. Why should your wounds and her dark side escape the attention they deserve? Send those emails today.

Also if you want to sign the petition concerning the PVRA but didn't get a chance you can do so now. So if you haven't done so please do as it may concern you or someone you care about.


Monday, July 25, 2011

Nafissatou Diallo speaks out-about extorting more money

Hotel maid in Strauss-Kahn case speaks out
By Noeleen Walder Reuters – Sun, Jul 24, 2011

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The New York hotel maid who accused former IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn of attempting to rape her said in an interview published on Newsweek's website on Sunday that he appeared as a "crazy man" and attacked her when she entered his room.

Nafissatou Diallo also gave the newsmagazine and ABC News permission to identify her by name.

The magazine interview marks the first time the 32-year-old Guinean immigrant to the United States has publicly spoken to the media since she shocked the world with allegations that Strauss-Kahn emerged naked from the bathroom of his luxury suite on May 14 and forced her to perform oral sex.

Until now, Reuters had kept to the practice in the United States of protecting the identity of alleged rape victims.

ABC News on Sunday also announced it would broadcast an interview with Diallo on Monday morning.

"I want justice. I want him to go to jail," she said in excerpts from the television interview released on Sunday.

"I want him to know that there is some places you cannot use your money, you cannot use your power when you do something like this," Diallo said.

One of Diallo's attorneys, Douglas Wigdor, told Reuters she has come forward to let the world know she is not a "shakedown artist or a prostitute."

"She's being attacked ... and she thought it was important to put a name and face to her account," Wigdor said.

She also plans to file a civil lawsuit soon, which means her name would become public, he added.

ABC reported Diallo also acknowledged "mistakes" but said that should not stop prosecutors from going forward.

"I never want to be in public but I have no choice," she told ABC News, adding "Now, I have to be in public. I have to, for myself. I have to tell the truth."

Diallo, who Newsweek said had agreed to be photographed for next week's edition, said she saw Strauss-Kahn appear naked in front of her when she opened the door to his suite. He was like "a crazy man to me," she said.

"You're beautiful," she reported Strauss-Kahn as saying, and said he attacked her despite her protestations.


Strauss-Kahn, 62, has repeatedly denied all the charges against him. In a statement on Sunday, his lawyers called the interview a last-ditch effort by the maid and her lawyers to extract money from the former managing director of the International Monetary Fund.

She is "the first accuser in history to conduct a media campaign to persuade a prosecutor to pursue charges against a person from whom she wants money," lawyers Benjamin Brafman and William Taylor said.

"Her lawyers and public relations consultants have orchestrated an unprecedented number of media events and rallies to bring pressure on the prosecutors in this case after she had to admit her extraordinary efforts to mislead them."

Her credibility was thrown into question when Manhattan prosecutors revealed Diallo told authorities numerous lies, including fabricating a story about being gang-raped in Guinea in order to gain U.S. asylum. She also changed details of her story about what happened following the purported assault.

Wigdor said Diallo has worried that prosecutors would drop the charges. "That has been a concern, but we're all hopeful that the district attorney's going to do the right thing," he said.

A spokesman for Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance had no comment on the interviews, saying: "We will not discuss the facts or evidence in what remains an ongoing investigation."


After arriving from Guinea in 2003, Diallo, who is illiterate, told Newsweek she spent years braiding hair before working at a bodega in New York City's Bronx borough. As a maid at the Sofitel hotel, she received $25 an hour plus tips.

Diallo said her husband in Guinea died of an illness but did not provide further details. Roughly two years after being raped by two soldiers in Conakry, the Guinean capital, she fled with her daughter, now 15, to the United States, where she said she has few close friends.

Following the alleged attack, Diallo spent weeks in protective custody, holed up in a hotel with her daughter.

"She's been in seclusion for over two months. She hasn't been able to take a walk in the park," her lawyer said.

French newspaper France Soir reported in a front page headline that David Koubbi, the lawyer for French writer Tristane Banon, who has accused Strauss-Kahn of a 2003 sexual assault, had met with Diallo. It added only that he "was impressed by her courage."

Source:click here

This shakedown artist sure knows how to play her part well otherwise she wouldn't be here. VAWA has enabled women like this and it is no wonder that at least one that we know of would take advantage of it. She's trying to get money anyway she can whether it is through the nose of Dominique Strauss-Khan or the New York Post she's going to make sure she gets paid. I knew the moment she filed that civil suit she ran the risk of being outed to the world but she doesn't care. All she's after is the Benjamins and nothing but. Regular readers of this blog know the true character of Nafissatou Diallo as the Post has done an excellent job of reporting it. That's probably why she wants to sue them.


Saturday, July 23, 2011

Feminism and the dark history of the suffragettes

Casey Anthony:grieving mother and feminist poster girl

Casey Anthony is a young woman who would make any feminist proud. She was able to murder her own child and throw men under the bus to save her own worthless hide at the same time. Feminists champion women who only accomplish one or the other so you can imagine the joy they had in their dead zombie hearts to run across a woman who was able to pull off both. She was able to get a predominantly female jury to acquit her and there has been speculation there was juror misconduct in the jury room. If this is the case then there may reasons for a new trial and finding out what happened with the jury from the first trial. I understand that Casey's brother and father don't want anything to do with her and I can understand that. Now this case is old and the public's attention is diverted elsewhere. A little girl is just as dead and no one has paid for her murdering her. And America you acted so angrily over the death of Caylee. Why is that America? I'm not asking that question to trivialize Caylee's death in fact quite the opposite. I'm asking that question is why now? What about Jon Benet Ramsey? You really didn't really care about that case. The authorities royally bungled that case and no outrage from the community. Her mother has been accused of murdering her and no arrests have been made and of course no outrage from the community. Then there was Susan Smith who murdered her two sons so she could be free to marry a man who didn't want children. At her trial she was found guilty and given a very lenient sentence. There was very little outrage over this. So I'm wondering America why Caylee? Is she the straw that broke the camel's back? Let's see.

There is probably someone out there who is asking:

Masc this can't possibly be what the founding mothers of feminism had in mind when they got women the vote and liberated them from oppression. The founding mothers were noble women.

Were they? Were they the angels of light that they are portrayed to be or were they more sinister than that?

Let's take a look at what they did and this is what the water downed,feminized version of history avoids and that is dealing with the dark side of the suffragettes. The approved version aka the PC version of history doesn't show how dangerous these women truly were but I will. Let's take a look at:

  • LONDON, March 10. -- The militant suffragettes were on the rampage again to-day. Five of them attempted to present petitions to King George during his progress through the Mall to open Parliament. Others set fire to two small railway stations in the neighborhood of London.
    Source:click here

  • What if people were killed by their actions? What if some of those people were children?

  • Shelby’s theory is wrong.  The collapse of white moral authority is not the problem. The replacement of male authority with feminism is. To Steele’s credit — he was gazing in the general right direction – but missed the real target. In America, there is one place where white supremacy and radical feminism existed: The Ku Klux Klan.

    The crucial relationship Shelby missed is this: post-modern feminism (which has clearly admitted to being a supremacist movement) is the living granddaughter of the Women’s Ku Klux Klan (WKKK), where second-wave  feminism (as we know it today) was gestated and borne. Â

    It is important to recognize that the WKKK was not in the mainstream of the suffragette movement, but did strongly support it. Legitimate mainstream suffragettes, including Elizabeth Cady Stanton, my grandmother Florence Richardson Usher, and great grandmother Florence Wyman Richardson (photo), did not participate in the smaller WKKK movement or its post-Klan feminist activities. The suffragettes put up with WKKK feminists because of one common goal: passage of the 19th Amendment.
    Source:click here

  • Well now it seems that the suffragettes have no problem allying themselves with racists. The WKKK was staffed by women who gleefully falsely accused black men of rape and what if innocent black men were possibly castrated because of their lies but if the suffragettes had no problem being allied with such a group then that is very telling of the suffragettes.

  • Women Throw Acid at Polls in London; Attempt to Invalidate Ballots Results in Serious Injury of Election Officials; Move Planned by League; Organization That Arranged “Grille Incident” Pleased at Opportunity to Celebrate Anniversary
    Source:click here

  • What if some man got acid in his eyes because of what these irresponsible women did? Would they have gotten the same pussy pass they get today?

  • In 1905 the Rokeby Venus was bought by the National Gallery in London to stop it being sent to Berlin. On 10th March 1914 a terrorist feminist and suffragette, Mary "Slasher" Richardson attacked Venus' famous buttocks with a cleaver thrusting her chopper deep into them and inflicting severe damage on the painting.

    Mary "Slasher" Richardson who had been a Drum Major in the suffragettes' "Fife and Drum Marching Band" went on to be the head of the women's section of the British Union of Fascists in 1934, a sort of British version of Gertrud Scholtz-Klink.

    It is easy to understand why a fanatic might attack a hated portrait as when a Welsh nationalist slashed that of Caradoc Evans in Cardiff or a suffragette that of Thomas Carlyle. But why slash the Rokeby Venus? We can only understand why if we realise that the suffragette movement was as much about sexual frustration as about votes for women.

    In the period 1900-1914 unmarried middle class women were compelled to be chaste by social convention. Their young male counterparts by contrast sought out ladies of easy virtue who sold sex. This was how it had always been and still is in many traditional societies. The suffragettes wanted equality and they could not demand sexual freedom for themselves, so they wanted to deny it to men. Their slogan was "Votes for women and chastity for men". It was probably the main reason for the fierce opposition to their otherwise reasonable demand for the vote. What Edwardian masher was going to risk having chastity imposed on him and his pals by an alliance of women and clergymen.

    The suffragettes and the clergy did in fact conspire together in the Social Purity Movement and to combat what was called the "Social Evil". Street prostitution was widespread in London at the time, even though brothels were illegal and remained so until the 1959 Street Offences Act. It was the guarantor of the virtue of respectable daughters or sisters and only the moralistic clergy were daft enough to believe in male chastity even for the men of the armies of World War I.

    The suffragettes put about the myth that the working girls were either "fallen women" cast aside by an evil seducer (male villain) or the victims of a "white slave trade" run by evil foreigners. What they could not accept was that for many women a period (not a lifetime) working as a prostitute was a welcome escape from their usual job with its long hours, tedious work and poor pay. Most would work on their own account and could decide when to work and when not. They may well have preferred it to being a sneered at skivvy in a household of middle-class suffragettes.

    Of course prostitutes then as now faced the risk of being assaulted or worse by their clients. Some prostitutes were, it is also true, under the control of ruthlessly exploiting pimps, who then as now were often members of ethnic minorities. The feminists' response to this was to demand and get legislation providing for the flogging of men convicted of living off the immoral earnings of prostitutes. It was a wonderful moral panic with a sadistic punitive and xenophobic outcome that will have exhilarated the feminists.

    We can now see why Mary "Slasher" Richardson, the future fascist, chose to attack this picture. She said at first that it had to do with Mrs Pankhurst's "beautiful character" (as distinct from physical beauty) but later Richardson admitted that the real reason was that she

    hated the way men gawped at Venus.

    That was why she layed into the bottom that had launched a thousand gawps, a perverse encounter that should have attracted the pen of a J. B. Priestley or a Kenneth Tynan.

    As I said, it was about sex. Freud would no doubt have prescribed it for her three times a day. In our twenty-first century world of SM feminists and louche lesbians and where the womens movement's chief enemy is family values, it seems like another world. In 1914 the feminists wanted to make the world into a monastery. Now they want to turn it into an orphanage. I didn't see any visible feminists at Velázquez but then they don't do art because all the great painters are male.
    Source:click here

  • The clergy and feminists work together now too and I'm sure their goals are the same and that is the control of men,at all costs. Religion and feminism going hand in hand.

    There we have it as it turns out the suffragettes were very far from peaceful in fact they could accurately be called "terrorists" as that label would fit them well. This post goes to show that feminists did not abandon their previous ways,not by a long shot. No,this post goes to show that they have stayed the same terrorist course that they started out on.


    Friday, July 22, 2011

    VAWA may go gender neutral

    Congressman Ted Poe

    PICKET: Rep. Poe looks to have VAWA rewritten as gender neutral
    Kerry Picket
    Published on July 21, 2011

    The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is up for reauthorization this year and Congressman Ted Poe, Texas Republican and long time I-VAWA supporter, says he would now support re-writing the legislation as gender neutral.

    Passed in 1994, VAWA has a name that gives the impression the intention of the law is to protect women from abusive men and punish men who batter women. President of Eagle Forum Phyllis Schlafly wrote a Townhall piece last week describing the weaknesses of VAWA, and she starts with the name itself:

    For 30 years, the feminists have been pretending that their goal is to abolish all sex discrimination, eliminating all gender differences no matter how reasonable. When it comes to domestic violence, however, feminist dogma preaches that there is an innate gender difference: Men are naturally batterers, and women are naturally victims (i.e., gender profiling).

    Starting with its title, VAWA is just about as sex discriminatory as legislation can get. It is written and implemented to oppose the abuse of women and to punish men.

    Ignoring the mountain of evidence that women initiate physical violence nearly as often as men, VAWA has more than 60 passages in its lengthy text that exclude men from its benefits. For starters, the law's title should be changed to Partner Violence Reduction Act, and the words "and men" should be added to those 60 sections.

    Congressman Poe, a member of the House Judiciary committee, argues that men can still apply for the same services women apply for under the current law, but said: "I certainly agree with equal protection under the law. And maybe a name change is in order."

    He added, "Certainly, I think that’s something that we could consider, because the law applies equally between men and women under the act already even though the name says only women. So I’m open to changing the name. Domestic Violence Act. I like that phrase."

    Mr. Poe also supports replacing the word “woman” in the legislation to a non-gender specific term like “person” or “men and women” or “men or women.”

    “The Constitution uses ‘person.’ They thought of it long before we did, so 'person' is an appropriate term,” he noted.

    A number men's and father advocacy groups often cite statistics and studies from the Department of Justice to the Centers for Disease Control to State Universities, that show women are the perpetrators of violence against men as often as men are the perpetrators of violence against women.

    Mr. Poe, a former Texas judge and prosecutor who is the chairman of the House victims caucus, does not believe those numbers saying, "I disagree with these groups that say that it’s equal. That’s not what I have seen over the years."

    Ms. Schlafly also points out in her article that the the term "domestic violence" could mean any number of circumstances under the law these days:

    Currently used definitions of domestic violence that are unacceptably trivial include calling your partner a naughty word, raising your voice, causing "annoyance" or "emotional distress," or just not doing what your partner wants. The law's revision should use an accurate definition of domestic violence that includes violence, such as: "any act or threatened act of violence, including any forceful detention of an individual, which results or threatens to result in physical injury."

    Women who make domestic violence accusations are not required to produce evidence and are never prosecuted for perjury if they lie. Accused men are not accorded fundamental protections of due process, not considered innocent until proven guilty, and in many cases, are not afforded the right to confront their accusers.

    Congressman Poe agrees with Ms. Schlafly, and he wants to see more clarification in the law as to what exactly domestic violence is defined as.

    "We’re talking about people getting hurt. We’re talking about people having to flee in the middle of the night for their safety and that this bill is addressing violence not name calling—not suggestive behavior--but the word violence," he said.

    "When we get to re-drafting the bill, it must be clear enough that we are talking about somebody getting hurt. Physical harm and serious bodily injury is a good definition of domestic violence. But I agree. I think that needs to be very clearly defined and not some abstract feeling or [someone] getting their feelings hurt."

    Source:click here

    We did it,even the mainstream media is now using the terms "men's advocacy groups" and "father's advocacy groups" which shows we are gaining ground. It would be good idea to contact Congressman Ted Poe and thank him for drafting this gender neutral domestic violence law. It appears that the times they are a changing.


    Monday, July 18, 2011

    More info on VAWA reauthorization

    I received this email originally from Teri Stoddard of SAVES in which she talks about the VAWA reauthorization status. I'll let Teri take it from here:

    Dr. Phillip McGraw, aka "Dr. Phil," was the lead witness at last Wednesday's Senate VAWA hearing. His testimony featured this forehead-slapper: "Domestic violence is now the most common cause of injury to women ages 15 to 44."

    But the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey says the leading cause of injuries to women is motor vehicle accidents. Domestic violence is ninth on the list, accounting for a grand total of 2.2% of all injuries to women. You can see the complete listing click here

    Unfortunately, such wild distortions are commonplace. According to the SAVE report, "Most DV Educational Programs Lack Accuracy, Balance, and Truthfulness," 90% of DV educational and training programs fold, spindle, or otherwise mutilate the truth: click here

    The solution? Accreditation. SAVE's Partner Violence Reduction Act features this requirement for federal grantees:

    Applicants must certify that all training, education, and public awareness training programs and activities, including each of its instructional manuals, curricula, handouts, and other informational content, are currently accredited by an independent Training, Education, and Public Awareness Accreditation Organization, as defined in Section 3(a)(29) of this Act; that the Training, Education, and Public Awareness Accreditation Organization is allowed to conduct audits of said training and education sessions; and that evidence of said accreditation is made publicly available on the organization's website.

    This week we are asking you to contact Sen. Leahy's office and urge him to include the requirement for DV accreditation in the upcoming VAWA reauthorization. In your email, mention the gross inaccuracy of Dr. McGraw's testimony and ask that your request be included as public testimony for the July 13 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    Email your testimony to Anya McMurray at . Make sure your statement is respectful and polite.

    The deadline to receive public testimony is this coming Wednesday, July 20.


    Teri C. Stoddard, Program Director

    Stop Abusive and Violent Environments

    SAVE is a non-partisan 501(c)3 victim-advocacy organization
    working for evidence-based solutions to domestic violence.

    July 20 is Wednesday which doesn't leave us much time. Send the appropriate emails to Anya McMurray and email Senator Leahy also please hurry because we don't have much time. The faster we move on this the better. It might also be a good idea to contact Senator Chuck Grassley and let him know about this too especially what Dr.Phil did which was perjury.


    Friday, July 15, 2011

    Fathers get some say in Ohio

    New Ohio Abortion Legislation: Fathers Will Have Final Say
    July 2, 2011
    By Jeffery M. Leving

    Legislation in the Ohio House of Representatives (House Bill 252) requires written consent from the father of an unborn child in order to perform an abortion. The bill will put to test the “it’s my body, it’s my right” notion of pro-choice activists by adding the rights of the father of the unborn child into the equation. Ideally, the decision of abortion should be a consensus between both parents, with both parties being involved in any decisions regarding the child.

    This is a significant legal and social issue where parental rights are heavily unbalanced due to the fact that a father plays no role in a matter as critical as his unborn child’s life. If a woman decides to keep her child, the father is required to pay child support regardless of whether he wanted to keep the child or not, or face future jail time. A father currently has no say. Alternatively he cannot opt-out of parenthood, but a woman can: She can do so by abortion.

    Under the Ohio Bill, a woman must have written consent from the father; if a woman is claiming rape, she must file a police report, provide other court documents or an official complaint of the incident. If the woman chooses to undergo an abortion in this case, the physician must have “reasonable cause” to believe the woman’s claim of rape and thus, perform an abortion. In cases where the father may be unknown, a list of all potential fathers must be submitted to a physician. They will all be contacted and summoned to a paternity test. If the father is not found, no abortion can be performed. The bill would turn abortion without a father’s permission or naming a “false biological father” into a first-degree misdemeanor with a maximum $1,000 fine. A second occasion of providing false information would be considered a fifth degree felony.

    “When the fetus is viable, no person shall perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman without the written informed consent of the father of the fetus,” the bill text reads.

    State Representative John Adams says that the bill was not written to cause controversy. He says that it is important that both parties who created the unborn child have a say in whether or not the pregnancy is terminated. “Since the father will have the responsibility of child support, he should have rights regarding the birth or destruction of the fetus,” according to veteran matrimonial attorney Anthony D’Agostino Dad's Rights

    Recently, an instance regarding an alleged lack of father notification in regards to an abortion has commanded national attention. In New Mexico, a man lashed out at his ex-girlfriend by means of an anti-abortion billboard after the ex-girlfriend had allegedly undergone an abortion procedure without any notification to the purported father. The billboard depicts a 35-year-old Greg Fultz holding the outline of an infant with text that reads, “This Would Have Been a Picture of My 2-Month Old Baby If the Mother Had Decided Not To Kill Our Child!” The case seems more about the ex-girlfriend’s privacy than about father’s rights.

    Regarding the paternal veto or override of an abortion, that is a decision which should be eventually decided in Ohio. This important decision can set legislative precedent for every other state in our nation.

    Source:click here

    Perhaps we should email Ohio state representative John Adams (click on "contact me")and thank him for drafting this bill. Women have a lot of say whether they want to be parents or not and a lot of states give women a way out of parental responsibilities if they want but Ohio is the only state so far that cares about men in this situation. Hopefully this bill becomes law and Ohio can lead the way for the rest of the nation.


    Thursday, July 14, 2011

    Where is the VAWA grant money going?

    Senator Patrick Leahy

    Senator Chuck Grassley

    If you've seen the Senate webcast from yesterday's hearings concerning VAWA you probably remember the part where Senator Patrick Leahy brought up the fact that they didn't know where the majority of VAWA grant money was going. In fact you can read the GAO report he's talking about. I know one case where the money feminists got a hold of went. Perhaps we should contact Senator Leahy and Senator Chuck Grassley,they both head the Senate Judiciary Committee which is overseeing VAWA's reauthorization. Perhaps we should write them and ask where is the VAWA grant money going? The American taxpayer I'm sure would love to know.


    Wednesday, July 13, 2011

    Dr. Phil wants male victims of domestic violence to lose

    This was posted in my comments section but is so very important it needs front page attention. Here it is:

    Action alert!

    Dr. Phil will be at tomorrow's VAWA hearing... What about you?
    Submitted by Matt on Tue, 2011-07-12 22:58.
    From SAVE via email:

    Cue lights and cascading drum roll...SAVE has now released the Partner Violence Reduction Act (PVRA): click here

    After years of discussion and debate, it's now a reality...the Partner Violence Reduction Act will amend the Violence Against Women Act so all victims are served, false accusations stop, and the discrimination comes to an end.

    And as luck would have it, the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing tomorrow, Wednesday, July 13, beginning at 10am Eastern time, about the Violence Against Women Act.

    One of the featured witnesses will be -- you guessed it -- Dr. Phil of Oprah Winfrey fame! You can watch the live Webcast here

    The Committee is inviting testimony from all concerned individuals...including you! So today we're asking you to submit your testimony. Share your DV horror story, say something nice about the PVRA, whatever. We ask that you say it politely, preferably in one page or less.

    Address your testimony to Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and email it to Anya They need to receive your statement no later than Wednesday, July 20. Send a cc to me at if you would like us to consider posting your testimony on the SAVE website.

    And, be sure to sign our Partner Violence Reduction Act petition

    Game on!


    P.S. When you watch the Webcast, look for the persons wearing T-shirts saying, "I was FALSELY ACCUSED of Domestic Violence." Wonder who that could be??

    Teri C. Stoddard, Program Director

    Stop Abusive and Violent Environments

    SAVE is a non-partisan 501(c)3 victim-advocacy organization
    working for evidence-based solutions to domestic violence..

    Men's Activism node 16911

    Men's Activism

    When you consider what a creep Dr.Phil truly is how can he say he's a friend of women.


    Petition to address anti-male bias in Ontario family court system

    There is a petition that addresses the anti-male bias in the Ontario family courts in Canada. You don't have to be a Canadian citizen to sign this petition,anyone in the world can. I'll let the sponsors of this petition take it from here:

    We the undersigned seek immediate action to be taken,1. To Stop the Corruption in the Family Courts of Ontario. 2. To Stop the Discrimination and Bias in the Ontario Family Courts. 3. To diligently prosecute perjury, fraud and false allegations of abuse by Lawyers and all other parties. 4. To allow access to justice without delay. 5. To make enforcement of orders without delay. 6. Change the Family Law Act of Ontario to be fair and equal and in the true best interest of the children. 7. To include Hostile Aggressive Parenting and Parental Alienation as recognized forms of Child Abuse in the Family Law Act

    This is a courageous step considering Canada is one of the more misandric nations in the anglosphere,much more misandric than the United States. Canada has human rights's commissions that don't consider white males worthy of rights,just to show you how bad it is. If you are facing a divorce in the Ontario family court system you may want to sign this petition to save your ass and the faster you do the better.


    Tuesday, July 12, 2011

    Judge improperly has activist arrested

    Adam Mueller, aka Ademo Freeman, stood inside the Keene District Courthouse in New Hampshire, waiting for Judge Edward Burke to step inside so he could ask him a question.

    Less than two minutes later, he was arrested for threatening the judge, a felony charge called “improper influence.”

    But Mueller had his camera rolling, so he captured the entire exchange on video.

    And there is absolutely no evidence that he threatened Burke.

    Here is that exchange, but you can also hear it for yourself in the above video:

    (Judge Burke enters the building)

    Mueller: “Judge Burke, can I ask you a few questions about a hat … and how that constitutes contempt.”

    (Burke ignores him and heads for the stairs)

    Mueller: “You think people want to pay for somebody to be in jail for five days for wearing a hat?”

    (Burke continues to ignore him as he walks up the stairs with Mueller walking behind him)

    Mueller: “It’s kind of ridiculous to waste tax-payer money on something like that, isn’t it?

    (Burke reaches the top of the stairs)

    Mueller: “Sir, I just want to have a conversation.”

    (Burke opens the door and motions to the bailiff)

    Burke: “Bailiff, bailiff, this person is threatening me about a decision I just made.”

    Mueller: “I’m not threatening you ….”

    Mueller is then taken into custody and thrown in jail where he spent two nights before he was bailed on a donated $5,000 bond.

    On Wednesday, after viewing the above video, the district attorney’s office dropped the charges against him

    But that hasn’t solved the issue that Burke had Mueller falsely arrested.

    And it hasn’t solved the issue that Burke directed a court order that now forbids photography or videography in the Keene courthouse.

    According to the court order, which was filed July 1, 2011, three days after Mueller’s arrest.

    In recent months certain members of the public have caused disruptions of the court's ability to conduct business in Keene. In addition to their refusal to abide by court rules related to the conduct of trials and conduct in the courtroom in general, these members of the public have also congregated in the court's lobby for extended periods of time making it difficult for other members of the public to conduct business with the court and, in particular, creating conditions and disturbances which have obstructed court staff from performing their duties in an orderly way.

    Additionally, these members of the public have, on occasion, accosted the presiding judge as he enters and leaves the building in which the court is housed, creating an atmosphere of hostility and intimidation and a legitimate fear for the safety and well-being of the judicial and nonjudicial staff at this court.

    Based upon these conditions and facts, and mindful of the holding of the New Hampshire Supreme Court in State v. Moquin, 105 N.H. 9 at 11 (1963) that,

    " ... it is the duty and responsibility of courts to be alert to protect the judicial processes from being brought into disrepute and to act vigorously when confronted with acts or conduct which tend to obstruct or interfere with the due and orderly administration of justice ... "

    it is ordered as follows:

    1. No cameras or audio equipment may be used at any time in the court's lobby or anywhere in the public area of the court's leased premises;

    There are some exceptions, which can be read by clicking on the court order in the above link.

    William Toler of the Independent Register reported that the ban may be unconstitutional.

    "A blanket ban likely would be unconstitutional,” says David Hudson from the First Amendment Center. “Trial judges are granted discretion to determine whether cameras might unduly prejudice court proceedings but generally they must make particularized findings, such as whether there would be prejudice, whether the ban is no broader than necessary and whether there are reasonable alternatives to not permitting coverage.”

    As I’ve reported in previous stories, the tensions between Burke and the Free Staters have been ongoing for the past few years as Keene becomes a growing community of activists.

    Many of the activists have long accused Burke of being a bully, but it is also obvious that they try their best to test his authority by not removing caps in the courtroom or refusing to disclose their name when arrested.

    And those incidents are debatable (we all have our issues we fight for and those don’t rank up there for me).

    But here we have a clear case of a judge having a citizen falsely arrested on felony charges.

    That issue is not debatable. Burke blatantly lied about Mueller’s actions.

    With a judge like that, there is simply no expectation of justice in his courtroom.

    Source:click here

    Court order prohibiting videotaping here


    Petiton for the Partnership Violence Reduction Act

    There is a petition for the Partner Violence Reduction Act. This Act is going to amend VAWA to fit the framework of the Constitution. This is where SAVES informs us of the provisions of this Act:

    The Partner Violence Reduction Act brings hope to victims…victims of abuse who have been turned away from over-crowded shelters, victims of false allegations, and victims of harmful policies such as mandatory arrest.

    In addition, the Partner Violence Reduction Act bans discriminatory practices, encourages partner reconciliation when feasible, requires the accreditation of educational programs, strengthens the scientific basis, improves accountability, curbs immigration fraud, and reinvigorates the constitutional protections of domestic violence programs.

    The Partner Violence Reduction Act strengthens and amends the federal Violence Against Women Act. A new day is dawning… Contact your elected officials in Washington DC and tell them to support the Partner Violence Reduction Act.

    For more information, visit:

    If you hate VAWA in its current version as much as I do then don't hesitate to sign this petition. The faster you sign this petition the faster you can eliminate the anti-male bias in law when it comes to domestic relations. The ass you save may be your own so sign today.


    Hugo Schwyzer is a cuckold

    Hugo Schwyzer

    For those of you who don't know Hugo Schwyzer is a bigtime mangina and feminist enabler in fact I believe he may teach a women's studies course. So naturally when I read this I had to run with it. In his account notice how he glosses over the fact that he got a skank pregnant and excuses her as well. Typical mangina.

    I May Have A Son, But I’ll Never Know For Sure

    Hugo Schwyzer —In a medium-sized city in the Midwest, there's a boy who will turn 13 next month. He lives with his parents, who were wed three months before he was born. He is tall, with dirty blonde hair and blue eyes. His name is Alastair*, and he may –- or may not -– be my son. More on that in a moment.

    No woman ever wonders if she's a mother or not. (Egg donors are one possible exception.) But as the Casey Anthony trial vividly reminded us, it's possible for a woman to be unsure about the identity of her baby's father. And even more possible for a man to be entirely unaware that he's a father –- or to be unaware that the child he thinks is his is biologically another man's.


    Do you have any kids?

    No. Not that I know of, anyway.

    That clichéd exchange has become a standard part of first-date conversation. When I was single, I got that question and gave that answer many times. I eventually stopped saying it, not because I had received hard evidence about my reproductive status, but because a woman I was dating called me out on it. "God", she said, "you guys always say that. It's such an obvious and cheesy way to show off that you've slept around. You think you're being sly, but it's just juvenile."

    That cured me of the habit, but to judge from what I hear from my friends, there are plenty of men of all ages still offering that same reply. And while for some it may indeed be a not-so-subtle way of hinting at a promiscuous past, for others it may reflect a sincere acknowledgment of the very real possibility that they've fathered a child. In my case, I have very real grounds for uncertainty.


    Fourteen autumns ago, I was casually dating a woman I'll call Jill*. We had unprotected intercourse a handful of times in late October and early November. And just before Thanksgiving, Jill discovered she was pregnant.

    She didn't tell me until after New Year's Day. While Jill and I had been in a "friends with benefits" arrangement, she'd also been growing more serious about another man, Ted.* She'd first slept with him for the first time two nights before she had last slept with me. It was that week that Jill got pregnant, and as she would later tell me, there was no way to know for sure which one of us was the father.

    But there was no question which one of us was a better bet as a romantic partner. Jill had broken things off with me as soon as she and Ted had decided on an exclusive relationship (just before she found out she was pregnant.) Ted was several years older than I was, professionally and emotionally stable, and clearly falling in love with Jill. I was drinking, partying, with some time to go before I'd hit my rock bottom. Jill wanted to be a mom. Ted wanted to be a dad. I wasn't sure what I wanted. In her mind, these facts settled it: the baby was Ted's. Or it needed to be Ted's.

    They got engaged at Christmas, and were married in May 1998. Their son was born in August, and a few months later, the new little family moved out of state. I haven't seen her, or Ted, or Alastair in over a decade. Except for a half-dozen short emails in the past few years, Jill and I have had no contact.

    Jill never told Ted that she'd been sleeping with someone else the week their son was conceived. Ted and I were both about the same height with the same fair skin and the same pale blue eyes; she knew that without a DNA test, there'd be no sure way to know which one of us was the biological father. But there was a sure way to know which one of us was "dad material", and which one of us wasn't. Jill was clear that she preferred everlasting uncertainty to the possibility of discovering that her Ted was not her son's father. As the one who carried Alastair in her womb, it was her choice to make.

    I made a promise to Jill before Alastair was born that I'd never ask for a paternity test, nor reveal to Ted the possibility that I might be the biological father of his son. I wasn't in love with Jill and wasn't ready to be a parent: Ted was both of those things. From what little I hear, he's been a great husband and a doting father all these years. He and Jill have had two more sons together. With all that in mind, it would be an act of destructive narcissism on my part to ever break my promise and barge back into Jill's life.

    I won't lie and say I don't wonder sometimes about this boy who will become a teen next month. But I've wondered far less since becoming a father to my own daughter in 2009. My role in Heloise's conception was brief (but, um, not that brief); my roles as a devoted husband to her mother and a doting papa to her are my most treasured and important tasks. If I were to discover that I was not my daughter's biological dad, I'd be hurt by my wife's deception -– but Heloise would be no less my daughter. (I have no reason to suspect otherwise, of course.) Fathering has everything to do with being present after conception and after birth, and very little with providing the sperm to fertilize an egg. Regardless of what a paternity test would reveal, I am still my daughter's dad -– and in every meaningful sense, Ted is Alastair's.


    I only met this boy who might be my son once, when he was just eight weeks old. Ted and Jill were getting ready to move to the Midwest, and she and I met for coffee so that we could say goodbye. For a host of reasons I'm not sure I fully understand, she wanted me to meet Alastair, and I was eager to see him. I rocked him in my arms and smelled his baby smell. I studied his blue eyes and fine hair. Jill and I sipped our lattés and chatted; Alastair fell asleep in his baby carrier. After an hour, his mama kissed me on the cheek and I pressed my lips against his forehead. I said goodbye to my friend and her son and walked away with tears in my eyes. I've never seen so much as a photograph of Alastair since.

    The specifics of human reproduction mean that men may have children of whose existence they are unaware, and they may unwittingly raise as their own children conceived with another man's sperm. But women have it harder, and not only in terms of pregnancy, labor, and delivery. It is Jill, not I, who carries the burden of an unresolved question through her relationship with her husband and her first-born son. Perhaps that weight has become so light that she's forgotten it altogether. I hope so.

    I may or may not be Alastair's biological father. I may or may not have other children "out there." These uncertainties that I know many men share are part of the cost of a habit of unprotected heterosexual intercourse. But the solution to the problem isn't suspicion or frantic demands for paternity tests, Jerry Springer style. The solution isn't even the rigorous use of contraception (though that's a very good idea.)

    The solution is to remember that it is love, not sperm, that makes a great dad.

    This amended post originally appeared at The Good Men Project; above is an amended version. Republished with permission.

    Want to see your work here? Email us!

    More from The Good Men Project:

    Source:click here

    Also notice the Jezebel/Good Men Project connection. Further proof that the Good Mangina Project was set up to derail the real MRM but fortunately that is not going to happen.


    Tuesday, July 5, 2011

    Female journalist looks to be raped

    Mac McClelland

    Journalist stages her OWN rape to cure trauma of witnessing sex attack on woman in Haiti
    By Rachel Quigley

    Last updated at 6:43 PM on 5th July 2011

    People deal with stress in different ways.

    For journalist Mac McClelland, it gripped her body and her mind in such a severe way that she had to simulate a violent rape to get over it.

    The Mother Jones civil rights reporter, was on a job in Haiti in the aftermath of the 2010 earthquake when she met a woman she called Sybille - who had been raped at gunpoint and brutally mutilated by a gang of men.

    After Ms McClelland, 31, accompanied her to the hospital - where the surgeon who performed reconstructive surgery on her told her she was a slut and deserved what she got - they were on the way back in a taxi when Sybille saw one of the men who raped her. Ms McClelland recalls that she went into a 'a full paroxysm - wailing and flailing in terror, screaming with her eyes rolling in abject terror'.

    It was at that point that something snapped in Ms McClelland too. Despite the fact she has seen the impact of sexual violence all around the globe having reported from the Congo and Burma, this incident was more than she could take.

    According to ABC, she became progressively enveloped in the classic symptoms of post-traumatic stress - avoidance of feelings, flashbacks and recurrent thoughts that triggered crying spells. There were smells that made her gag.

    She couldnt get out of bed in the morning and had nightmares and daymares about rape.

    The 31-year-old went to see a therapist in her home of San Francisco and despite getting treatment for post traumatic stress disorder, she told her therapist that all she wanted to do was have incredibly violent sex.

    Her therapist suggested it was a good idea and told her to find someone who she trusted enough to do it with.

    Ms McClelland believes that it was this staged violent rape with a close friend that cured her. She even wrote an article about for the online magazine Good.

    In it she explains how her sexual partner mercilessly pinned her, beat her about the head and brutally violated her.

    She wrote about the rape: 'I did not enjoy it in the way a person getting screwed normally would. But as it became clear that I could endure it, I started to take deeper breaths.

    'And my mind stayed there, stayed present even when it became painful, even when he suddenly smothered me with a pillow, not to asphyxiate me but so that he didn't break my jaw when he drew his elbow back and slammed his fist into my face. Two, three, four times.

    'My body felt devastated but relieved; I'd lost, but survived. After he climbed off me, he gathered me up in his arms. I broke into a thousand pieces on his chest, sobbing so hard that my ribs felt like they were coming loose.' She told ABC: 'I was not crazy. It was a way for me to deal in sort of a simulated, but controlled situation. I could say "stop" at any time. But it was still awful, and the body doesn't understand when it's in a fight.'

    The controversial article drew as much disgust as praise from readers, some who accused her of taking the attention and focus away from the real victims of Haiti and real rape victims.

    Others were more supportive and congratulated her on her bravery. She said: 'I got an email every ten minutes from a total stranger, thanking me for saying they felt a lot less isolated and they appreciated someone starting the conversation.'Some of them were incredibly intense and emotional.'

    Many experts don't recommend self-treatment as a way to alleviate post-traumatic stress, but some say that reliving the experience that triggered the mental breakdown, referred to as 'mastery', can be effective.

    Elana Newman, research director for the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma and a professor of psychology at the University of Tulsa, said: 'People want to feel better and have the tendency when they are feeling terrible to attempt some way at mastery. People try to make sense of the experience in any way they can with the resources they've got.'

    Ms Newman told ABC that she thought Ms McClelland was 'brave' as a journalist to address her struggle so openly, but she does not recommend that those with post-traumatic stress 'put themselves at risk without controls'.

    'I don't know her so I can't assess her,' she said. 'But mastery needs to be done in a safe, structured environment.'

    Ms McClelland lived among Burmese rebels for her 2006 book, For Us, Surrender is Out of the Question. She has also written about genocide survivors in Uganda and the Congo.

    Since her experience, and after the CBS News Correspondent Lara Logan was molested in Cairo in February, Ms McClelland took to task the Committee to Protect Journalists for not once mentioning sexual harassment in their manual.

    They subsequently added an 'addendum on sexual aggression' after interviewing almost 50 journalists who have experienced sexual violence - from groping to rape - while doing their jobs.

    She said: 'If the handbook had a section detailing "symptoms of a journalist who really needs counselling and should probably go home", I would have fit the description.'
    Ms McClelland - who returned to Haiti in January for two weeks - said she doesn't think of herself as a 'fragile' person and said she feels compelled to continue her reporting.
    She said: 'Whether people say I'm insane or not, it's tough enough to do this job. If I didn't have any feelings, that would be scary. It's a human response to duress.'


    'And with that he was on me, forcing my arms to my sides, then pinning them over my head, sliding a hand up under my shirt when I couldn't stop him.

    'The control I'd lost made my torso scream with anxiety; I cried out desperately as I kicked myself free.

    'But it didn't matter how many times I managed to knock him over to the other side of the bed. He's got 60 pounds on me, plus the luxuries of patience and fearlessness.

    'When I got out from under him and started to scramble away, he simply caught me by a leg or an upper arm or my hair and dragged me back.

    'By the time he pinned me by my neck with one forearm so I was forced to use both hands to free up space between his elbow and my windpipe, I'd largely exhausted myself.
    'And just like that, I'd lost. It's what I was looking for, of course. But my body - my hard-fighting, adrenaline-drenched body - reacted by exploding into terrible panic.

    'The comforting but debilitating blanket of tension that'd for weeks been wrapped around my chest solidified into a brick.

    'Then the weight of his body, and of the inevitability of my defeat, descended on my ribcage. My worn-out muscles went so taut that they ached. I stopped breathing.'

    Source:click here