Thursday, December 25, 2014

Leftist censorship

Nobody should be surprised that the dictatorial ruler of North Korea would want to censor a film that offended him, or even that he would feel entitled to break the law by threatening reprisals against the offenders. His actions emulate those of hard-left feminists, radical Muslims, university administrators, and others who seek to prevent the publication or distribution of material they deem offensive.

I recall an incident several years ago when radical feminists fired bullets through the windows of a Harvard Square bookstore to protest its sale of Playboy Magazine. I also recall being physically threatened by a group called “Dykes on Bikes” – a feminist motorcycle gang – for providing legal representation of alleged pornographers.

Then there is radical Islamic censorship that has become far more deadly. When some radical Muslims were offended by Theo Van Gogh’s film “Submission,” which exposed Islam’s demeaning views toward women, Van Gogh was murdered in cold blood and his co-producer’s life threatened by a Fatwa. Salman Rushdie had to go into hiding when a Fatwa was issued against him and his book, “The Satanic Verses.” The Yale University Press, fearful of threats of violence, censored the actual cartoons depicting Mohammed from a book about that subject, following violent reaction to the publication of the cartoons in Scandinavia.

More recently, radical anti-Israel students tried to get SodaStream products banned from Harvard dining halls, because they were offended by the "micro-aggression" represented by the location of the company's factory beyond Israel’s Green Line. So instead of simply not drinking the product themselves, they tried to prevent everyone else from drinking it or even seeing its name!

Hard-left students, and even some on the soft left, have tried to ban sexist jokes and offensive classroom discussion on university campuses. Speech codes on many campuses are designed to prevent students from being offended by the comments of others.

The National Office of Amnesty International recently rescinded an invitation I had received from the Columbia University branch of the organization because they were offended by some of my views. And several universities, including Brandeis, rescinded offers of honorary degrees from proposed recipients because some students regarded their views as offensive. Other deserving candidates have been passed over for fear of offending some.

We live in an age in which censoring material that is deemed offensive by some is becoming widely accepted, especially among young people on the left.

There are, of course, major differences between using criminal means (violence, hacking, threats) and using arguably lawful means (speech codes, rescinding invitations) to achieve the censorship of offending material, but the results may be similar: self-censorship.

In my book "Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law," published last year, I predicted that “self-censorship that results from fear of violent responses” will give “those who threaten violence an effective veto over what can be published in the United States.” Unfortunately, events since I wrote those words have confirmed their accuracy.

So why are we surprised when a foreign dictator tries to achieve what mainstream Americans – and indeed mainstream leftists around the globe – are trying to achieve: namely the “right” to be free from being offended.

This alleged “right” is, of course, in direct conflict with the most basic of rights in any democracy: the right to express views deemed offensive by some, and the corollary right to hear or see such views.

There are at least two ways a person can be offended by freedom of expression. The first is by actually having to read the offending book or see the offending film. In totalitarian dictatorships, citizens are indeed required to read and see what the dictator wants them to be exposed to. Not so in democracies, where we are free to choose our book and films.

The second is by simply knowing that others, who are not offended, may choose to read or see the offending work.

The first has a simple solution: don’t read the book; don’t see the movie; change the channel; drink Pepsi instead of SodaStream.

The second has no legitimate claim to acceptance in a diverse democracy. Citizen A should not be able to prevent Citizen B from reading or seeing something that would offend Citizen A if he were required to read or see it.

There are also cases in which the material in question reveals private information about Citizen A or portrays him or her in an unsavory light. In those cases, there are appropriate legal remedies – such as the law of defamation – for those who are harmed by what others read about them. Beyond that, being offended should never be the basis for censoring.

So if we really want any right to delegitimize what the North Korean dictator is ostensibly trying to do to us, we should begin at home: by delegitimizing the efforts of our own citizens to censor material that they find offensive.


Monday, December 22, 2014

Hold a part of jezebel accountable

Gawker Media, particularly its weblogs Gawker, Jezebel, and Kotaku, need to be held accountable for several actions that any decent person would find reprehensible. We find that this company does not deserve any advertising at all, especially not from such big companies as Amazon or Google. We provide a list of their crimes-

There is a list of violations that Gawker Media has committed or allowed under its watch. Jezebel is a part of Gawker Media which is even a better reason to sign that petition. Gawker has committed all kinds of violations that are listed on the website.

Saturday, December 20, 2014

Pro-male women?

Beware The Coming Breed of “Pro-Male” Women
By Ashlar Ben David

As Roosh accurately predicted it would a couple years ago, the manosphere is now mainstream. Excited as I am to see and be a part of this change in the direction of the narrative, I find it also prudent to discuss where these changes will lead and how we can remain vigilant—lest our guards drop and we find ourselves in unpleasant circumstances once more.

Now that feminism is starting to be considered “uncool” by many women, more and more of them will begin to openly speak against it. It does not matter if they were feminists last week; if it hurts their status today, then women will throw even their best friends under the bus without batting an eye. Many will quickly and sharply denounce their old friends, even taking the extra step of becoming openly “pro-male” if it becomes a popular stance that celebrities endorse (which it will).

To many men, this will appear to be progress. In some ways, it really will be. But consider that a “pro male” woman, a real one, is just a person who respects other people. She’s probably also a “pro female” woman, and just pro-humanity in general. As such, truly pro-male women probably never identified as feminists to begin with, having seen through the layers of deception and nonsense early on.

So the pro-male women are already the ones who are treating us well, and will continue to do so regardless of what is popular in the cultural narrative and indoctrinated into the masses through expertly hypnotic media outlets. The newly “pro-male” women we will see are simply going to be doing what women always do: outwardly going along with whatever gets them what they want, while inwardly having wildly different feelings and motives.

Remember, women are like water: their behavior conforms to the shape of whatever container you put them in.
If the media says “being feminist is uncool, being pro-male is the new black,” then women will jump on board. Their old beliefs will be discarded in a flash, since they were never real beliefs to begin with. Nor are her new ones, which is why she can make the switch without one iota of discomfort or cognitive dissonance.

The reason I am giving this warning today is that men will soon be in a uniquely vulnerable position and we will want to stay wary of this. Having been denied the opportunity to build real, loving relationships with real, loving women, we have pragmatically settled on simply sleeping with as many attractive and easy women as we can while committing nothing and compromising even less. As such, I believe that men are in a state of deep and painful yearning for true femininity—with all its supportive and healing qualities—and will be fairly easy to trick with a presentation that appears to be what we’ve been looking for.

We have seen before how prominent manosphere personalities have thrown everything out the window to get married, tarnishing their own legacies and making themselves out to be hypocrites all to lock down that “one special girl who showed them how wrong they were.” Now, I am certainly not denying the possibility that they truly did meet a unicorn, a beautiful and feminine supportive and loving woman who wasn’t just a manipulative, back-stabbing slut in a unicorn uniform.

But what all experienced men know is far more likely, is that they got tricked by a woman with better game than them. I suppose we shall see as time goes on, whether those relationships end early or not. Regardless, I don’t want to see a whole slew of learned men suddenly changing their minds and hearts because the cute girl they’re dating supports “men’s rights” or took a class about it.
Of course, the thing to keep in mind above else is this:

Women don’t really “believe in causes”—most of the time anyway. When you spend enough time around them, and around the kinds of people who “protest for causes” and “do activism,” you will tend to find that all such people—regardless of sex—are all heart and no brain, all passion and no reason, and are generally just protesting because they enjoy the feeling of it.
They think it’s fun to make signs and yell about things. And to be fair, it actually can be pretty fun. But the point is that most women are not nearly as attached to their “causes” as they seem, with the exception of the fervor with which they fight for animal rights.

So do not be fooled that the newly “pro-male” woman “gets it” so to speak, or understands the red pill man’s perspective. She does not. She has not one of the thousands of requisite male experiences she would have to have in order to “understand our side of things.”

At worst, she is saying it because she’s an undercover feminist trying to get some dirt on men. At best, she is saying it because she likes you and wants to impress you.
And as the frog sank, he surely thought “I knew it all along”….


I've been talking about this until I'm blue in the face. That is why I never trusted the "pro-male woman". In fact I was banned by a "pro-male woman" so I'm aware of what they are like. There is also this. Roosh is a player so he knows a lot about women. I like to think that maybe definitions is a bridge to the rest of the manosphere,from MRA's to MGTOW's to PUA's. Proof we can work together.

Saturday, December 6, 2014

Hold UVA misandrist president accountable

Fire University of Virginia president Teresa Sullivan
Jonathan Farley
United States

University of Virginia president Teresa Sullivan vandalized our legal system by immediately assuming the guilt of innocent men after an anonymous accuser without evidence cried, "Rape!" Sullivan suspended activities of all fraternities (not just the one fraternity the accuser mentioned), and no sororities---discrimination solely on the basis of sex. "Rolling Stone," which published the incredible accusation, now apologizes for running the story, saying it no longer trusts the lone accuser. While the Board of Visitors immediately apologized to the anonymous accuser and her parents, now that "Rolling Stone" has backed away from the story, the Board of Visitors' "zero-tolerance" approach to sexual assault must include firing the woman who aided and abetted a false rape accusation as well as physical violence against the fraternity---in recognition of Brian Banks, Johnathan Montgomery, and the research of Eugene Kanin.

Source and to sign petition

Not to mention the works of Dr. Charles P. McDowwell of the United States Air Force. Let's not exclude him. Let's sign this puppy. Don't let some misnadrist feminist get away with it.

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Tell the Democrats why you're pissed off at them

The Democrats are wondering what happened. How could they royally lose? You know the answers and now you can tell them why you didn't vote for them and what they can do to clean up their act. Tell them you are tired of them backing feminists at the expense of men. Does it piss you off like it does me? Then tell them. Let them have it. This is a way to make change happen. On the Men's Rights Blog we don't just read about it we act on it. We let them know that we men are fed up and we're going to let them know that we are fed up.

Standing up to feminists who want to squash men's balls

They’re not called the family jewels because they are ordinary. They’re not referred to as stones because they’re impervious to injury. No, they are both extraordinary and surprisingly fragile. So, sorry notsorry if we give them some breathing room when we sit, if we don’t smash them betwixt our legs on public transit. But as the horizon of “male privilege” is constantly expanding, giving the old wedding tackle ample space is now a crime against humanity.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) announced on Monday that a new campaign addressing courtesy on public transportation will come into effect by January. One of the targeted behaviors is ‘man-spreading’ — the act of spreading one’s legs so far apart that other passengers are forced to squish their own together.

Or, if you prefer a more nuanced description, one of the most infuriating and outright ridiculous display of male privilege and machismo in existence today. As Mic’s Derrick Clifton succinctly put it, ‘Hey, bro, you’re not that well-endowed.’

Maybe. You don’t know.

Granted, I don’t use public transit. I luxuriate in a nicely padded captain’s chair without panhandlers and formidable smells. If I lived in a dense urban area, I would likely take advantage of the added reading time that public transit offers. For now, though, I don’t have that option, so I crank the tunes and spread my legs far and wide. But as a member in good standing of the patriarchy, I have to stand up for my brethren who live in constant fear of oppression.

Even if my locale adds public transit, I’m not going to squash my yambag just to save a few inches. First, it’s science. Are you against science? I didn’t think so. Second, take it up with the transit authorities, who seem blissfully unaware that busses and trolleys are going the way of the dinosaurs. In a free market, there would be plenty of leg-spreading room. Get the feds involved and we unsurprisingly end up cramped and cloistered cluster of inefficiencies and dissatisfaction.

And third, just back off. Yes, I get your gripes about large bags, purses, junk sacks, backpacks, reusable bags (new euphemism opportunity?), and other large carriers of various accoutrements. Here’s the problem with those arguments: those comparisons are invalid unless said accoutrements are physically attached to the person sitting next to you. Granted, were I given the option, I would totally choose to have testicles. I’m on record as loving mine. Regardless, to treat physical comfort, backed by science, as a scourge on society is absolutely, completely, totally, wholly ridiculous. Large bags are neither backed by science nor comfort. Although perhaps useful, especially for urban dwellers who have a ton of shit to haul from here to there, they are not essential to life.

We Must Have Nothing Else to Deal With as a Society

But maybe life isn’t your bag (heh). You just want the trains to run on time. So stop worrying about how much male privilege is spread across the seat next to you, shut up, and enjoy the ride. (Double heh.) Because we’re likely just talking minor differences. Now, it’s true that when you spread minor differences across a large group the effect is multiplicative, but this is America dammit! We were a nation founded on freedom, on the right to pursue happiness, and that pursuit mentions nothing about ignoring our own comfort and smashing our coin purses to free up a modicum of seat space.

For every two comfortable men, each train loses a whole seat. To which I say, suck it!

But I’m not unreasonable, so let’s do some math. Since I’m of average height and weight, we’ll use me. If I measure from outside of one knee to the outside of other while holding my legs in a smashing position, I’m at roughly 12 inches. If I spread out to a more comfortable position, that distance grows by 50 percent and moves up to 18 inches. Hey, I didn’t proclaim the math would be favorable. But it’s immaterial. For every two comfortable men, each train loses a whole seat. To which I say, suck it! Why is a man’s ticket worth less than anyone else’s?

Besides, the real focus of this campaign is not commuter comfort, increased commuter volume, or any other tangible metric. No, the real focus is Social Justice Warriors doing their normal best to be horrible human beings. (Aside: When do we allow them to just secede, even with some one-time financial backing, as it would be cheaper to pay them to be done with them, and move on? Maybe it’s time for a national conversation.)

But let’s be real: The best part of this campaign is its active attempt to squash man-spreading (other acceptable terms include ‘lava balls‘ and ‘subway sprawl’). The behavior is a blight on any public transportation system, and if you don’t think so, you’re probably doing it yourself.

The Tumblr accounts ‘Move the Fuck Over, Bro,’ ‘Men Taking Up Too Much Space on the Train‘ and ‘Saving Room for Cats‘ hilariously illustrate the ridiculousness of man-spreading with photos of dudes showing off their man-spreading behavior like a badge of honor. Opposition to it has picked up steam recently, so it’s reassuring to see that officials are taking notice.

Yes, it is reassuring that officials are taking notice of lava balls, subway sprawl, and saving room for cats. (How is saving room for cats applied to men and not angry spinsters? We’ll sit on that one, comfortably, and discuss at a later date.)

Apparently, Sitting Comfortably Is a Privilege

Man-spreading is a menace that must be stamped with a boot forever. Men must be made to stop sitting as though their biological endowments are a badge of honor. (Maybe they are. You don’t know.) Officials must be brought in to stanch the entire act of being a biological male with the concomitant hardware and needed space and breathing requirements.

Once upon a time, male privilege was relegated to working long hours, never seeing our families, and dying younger. Now we’ve expanded our privilege into areas like sitting comfortably.

Once upon a time, male privilege was relegated to working long hours, never seeing our families, and dying younger. Now we’ve expanded our privilege into areas like sitting comfortably. Good job, men. If we are to accomplish anything, we must continue to push forth, break new ceilings, claim new territory. It’s what we excel at.

So, to those who suffer under those would-be tyrants, those fascist control-freaks who lay all their problems at the comfortably stretched legs of a men simply trying to get from point A to point B, might I direct your attention to Frank T.J. Mackie. Yes, he is an extreme caricature, one meant to mock your enemies. But as you have done your best to become real-life versions of the caricatures against which Mackie was battling, he’s really the only option as reality passed you by a few trains ago.


How bad is this? It's very bad. I'm glad this was brought up. Why just look at the selfish gender that has no consideration for anyone else.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Tell Taylor Swift to ease up on the misandry

From SAVE Services:

Taylor Swift is not just a celebrity, but one who actively takes on the responsibility of role model for young adults.

Which is why it's shocking that in her latest music video, she's shown handling a breakup by punching her boyfriend and destroying his property. See the 'Blank Space' video. While teenagers are going to have breakups, we don't want them thinking that this is anything close to acceptable behavior.

Taylor Swift shouldn't abuse her spotlight by showcasing abuse. Her video is a sharp departure from her usual positive messages, which actually why, out of all celebrities, it is the most damaging to our efforts to see someone like Swift condone it. Domestic violence is real, and in some respects worse for males when they often have difficulty being taken seriously by the criminal justice system.

Please join us with calling on Taylor Swift to remove the "Blank Space" music video and donate the profits made to an organization that stops domestic violence for all victims.

Tell Big Machine Records, Swift's record company, to pull the video:

Additionally, please take a second to sign our petition, which is already at over 300 signatures.

Don't let Taylor Swift shake off her endorsement of domestic violence.

Truly yours,

Gina Lauterio, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments

PS. Please help us grow our efforts. And share this e-lert with a friend.

A good example of a letter to send is on the Change website. It is well written and if can't come up with something on your own it is a good letter to use instead.

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

The American caste system

We live in a society that treats men who may have committed simple things such as fondling a woman's bottom or bosom the same as murder. Or perhaps we put this into a category worse than murder because we accept male-on-male violence in our films and society. We certainly put up with female-on-male violence. This blog will confirm that. We live in a society that puts fondling a woman in a more grave category, lower down on the wrung, lower in status than a man who savagely, sadistically slashes another man to death. I've read about how men who are falsely accused of sex crimes tell about how they had to be segregated from the general public for their own safety. That because it is a sexually based offense they were in danger of losing life and limb, jailhouse vigilante style. While this method is understandable in dealing with guilty as sin child molesters it is a little extreme in dealing with "he said/she said" cases. If someone who is falsely accused is in general population and an individual or group that has a problem with falsely accused person can use this to their advantage, which could lead to extortion. However this same individual were accused of car theft, shoplifting, commercial burglary, drug dealing, murder and arson no one would care. You can tell these same individuals that as a car thief he is taking from a family their only means of transportation and that is not okay. Tell them as a shoplifter he is taking food out of the mouths of the owners and employees a mom and pop store. Tell them that his commercial burglaries are making companies pay higher insurance premiums. See if anyone cares. But if it is something sexual then it's clank clank goes the shining armor. The American puritanical society.

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

Lena Dunham persecutes conservative group over book that Dunham wrote

From Truth Revolt:

Liberal Hollywood actress and darling of Planned Parenthood, Lena Dunham, is gunning for the Freedom Center and Truth Revolt --- and now I urgently need your help to build up our legal defense fund.

You might have read about it on the Drudge Report or seen it in The Hollywood Reporter, The Daily Mail, the Los Angeles Times, or People Magazine or any other mainstream media outlet...

Leftwing Hollywood feminist Lena Dunham is threatening to sue Truth Revolt and the David Horowitz Freedom Center, because we wrote an article in which we quoted her book, Not That Kind of Girl!

Who is Lena Dunham, you may wonder? She is the New Hot Thing-a leftist actress who is the darling of the liberal media; who has been one of Obama's most rabid backers; who has been in America's face as a supporter of what she calls "reproductive rights" and "female sexuality"; and who teams up with groups such as Emily's List and Planned Parenthood to try to tilt the playing field in favor of leftwing causes.

She's also a best selling author whose new book causes the flesh to crawl because, among other things, of the way it describes her relationship with her younger sister. This part of Not That Kind of Girl caught our eye, which is why we described it, using Dunham's own words, in Truth Revolt.

Without going into detail, I'll just say that it's very disturbing, especially coming from someone who has presented herself as so very progressive and such a critic of sexual abuse --- and in particular, a spokesperson against the right's fictitious War on Women.

Whether you want to call what Dunham wrote an admission of sexual abuse or just a very progressive view of sibling relations is up to you. What is not up for debate is that she wrote some bizarre and graphic passages that Truth Revolt quoted -- and the next thing we knew, we had a letter from her attorney, threatening suit for defamation.

In his "cease-and-desist" letter, Dunham's lawyer stated "Our client intends to vigorously pursue all possible legal remedies available to her . . . Remedies available to my client include, without limitation, actual damages to her personal and professional reputation which likely would be calculated in the millions of dollars [plus] punitive damages." The letter demanded that the story be immediately removed.

The letter also stated: "Demand is further made that you immediately print a prominent public apology and retraction at all media whereat you published the Story, stating that the Story is false, that you regret having published it, and that you apologize to Ms. Dunham and her family for having published it."

We refused to comply with these demands. In response to the attorney's threat, we stated: "We refuse. We refuse to withdraw our story or apologize for running it, because quoting a woman's book does not constitute a "false" story, even if she is a prominent actress and leftwing activist. Lena Dunham may not like our interpretation of her book, but unfortunately for her and her attorneys, she wrote that book - and the First Amendment covers a good deal of material she may not like."

Our lawyer advises us that we have a strong legal defense, based on the First Amendment, and we fully expect to prevail. But the costs of defending a case are high, and now we could be facing $250,000 in legal defense costs-a negligible sum for someone like Dunham, but a serious expense for us.

So can we count on your emergency, tax-deductible donation of $25, $50, $100 or more to start building or legal defense fund right now?

Lena Dunham is a very public figure that stars and directs the HBO show "Girls." She has made a career out of shocking her audiences and exploiting her celebrity to push hard-left causes. Her book is certainly fair game, as are questions about her sickening conduct with regard to her sister. That is what the First Amendment is for and what it protects.

Truth Revolt criticized Dunham. Dunham fired back on Twitter, and her sycophants in the media covered for her. But she didn't stop there. She decided, as leftists often do, that to silence critics is more appealing than simply utilizing her own freedom of speech under the First Amendment. People like Dunham want to be as "provocative" and "edgy" as they choose. But when anyone calls them on their conduct they want to unplug the microphone.

So, she ordered her attorney to issue this letter threatening suit. If she does sue, the Freedom Center and Truth Revolt are prepared to go to the wall in defense of free speech. Lawsuits can be incredibly expensive, especially when the other side is a major entertainer with millions in the bank and fellow Hollywood leftists urging her to silence a fearless conservative publication like Truth Revolt. But we will do what needs to be done to protect the First Amendment.

And we need you to help us.

We have to raise $250,000 immediately to fund our legal defense fund. We have to be able to tell Dunham and all the other leftists who try to shut Truth Revolt down to bring it on. We're not backing down, we stand by the truth, and we'll see them in court.

That's why we're asking you to stand with us today as we begin building our legal defense fund by making an emergency donation of $25, $50, $100 or more.

Thank you for standing with the Freedom Center, Truth Revolt and the freedom of speech.

Monday, November 3, 2014

Some things to consider when you go to vote

Today on Fox News castratix herself,Joni Ernst,became upset when Democrat Senator Tom Harkins made a remark about her appearance. This is the same cunt who made the video about castrating pigs and making a big joke about it but if someone says anything about her she falls apart. If this coward doesn't have the uterus to run Iowa than she has no business in the Senate. If this wimpish ovary less excuse for a woman falls apart then she is just wasting our time.

The Democrats have their backs to wall on Obamacare and they are especially vulnerable so now is the time to back the GOP or any party other than the Democrats. The Democrats are staunchly anti-male so voting GOP would be better. Better yet write the Republican candidates in your race and ask them if they support pro-male positions. The GOP may be negotiable especially with the civil libertarian crowd. The Democrats are a dead end on men's issues so don't even bother.

Saturday, November 1, 2014

Flip it

You know how women are pushing their way into the sports area and other areas that are of interest to men. Bringing the pink ribbon bullshit to the NFL,making the players wear pink. Let's flip the script: let's push our way into the soap opera area,the fashion arena and other areas that women like and push our agenda upon them. Let's make soap opera actresses wear blue to raise awareness of prostate cancer,penile cancer and testicular cancer. Only a homicidal misandrist could oppose this one.

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

I've been banned from from a voice for men

That is right. I've been banned from a A Voice For Men by a female moderator. No warning no nothing just a ban straight out. This proves my point. Women have no business in the Men's Rights Movement. I call upon all real MRA's to boycott A Voice For Men. Here is what I mean: "We need to make some noise."
Are you fucking serious? Where have you been this past week? Glad we finally banned your clueless ass. DriverSuz,3:39 a.m., Tuesday Oct. 28

No warning. No nothing. Just a straight out ban by a female,it felt like I was banned by a feminist. That is the way they operate or is that the way all women operate? Pretend to be your friend gain power and boom seize control. If anyone disagrees with the staff at avfm they are banned. That's okay,it just validates what I've said about women in the movement and why it's not a good idea. Useless? I was pioneering this movement back when you were taking your cues from your sistern sugartits. I shouldn't be worried. All the real men left avfm a long time ago. The only thing left are women and fags. Neither of which have a sense of humor that is why when they make an attempt at satire they fail miserably. You can tell when I'm being sarcastic and if there it isn't blatant I make other attempts to let the reader know it is sarcasm. Which is something avfm fails to do and if the reader misunderstands what they are saying and questions them on it the reader is attacked. I supported what avfm used to be. I wrote emails to CBS concerning Sharon Osbourne's misandry. I wrote to protest the Dear Colleague directive at the U.S. federal level and SB967 in the State Of California. I joined with them in other campaigns. That is back when they were a real MRA site. Now they are a shell of their former selves.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Australian men's rights group discriminated against

University of Sydney men’s society first group to be blocked in over ten years

October 12, 2014 By Robert O'Hara —66 Comments

Late last month the University of Sydney Student Union blocked the establishment of a new student group named The Brotherhood, Recreation and Outreach Society (BROSoc), whose focus was to provide a safe space for men on campus and address mental health issues specific to men. Subsequently, the Clubs and Societies (C&S) program, an administrative agency at the university, approved BROSoc’s formation and granted them probationary status as a society. However, at its monthly meeting, the Student Union Board voted against allowing BROSoc to formally join the C&S program, with many directors voicing concerns regarding its “narrow focus on traditional masculinity.”

It was the first time in over 10 years that the Student Union Board had blocked the establishment of a new student group.

The BROSoc had intended to set up a Men’s Shed on campus, linking it to the popular not-for-profit mental health program Men’s Sheds for men and boys that has been broadly successful since it was founded in 2007.

Queer Portfolio holder and USU Board Director Liam Carrigan argued that allowing the formation of BROSoc could cause “significant damage” to the queer community, especially among trans and genderqueer members.

This should prove that gays are not the friends of MRA's. Gays are in the feminist camp.

Kate Bullen, Women’s Portfolio holder and Board Director, took a similar line, stating that BROSoc was “clearly not about breaking down gender roles” and would be potentially exclusionary toward women.

Board Director Liv Ronan expressed discomfort at potentially voting down BROSoc’s application, saying that the founders seemed “well-intentioned” and that she felt it was inappropriate to predict that they would automatically create an exclusive and unfriendly space.

Board Director Kate Denton, the only dissenting member, argued that the board was wrongly characterizing BROSoc as a “men’s rights club” rather than seeing it as an opportunity to meaningfully engage men on campus and help them with mental health problems.

The board instead passed a supplementary motion empowering Honorary Secretary Eve Radunz to consult with BROSoc’s founders in view of them redrafting their constitution and refining their aims to be explicitly non-exclusionary.

There is no reported indication as to what the board meant by “non-exclusionary.”


Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Vote Neel Kashkari for Governor of California

Neel Kashkari

Meet Neel Kashkari. He is the Republican candidate for Governor Of California. I don't know who he is but I know he isn't Jerry Brown. The same Jerry Brown that royally fucked us by signing SB 967 into law. Brown signed this bill to screw over college and university men over tremendous protests and now the state is going to be compensating these men royally when they win their lawsuits. The punch line is that these same men will use that money to continue their education-in another state. So if you are registered to vote in California vote Neel Kashkari for Governor and get rid of feminists such as Jerry Brown.


Mattress girl is there to relieve your tension. Have mattress will travel. Not only that she gives great anal.

Saturday, September 27, 2014

Welcome to the matriarchial world order

Welcome to the matriarchial world order. There are major differences between the traditional society and the matriarchial world order. Well, for women anyway. In the traditional society men and women sacrificed for the children. Today in the matriarchial world order the men and children sacrifice for the women. Welcome to the queendome,guys. Who is the queen? Good question only too singular. A better question would be who are the queens? Who are they? Every woman out there. In the matriarchial world order males, even boys, are held more accountable than females, even grown women, of any age. In the matriarchial world order only males are guilty of sex crimes while women are just fostering relationships,even with children and females are spared the horrors of the sex offender registry no matter what sex crimes they have committed meanwhile men are placed on it no matter what. Even if they irrinating in public,in a alley out of view of the public at large or if their pants split and they are detained while enroute to their residence to change. Meanwhile a woman can sexually diddle herself in front of pre-schoolers and society is "sex crime? what sex crime?" Then there are the female only legal defense moves that men are forbidden to use. Female favoring affirmative actions laws along with female favoring agencies or agencies that exclude men altogether. To sum it up in this society it is female favoring everything: from law to the courts to society at large. Back in the 70's there was a slogan:"You've come a long way,girl". Today that slogan would be updated:"You've gone too far,girl".

Friday, September 26, 2014

Join with SAVE Services and tell the California Governor to veto SB 967

From SAVE Services:

SB-967 would require California students to give on-going "affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement" in order to have sex.

The bill sponsors admit they don't have a clue what this really means. But if Gov. Brown signs this bill, young adults might need to consult with legal advisors and notarize consent forms before engaging in sex.

Yes, this bill is absurd beyond belief. And it would lull potential victims into a false sense of security.

Contact Governor Brown today to tell him to VETO this flawed bill. Students deserve better than being forced to figure out a vague standard to avoid being convicted as rapists:

Call: (916) 445-2841

Email: click here

Let's define sexual assault meaningfully to protect its very real victims.

Thank you!

Gina Lauterio, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments

They don't know what it means? What is this bullshit they don't know what it means. They grandstanded for this bitch and they don't know what it means. Bullshit,they voted for this bill they own this bill. Tell the Governor to veto this turkey.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Feminist go after man and get royally fucked

Feminists go after man and try to get him fired with help from a feminist who is one of his co-workers. They tell his female boss they are going after him. We've seen cases like this before where the man loses his job while feminist score another victory at the expense of men. Well it is my pleasure to tell you that did not occur. In fact the man won this one. Look at the video.

Friday, September 12, 2014

It couldn't happen here. Could it?

Can it happen here? Yes,it could. Feminism is proof of that. Feminism has gotten its issues out to the sympathetic politicians and populace. The nazis couldn't accomplish it neither could their Japanese coconspriators: to fly their respective flags at the White House. The Germans said they would fly the swastika. The Japanese the rising sun and during the Cold War the Russians with the hammer and sickle. These threats were empty rhetoric. Now the terrorist group,ISIS or ISIL,are making the same threat. Will they succeed? Who knows. There is only one of these hate movements that has be not only been accepted into American society but it is actually embraced by a large part of the population and that movement is feminism. The most honest face of feminism,"gender feminism",wasn't unleashed upon American society until 1993 with the election of Bill Clinton as president. With the Bill Clinton presidency came great risks for Men's Rights Activists. Masculist publications were being monitored by the FBI. Because the Bill Clinton presidency was sympathetic to the feminist cause they were going to use the power of the government against us. Today we seen Obama wearing a t-shirt that says "this is what a feminist looks like" and old mean man-hater Joe Biden as the veep. I would say that feminism has indeed infiltrated American society the same way rot infiltrates wood.

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Lobby the Governor to veto SB 967

Let's join with the National Coalition For Men in urging California Governor Jerry Brown to to veto SB 967. This is the Hail Mary for us on this one. If we fail a lot of men on university and college campuses are in for a royal screw job. If that happens it will be lawsuits galore and let's see if SB 967's supporters are going to grandstand on that one.

Sean Hannity has a shit fit over the Rice scandal

I'm sure by now you've heard about Ray Rice and his situation. Sean Hannity and every other white knight on FOX News were crucifying Rice about how he handled the situation. Nevermind her involvement in the altercation. Nevermind the fact that she spat in his face. Nevermind all that. No,we can't let take that into consideration because Hannity and and his fellow eunuch buddies won't let us. We all have to be the castrati they are by bowwing down in agreement or just bending over in agreement. Both options are unacceptable so we refuse. We don't know what led up to the altercation but that doesn't stop douches like Hannity from running their mouths off. Surpriseingly the only one to to at least show some compassion for Ray Rice and that was Tamara Holder. That surprised the fuck out of me I was expecting the opposite point of view from Holder. She was countered by some right wing feminazi nutjob who threw out one of the many debunked domestic violence studies so I knew she was full of it. One of the ex-NFL players,Fran Tarketon,stated that more women die from domestic violence than any other cause. I call bullshit Tarketon and I call you out to cite your source for the information you spouted off on FOX tonight. To everyone who just pushed away Ray Rice's work in preventing suicides to other charitable causes. Nevermind the good things he did. Nevermind the suicide prevention he did. Nevermind that most of the suicides are committed by men. Nevermind the men. That is the narrative is it not? But what's few dead men worth in the grand scheme of ratings. Fair and Balanced? As much as a "people's republic" actually belongs to the people. All in all a lot of dead men with Hannity as the judge,jury and executioner.

Sunday, August 31, 2014

For male gamers

If you're a gamer you'll find this interesting.

It figures men would be disadvantaged in Beaver County-female on male domestic violence

She Was Caught on Camera Beating Him with a Metal Pole, but He’s the One in Jail after Cops ‘Refused to Look at the Video’
Aug. 30, 2014 11:31am Zach Noble

Hell hath no fury like a woman spurned.

Justin Lindsey has been jailed in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, for the past week, KDKA-TV reported, facing charges of harassment and assault.

But according to Lindsey’s family, he’s the one who got assaulted — and they’ve got video to back up their claims.

The incident occurred last week when Lindsey’s ex-girlfriend — and mother of his child — Rhameicka Clark showed up at his house and found Lindsey on the porch with their daughter and another woman, KDKA reported.

Clark told the news station that Lindsey had previously agreed not to bring other women around their daughter.

Lindsey recorded video of their encounter on his cell phone, capturing Clark’s rage…

After the beating, Clark reported the incident to authorities, but according to Lindsey’s mother, she made it seem like Lindsey had been the aggressor, leading a Pennsylvania magistrate to call for Lindsey’s arrest.

Worse, Aliquippa police apparently refused to look at the video evidence that showed Clark attacking Lindsey.

“Me and his dad went with him to turn himself in to the police,” Lindsey’s mother said. “They refused to look at the video, refused to hear his side.”

She added that her son is in danger of losing his job over the incident.

The Aliquippa police department did not immediately respond to a request for comment from TheBlaze.


Time to say goodbye to a voice for men

ShlomoShunn • 4 days ago
Howzabout WOMEN learning to be more respectful of men...and not be so slutty, manipulative, passive, blame-mongering, childish, irresponsible, etc....hmmmm?

Frodo Mod ShlomoShunn • 4 days ago
Comment is bordering on misogyny sir.
Do not do it again.
I suggest you read the new TOS


One would think this was posted on the NOW website or any other feminist website. It is not. The source is the A Voice For Men website. What has happened to this site? For one thing they let women and fags become moderators thus putting them in control of what real men can post. It has been demonstrated over and over again that women in the men's movement is a bad idea,even worse to put wannabe women in charge. If you are an MRA (by that I mean male MRA dedicated activist) then desert A Voice For Men and and instead work with us at the Men's Right's Blog. Here there are no female nor gay moderators and they're never going to female or gay moderators here. This is a dedicated men's rights site. No fags nor female cowshit here. Join us.

Saturday, August 30, 2014

Men shun women

Fallout from campus sexual assault hysteria: College men now suspicious of women
BY ASHE SCHOW | AUGUST 22, 2014 | 11:58 AM

Thanks to an increased focus on sexual assaults on college campuses, young college men are...

Thanks to an increased focus on sexual assaults on college campuses – mostly due to an overblown statistic claiming 20 percent of college women have been sexually assaulted – young college men are starting to rethink how they talk to women.

At first glance that might seem like a good thing – men learning to be more respectful of women and not be so rapey – but that’s not what this is.

This is about men actually avoiding contact with women because they’re afraid a simple kiss or date could lead to a sexual assault accusation.

Bloomberg reporters John Lauerman and Jennifer Surane interviewed multiple men from colleges like Harvard and Stanford who expressed concern over what was once known as a "hook-up culture" but is now labeled by feminists as "rape culture." The change in terminology ensures that all responsibility is placed on men, just because of their gender.

Take Malik Gill of Harvard University, who said he wouldn’t even give a female classmate a beer.

“I don’t want to look like a predator,” Gill told Bloomberg. “It’s a little bit of a blurred line.”

Gone are the days of buying a woman a drink – even if it’s just to be nice.

Gill also told Lauerman and Surane that after he passed on the contact information of a woman who said she was interested in his fraternity brother, his friend was hesitant to call her.

“Even though she was interested, he didn’t want to pressure her,” Gill said. “He was worried about making her feel uncomfortable.”

William Pollack, a Harvard Medical School psychologist, told the Bloomberg reporters about a patient who was kissing a girl during a party and began thinking about what would happen if things went further.

“‘I want to go to law school or medical school after this,’” the student said, according to Pollack. “‘I said to her, it’s been nice seeing you.’”

Pollack also noted that the media attention to campus sexual assault has led to a “witch-hunt” mentality.

“Most males would never do anything to harm a young woman,” Pollack told the Bloomberg reporters. But the current focus is “starting to scare the heck out of the wrong people.”

Like Clark Coey, who will be a freshman at East Carolina University in North Carolina this year. He’s worried that the definition of consent might not be clear exactly what it means.

“I haven’t learned anything about consent since I was a freshman in a health class,” Coey told Bloomberg. “They have to give you a better understanding of what’s right and what’s wrong.”

Oscar Sandoval of Stanford University said a female friend asked if he wanted to hang out. His friend was drunk when she arrived, Sandoval told Bloomberg. She flirted, but he just walked her to her dorm.

“Among the people I hang out with, there’s more hesitancy to hook up with someone when there’s alcohol involved,” Sandoval said. “Something that you might have thought would be okay when you were drunk might not be okay later on.”

Joshua Handler of New York University’s comments brought up another interesting consequence of so much media attention: Having to talk to women in a very specific manner.

Handler told the Bloomberg reporters that he is now very clear about what he wants when he talks to women.

Because now, apparently, women can’t interpret conversations and need to be spoken to like children (my words, not his).

I would also remind readers of Kevin Parisi, who was accused of – but found not responsible for – raping a fellow student at Drew University. He certainly has reason to be wary of women, and he told the Washington Examiner that he’s afraid that what happened to him at Drew could happen at other schools.

“I don’t see any way that this — I don’t see how these — the laws at hand don’t protect me from this happening again,” he said.

We’re facing a cultural shift where soon men might be afraid to talk to women at all for fear of being labeled rapists. Without presumed innocence on college campuses, the only way this will be fixed is after universities have to start paying out millions of dollars to students after being sued for denying them due process.

And with the current landscape – that might not be too far in the future.


These days you're better off shunning sex and women and just hang around your buds. You can go drinking and playing pool with your buds without running into a bullshit rape accusation. Women clamoured for this law and now it's here. They made the bed they can lie in it all by themselves.

Female pedophile in Britain gets two years,judge wishes he could give her less

Loren Morris

Female paedophile, 21, is jailed for two years after she had sex with an eight-year-old boy 50 times, starting when she was 16

Loren Morris, 21, started sleeping with the boy five years ago
She continued doing it for two years, until the boy was ten
She was convicted of sexual intercourse with a child last month
Today she was given the two-year sentence at Worcester Crown Court
PUBLISHED: 12:56 EST, 18 March 2014 | UPDATED: 12:28 EST, 21 March 2014

Paedophile: Loren Morris, 21, was sentenced to prison after a court found that she had slept with a child 50 times

A female paedophile has been jailed for having sex with an eight-year-old boy more than fifty times.

Loren Morris, 21, was 16 when she first slept with the schoolboy, who cannot be identified, and continued until he was ten years old.
Morris, who has a child of her own, would have regular intercourse with the boy, now 14, and was only found out after he was overheard bragging about it at school.

A judge today gave Morris a two-year prison sentence at Worcester Crown Court, following a trial last month where she was convicted of three counts of sexual intercourse with a child under 16.

She could be seen smiling and smoking outside the court today as she awaited her sentence.

The judge in the case told Morris that he would be lenient with the sentence - which will see her released from jail after one year - because she 'realised it was wrong' and stopped having sex with the boy.

West Mercia police said they started investigating Morris in March last year after the boy's school told them that he had been heard bragging about having sex with her.

Judge Robert Juckes QC said: 'I make no secret of the fact your case has given me cause for much consideration.

'I have come to the conclusion that due to the concern and embarrassment caused to both you and your family that you will not be offending again, let alone committing sexual offences.

'I am also aware of the effect this will have on your baby. I am pleased to hear your parents have started to build bridges with you.

'That does not stop the fact though that you had full sexual intercourse with a child when he was eight to 10 years old - by his evidence it was upwards of fifty times.

'It seems to me that I am bound to pass an immediate custodial sentence. I take into account what has been said to me and the fact that you stopped the activity yourself.

'You realised it was wrong rather than being caught and forced to stop. Therefore my sentence is one of two years. You will serve 12 months in prison before being released on licence.'

Repeated: The court heard that Morris slept with the boy, who cannot be named, more than 50 times

'Wrong': The judge explained that he had been lenient because Morris stopped of her own will

Repeated: The court heard that Morris slept with the boy, who cannot be named, more than 50 times
Defence lawyer Antonie Mullers had told the court Morris was struggling to accept the facts of the case, and asked Judge Juckes to spare her a prison sentence altogether.

He said: 'Her immaturity at 21 means she cannot accept the facts yet. She accepts her conviction but with time will accept more.
'Her parents have stepped in and are building bridges, I understand she has met with some of her family.

'This could be stifled by a custodial sentence so I urge your honour or try and suspend it if possible.'

Morris, from Hereford, will serve two years each for the three counts to be served concurrently.

Her sentence included a Sexual Offences Prevention Order, banning her from contact with a child under 16 without permission of a parent. She was also ordered to sign the Sexual Offenders Register, where her details will remain for ten years.


This judge is such an emasculated pussywhipped white knight basically pleading with her to forget the whole thing.It is disgusting what she did to this boy deserves more than a two year sentence. From what I've read that boy will spend more than two years in therapy for what he went through. Thanks to chivalrous judges like these I can see why men get no justice in Britain.

SB 967 clears Legislature on way to the Governor

(Reuters) - Californian lawmakers passed a law on Thursday requiring universities to adopt "affirmative consent" language in their definitions of consensual sex, part of a nationwide drive to curb sexual assault on U.S. campuses.

The measure, passed unanimously by the California State Senate, has been called the "yes-means-yes" bill. It defines sexual consent between people as "an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity".

The bill states that silence and a lack of resistance do not signify consent and that drugs or alcohol do not excuse unwanted sexual activity.

Governor Jerry Brown must sign the bill into law by the end of September. If he does, it would mark the first time a U.S. state requires such language to be a central tenet of school sexual assault policies, said Claire Conlon, a spokeswoman for State Senator Kevin De Leon, who championed the legislation.

Opponents of the bill say it is politically over-reaching and could push universities into little charted legal waters.

The bill comes amid mounting pressure nationwide by lawmakers, activists and students on universities and colleges to curb sexual assaults on campuses and to reform investigations after allegations are made.

The White House has declared sex crimes to be "epidemic" on U.S. college campuses, with one in five students falling victim to sex assault during their college years.

Universities in California and beyond have already taken steps, including seeking to delineate whether consent has been given beyond 'no means no'.

Harvard University said last month it had created an office to investigate all claims of sexual harassment or sex assault, and that it would lower its evidentiary standard of proof in weighing the cases.

Under California's bill, state-funded colleges and universities must adopt strict policies regarding sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking, among other actions in order to receive financial aid money.

No college or university voiced opposition to the bill, Conlon said.

The U.S. Department of Education in May released a list of 55 colleges -- including three in California -- under investigation to determine whether their handling of sex assaults and harassment violated federal laws put in place to ensure equal treatment in higher education.

The Californian institutions on the list are University of California, Berkeley, Occidental College and the University of Southern California.


This bitch cleared the Legislature. That sucks. The only thing to do now is to contact Governor Jerry Brown and urge him to veto SB 967. It is our only shot or a lot of young men are going to get fucked in a way they don't like. If we fail watch the carnage roll.

Saturday, August 9, 2014

Woman uses man to sexually assault another woman

A woman who used sex chatrooms to try to arrange the ‘stranger rape’ of a former work colleague has been jailed for six years.

Joanne Berry, 30, posed as the woman online and invited a man to come to her house and attack her, but the plan failed.
Berry had recently lost her temporary job after displaying "increasingly erratic behaviour" at work, and a judge said she may have held the victim responsible.

Aggrieved, the university-educated mother of one resolved to exact some form of "revenge or retribution".
She began contacting a man online over a period of time, pretending that she enjoyed “rape scenarios” and engaging in role play.

Eventually she gave him her ex-colleagues address, telling him it was her own, and persuaded him to knock on the door and rape her.

The unwitting man tried to barge his way in to the woman's home to act out the rape, but aborted the plan after realising he had been set up.

Berry, of Grove Park, south-east London, was convicted in May of putting a person in fear of violence in 2012.
At Maidstone Crown Court, Judge David Griffith-Jones QC said Berry had developed an "irrational vendetta" against the victim who had only shown kindness towards her.

She was convicted of committing an assault with the intention of committing a sexual offence, common assault and attempting to cause a person to engage in sexual activity without consent.

Judge Griffith-Jones said the combination of direct and circumstantial evidence against Berry at her trial was "compelling and the jury was not fooled", and described her behaviour as "wicked and calculating".

He went on: "That (the victim) was not in fact raped or seriously sexually assaulted is entirely fortuitous.
"That is plainly what you intended. As it is, however, the trauma inflicted upon her was, as can only be imagined, very substantial indeed."

Part of a victim impact statement was read out at court in which the victim described how the ordeal had left her suffering panic attacks.

She now refuses to sit out in the garden on her own because she fears men may force their way in, and she panics when someone knocks on her door.

The judge said the man involved should also not be forgotten as he was "duped" into acting in a way which could have had repercussions for him.

In mitigation, defence counsel James Manning said Berry - who has one previous conviction for shoplifting in 2004 - was of good character up until now.

She had also not committed any offences while on bail and she was a woman educated to degree level who had a child.
Mr Manning told the court: "This is an offence which is highly out of character for the defendant."

Berry remained impassive as she was jailed, and told she must sign the sex offenders register indefinitely and may be barred from working with children.


Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Tell Senator Rubio to take falsely accused college men's rights seriously

From SAVE Services:

The Campus Accountability and Safety Act (CASA) was introduced last week by Sen. Claire McCaskill. See SAVE's Summary and Analysis.

CASA calls on colleges to "advise the victim of both the victim's rights and the institution's responsibilities regarding orders of protection, no contact orders, restraining orders, or similar lawful orders issued by the institution or a criminal, civil, or tribal court."

Ashe Schow of the Washington Examiner asked the bill's sponsors:

Will there be "support services" for the accused?
Will there be someone on campus providing them with information on what they can do to provide for their own defense?
Will they be informed of their rights, and will those rights be under the law (due process) or under campus rules?
Alex Conant, spokesman for co-sponsor Sen. Marco Rubio replied: "This bill does not address this issue."

Please contact Sen. Rubio and tell him that CASA
needs to address this issue:


Email Senator Rubio

Thank you,


Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
SAVE Services

Friday, August 1, 2014

Norwegian man fined for being raped

Last week hitting left-wing daily newspaper, class struggle, known cucumber novelty humor column "On the carpet" that downplayed sexual assaults against men. The gap mentioned a case of Asker and Bærum District Court last year where a man should have refused to accept a fine for having sex in public. He claimed that he slept while two women performing oral sex on him. The court did not believe the man's explanation and imposed him a fine of 8500 dollars. It did not

Anne Bitsch

Class warfare as under the heading "cucumber debut" wrote: "Rod out, as they say in these times World Cup."
Rape by law

I contacted the man's attorney, Knut Gunnar Brindem, which states that the court disregarded the evidence of four witnesses, each of which in particular confirmed that the man was asleep when the women performed oral sex on him. Police said that the first was not possible to contact him when they arrived. For a while they were worried and checked the pulse. He then fell asleep several times while police attempted to talk to him. One of the women told that the man had fallen asleep and that they would mess with him by putting grass in his pants. In addition, both women admitted that they had sucked him.

Penal Code § 192b is clear: Anyone who obtains sexual intercourse with someone who is asleep or unconscious shall be held guilty of rape and shall be punished by imprisonment up to 10 years. Brindem said that his client knew the two women and therefore not required to report them for abuse. Understandably enough. From research we know that many victims of abuse do not wish to report people they know.

Is portrayed as ridiculous
I do not know the investigation in detail, so I'll be careful not to put labels like rape in a case where events are to some extent unclear. One can argue that what is legally rape subjectively be experienced differently by the victim.

Whether that unfolded that summer Asker actually was rape, I therefore leave behind, but I react to the prosecutor Iselinn Håvarstein and the court considers it very unlikely that men may be subjected to sexual misconduct by women, and that the case is portrayed as ridiculous in the class struggle. Four concurring testimony of the convicted person helpless condition of sores in my view one doubts that should be accused for good.

Some of the men told how society's cultural expectations of a dominant male sexuality affected women who assaulted them.

Social anthropologist Rannveig Svendby has researched sexual assault against men. few of the men told how society's cultural expectations of a dominant male sexuality affected women who assaulted them. The women believed that men should be thankful for sex. On Twitter wrote a man as well: "We men do obviously not our own good in such matters ;-)"

Rape Myths can stand
The fact that the Court chooses to fine someone who has been involuntarily oral sex while his slept, reflects one of several rape myths that still holds the Norwegian society. Rape Myths are cultural stories that distort the facts or is not in line with perceived abuse victims. One such myth is such that men are always ready for sex and sexually invulnerable.

Another rape myth is that women have a more innocent and pure sexuality than men, and can not harm others sexually. Rape has a clear gender orientation - it is mostly men who rape and mostly women exposed - but the numbers of male victimization is relatively high. A survey of graduates of secondary schools shows that 15 percent of girls and seven percent of boys have experienced for serious sexual offenses. Girls gave almost exclusively male athletes, while about half of the boys reported a female athlete.

Kjønnsdiskriminert treatment
It catches my interest that the incident was interpreted as a breach of public peace and order. It is obvious that a similar sequence of events would be interpreted differently if a woman had been subjected to the same. With increased knowledge about vulnerability and respective victimology, we are increasingly able to consider it as a possibility that women can not consent to sex if they are dead drunk or drugged.

We have not come as far in protecting boys and men as legal entities entitled to sexual integrity.

We have not come as far in protecting boys and men as legal entities entitled to sexual integrity. Search suggests that only delivered three judgments rape with female offenders.

Need more knowledge
I believe this shows the need for the government appoint an external independent commission that replicates Public Prosecutions work of reviewing the quality of the police and prosecution work with sex crimes. This was last done in 2007, but I got by contacting the Public Prosecutor's Office in 2011 stated that the base data for the report is incomplete because of data errors in the police criminal record. When I was again in contact with the attorney general's office last year, they stated that it was not planned a new review. Director of Public Prosecutions has not gone public and corrected the earlier report's figures and conclusions.

We need more and better knowledge about how the police and the courts interpret and categorize cases involving men and vulnerable, disadvantaged people.

We need more and better knowledge about how the police and the courts interpret and categorize cases involving men and vulnerable, disadvantaged people. The factual basis for doing justice policies on rape field is simply not good enough and we can thus not verified whether the legal system actually protects those who are entitled to protection. The situation is untenable.

As before Enlightenment
Maybe we risk a straight condition like the one we had in Norway before the Enlightenment. In the chapter on "promiscuity" in Christian Vs Act (1687) states that women who claim that men have had extramarital sex with them (which at the time included rape) without being able to prove it "aabenbarer their own shame, and Giora himself the whore "and must prove it yourself or" pay three marks as the liar she is. " This is suspiciously similar to the conservative gender understanding as a basis Asker judgment, albeit with male sign.

Being heterosexual man does not mean that they want to have sex with women forever.

But as Rannveig Svendby writes in his thesis: Being heterosexual man does not mean that they want to have sex with women forever. It just means that they want to have sex with women. Just like women, they prefer people to decide with whom, where and when it will happen.

Also, women rape

Rape myths that men are always ready for sex and that women are more chaste, is harmful. The consequence may be that abuse of both sexes disappear under the radar. The myth of the chaste woman leads to countless female victims will not be believed, because they are known to have had multiple partners or have flirted ahead. Rape myth that men should be in the driver's seat Sexually results for its part both in that some men do not fully recognized as legal entities, but also that they compete among themselves for closing down as many women. This can unfortunately lead to abuse if they do not take into account whether the other wants.

Until society recognizes that everyone loses conservative gender role perceptions, these principles of law worse off.

Norway has a gender-neutral rape law and the principle of equality before the law. Until society recognizes that everyone loses conservative gender role perceptions, these principles of law worse off. No one has expressed it better than civil rights activist Martin Luther King: No one is free until all are free.

Source Join the protest

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Senator McCaskill to introduce misandric bill

From SAVE Services:

The addition of the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination (Campus SaVE) Act to last year's Violence Against Women Act increased awareness of the campus sexual assault issue, and it brought new regulations from the Department of Education.

Unfortunately, campus radicals have now exploited this effort, claiming that "one in five college women are victims of sexual assault" and insisting that "we live in a rape culture." They want to remove fundamental due process protections!

If that's not bad enough, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) is going to introduce a new bill that we believe will further erode due process protections of students accused of sexual assault.

So this week, SAVE is announcing the establishment of the Campus Justice Coalition, which will focus on legislative reforms to restore due process and fairness to the sexual assault adjudicatory process: click here

The CJC will consist of representatives of university associations, attorneys, media representatives, parents of the wrongly accused, and other concerned citizens.

Can you help with this effort? We need to raise $5,000 for media and promotion, including radio interviews, press releases, and Facebook, and we'd like to host a few DC lobbying events with CJC members.

Please make a tax deductible donation: click here. Every gift, big or small, is greatly appreciated!

Thank you,


Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments

Woman breastfeeds 12 year old son

To those of you that breastfeed, this situation might seem a bit familiar to you.

It was about a month ago. I was standing in line at the movie theater, waiting to purchase two tickets to the new X-Men movie. My son, Mason, was standing in front of me. My shirt was off and he was drinking milk from my boobs while we waited in line.

“Ma’am, you need to stop that right now,” shouted the ticket clerk from behind his bullet proof glass.

Now, only a few people had noticed us prior to this, but now that he had drawn attention to us, everyone was looking at us.

“What’s wrong? Never see a woman’s boobs before?” I yelled, waving my free breast at the gawkers. I could feel Mason get uncomfortable as he pulled in closer to my body and his teeth scraped on my boob.

“No, honey. Don’t be scared,” I told him, squeezing his ears between my boobs so he couldn’t hear them.

“I am a mother and I have every right to feed my child in public. If you have a problem with that, you can avert your eyes, but my son is feeding and will continue to feed until we are both satisfied.”

I stood up for myself, and I felt good, but this story doesn’t end like one of those feel good stories you hear on the local news. None of the patrons came to my defense, and they actually cheered as security escorted me and my son out of the theater.

This is just another day for me. This is what it’s like to be a mother that breastfeeds. This is what it’s like to live in world that hates women’s bodies.

But, this isn’t about me. It’s about my son. His name is Mason. He’s twelve years old, and now that he stands at eye level with me, he has to bend over a bit when I breastfeed him in public. Sure, it’s a little jarring when people see what appears to be a grown man sucking on a woman’s breasts, but it’s natural and their discomfort is not my problem.

The fact of the matter is, if it weren’t natural, I wouldn’t still produce milk, and it wouldn’t feel good to breast feed my son. Because of the sexual repression of women, there’s little information on the sexual nerve receptors in the nipple and the rest of the titty, but when a baby sucks on a woman’s breast she experiences a bit of sexual pleasure. When a man does it, she receives even more pleasure because the breast is sensitive to facial hair, and now that my son Mason is old enough to grow facial hair, our breastfeeding sessions have become even more pleasurable for me.

I’ve even been encouraging my son to not shave because it feels even better when I feed him in public and I can feel his beard coming in. Which, oddly enough, makes even more people feel entitled to come up to me and tell me that what I am doing is wrong. It’s ironic that the more natural I make the breastfeeding, the more likely people are to call the police and report me for indecency.

But, you know what? I press on. Because at the end of the day, it’s my body, and it’s my choice, and I don’t care what the state or the manager of Kohl’s or even what Mason has to say about it – I’m going to keep breastfeeding my son in public because I’m a mom and moms have rights too.

I’m going to keep breast feeding my son until my body decides that it’s time to stop, and I get the feeling that my body isn’t producing milk because Mason needs it, it’s producing milk because my body knows that we live in a problematic society that discourages women from letting their children suck on their boobs in public. That and I have a hormonal imbalance.


Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Defeat Kay Hagan defeat Hillary Clinton

From Stop Hillary PAC:

Hillary Clinton is running for President.

Hillary and her campaign are secretly plotting their road map to win the presidency with as little resistance as possible.

Fortunately, I have inside information on her plans -- and more importantly -- we have a strategy to stop her.

What I can tell you right now: Hillary's plan to win the presidency goes right through the state of North Carolina.

North Carolina, along with a small handful of other states, is essential to Hillary being elected president, and she and her super PAC, "Ready for Hillary" are going all-in to make it happen.

I'm writing you today to ask you to chip in to help me stop them.

You see, essential to winning North Carolina in 2016, Hillary must first reelect Kay Hagan, the liberal incumbent Senator who has already endorsed Hillary's run for the presidency.

That's right; Senator Kay Hagan from North Carolina is already endorsing Hillary for President.

In typical Washington D.C. fashion, Senator Kay Hagan has endorsed Hillary for President -- and Hillary will endorse Hagan for re-election.

That's why I'm announcing our plans today to defeat Kay Hagan for re-election. If we can defeat Senator Hagan's re-election, we blow a huge hole in Hillary's plan to be elected president.

But I can't do this alone, and that's why I'm asking you to chip in right now to help me defeat Senator Kay Hagan today. Will you chip in as much as $50 to help us defeat Hillary's personal choice for Senate in North Carolina?

How important is North Carolina to win the presidency?

Here are the facts:

• In 2008, Barack Obama won North Carolina by 1 point and in 2012, he lost North Carolina by 1 point -- North Carolina is a true swing state;

• 3 of the last 4 Governors of North Carolina have been Democrats;

• Liberal Super PACs beholden to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have already invested over 8 million dollars in re-electing Kay Hagan. That is more than any other Senate race in the country; AND

• Kay Hagan's campaign has outraised her opponent by more that 5-1 -- this week she placed a media buy for 4 million dollars.

North Carolina will be the state that decides who is the next President of the United States. That's why Hillary Clinton and her Super PAC's are going all-in.

And that's why I'm asking for your immediate help.

Will you join me by making a special, urgent contribution to our special fund to defeat liberal Senator Kay Hagan for re-election and deal a decisive blow to Hillary's plans to win the presidency? Some dedicated supporters have donated as much as $100 and $500. For others, $25 and $50 is a sacrificial gift.

Whatever you do, please commit to something. Even $10 will help us target the right voters to defeat Senator Hagan.

Current polls put Kay Hagan only 2.4% ahead of her GOP challenger.

This is a race we can -- MUST -- win.

While all races for U.S. Senate are important this year, North Carolina has more on the line than most because it will decide who our next president is.

That's why your support today is so important.

Will you chip in?


Senator Ted Harvey
Chairman, Stop Hillary PAC

P.S. North Carolina -- and the re-election of liberal Senator Kay Hagen -- holds the key to Hillary's run for the presidency. That's why Stop Hillary PAC is announcing today our campaign to defeat Kay Hagan and blow a hole through Hillary's plans.

Will you please make an urgent contribution to ensure we have the resources to launch a hard-hitting campaign to defeat Hillary and Kay Hagan today? Please, click here to chip in.

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Woman sets man up to be robbed

Updated: Wednesday, July 16 2014, 06:46 PM CDT By JOZANNAH QUINTANILLA
News 4 Reporter SAN ANTONIO- Police have arrested one suspect and are searching for two others after they allegedly kidnapped and tortured a man. The victim, a San Patricio County man in his 20's, said he escaped from a San Antonio motel where he was being held. Police say the man responded to a Backpage online ad for an escort and met 24-year-old Vanessa Ann Luna at a hotel in Corpus Christi. According to the victim, Luna and another suspect tied him up and tortured him. He says they then drove him to a San Antonio hotel, where another suspect joined in beating him. Police say the three suspects forced him to withdraw money from his checking account before he was able to escape. Police arrested Luna but are still searching for the other two suspects, 30-year-old Christopher Perez and another man who goes by the name of "Popeye." If you have any information on these suspects police are asking you to call the SAPD Special Victims Unit at (210) 207-2313 or CRIME STOPPERS at 210-224-STOP (7867).



There have been a lot of definitions to MRA's,PUA's,MGTOWers,Masculinists and Masculists and they have been mutually exclusive. But what if they are not. What if they are not mutually exclusive but in fact stages. I believe that true MRA's (those that avoid feminism and leave the admin duties and editorial policy to the MEN there) and Masculinists/Masculists can get along. There are the pro-feminist stooges but they are not part of this discussion. Certainly both groups can combat misandry in the cultural and legal arenas of their respective societies. Certainly a lot of PUA's have adopted MRA/Masculinist tactics in standing up to women and chellenging them. A lot of guys before the PUA thing just played it nice. While it may be true that PUA's are avoiding the political arena it is also true that a lot of MRA's/Masculinists/Masculists have used PUA tactics to get women. MGTOWers may have or have not,depends. I believe they would be the last group to use PUA tactics but if they wanted to they would employ them. I'm not saying PUA's are the supreme way to go far from it but those tactics are used. If a PUA gets tired of the shallow bar scene and a lot of them do they may either become MGTOWers or MRA's/Masculinists/Masculists. If they want to make a difference on all levels: cultural,legal,social and societial in general then they'll embrace the latter definition. These are the various stages of the manosphere.

Saturday, July 12, 2014

Protect male rape victims

Nullify laws that make it so that a male victim of rape has to pay child support to the rapist.

On the behalf of male victims of rape, and sexual assault I ask that you consider nullifying laws that force male victims of rape to pay child support should the rapist become pregnant during the act of rape. This is still legal in 31 states. This effects families of children as young as 8. No one can psychological give consent to sex under the age of 18, so forcing a victim of rape to pay child support only psychologically burdens the victim further. Women get endless support for rape, and now is the time to help men out.

Sign the petition

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Murderous prostitute linked to two men's deaths

CNN) -- The death of a Google executive on a yacht is raising new questions about the death of a nightclub owner on the other side of the country -- because of the possible role an alleged prostitute played in each case.

Alix Catherine Tichelman, 26, appeared in court Wednesday in Santa Cruz, California, where she faces a series of charges in the death of Forrest Timothy Hayes, 51. The married father of five was found dead in November on his 50-foot yacht. Authorities say Tichelman gave him an injection of heroin and then, as he began to die, she sipped her wine, gathered her belongings, and walked away.

She has not entered a plea.

Two months before Hayes died, Dean Riopelle, whom Tichelman identified online as her boyfriend, died at his home in Milton, Georgia. Tichelman was there at the time, and she called 911.

Police: Escort may have killed before See tech exec murder suspect in court
"Her story was: She was in the shower, heard a large crash, and then found him unconscious on the floor," Capt. Shawn McCarty of Milton police told CNN Thursday.

"I think my boyfriend overdosed or something, he, like, he won't respond," she said in the brief call, shortly before hanging up.

The dispatcher called Tichelman back. Asked why she thought it was an overdose, Tichelman responded, "Because there's nothing else it could be." Asked whether it was accidental or intentional, she replied, "definitely accidental." He was taking painkillers and "drinking a lot too," she said.

The call cut off. The dispatcher tried at least twice more, but the phone rang and went to voicemail.
The medical examiner ruled Riopelle's death an accidental overdose from heroin and alcohol. "At the time, we never thought anything different," McCarty said.

Now authorities are taking a new look at that death "to make sure there's nothing (else) to it," he said.
Riopelle owned the Masquerade Nightclub in Atlanta.
Tichelman also was arrested last year in Atlanta and charged with battery and false report of a crime. The details of that incident were unclear.

Death of Google Glass executive

Hayes, 51, had an "ongoing prostitution relationship" with Tichelman, authorities say.
Online, Tichelman has boasted of having more than 200 client relationships.
Security footage from Hayes' yacht shows her administer the injection and what happened afterward, as he was dying, police say.

"Rather than provide first aid or call 911, Ms. Tichelman proceeds to gather her belongings including the heroin and needles," the police statement reads, adding that Tichelman stepped over Hayes' body several times.
The video also shows Tichelman leaving the boat and then reaching back to lower a blind, concealing the victim's body from outside view, police say.

At court Wednesday in Santa Cruz, she was charged with manslaughter, administering heroin to another person, administering bodily harm, moving heroin across county lines, possession of heroin, destroying or concealing evidence, and prostitution. A public defender asked that her arraignment be postponed until July 16.
Police came across Tichelman in the course of investigating the death of Hayes, a Google executive who, reports say, worked on the Google Glass project, among others.

Authorities became concerned that she planned to leave the state, so detectives posing as a potential client lured her to an "upscale location" for a July 4 session costing $1,000. She was arrested when she arrived.
Google did not return messages seeking comment. Apple, where reports say Hayes previously worked, declined comment.
"I was really devastated when I heard about it," Todd Zion, who worked at Google for a short time under Hayes, told The San Francisco Chronicle. "He was a great boss. I never had a chance to thank him."

'Nice to talk with someone about killing sprees'

Tichelman describes herself as a model, makeup artist and writer on what appears to be her Facebook page. It says she formerly worked at Larry Flynt's Hustler Club and studied journalism at Georgia State University in Atlanta.
"It's really nice to talk with someone about killing sprees and murdering people in cold blood...and they love it too," a June 28 post on the page reads. "No judgement (sic). Yay! F**k all of that positivity bullsh**. Take a look around you. Life is hard and then you die."

The profile includes numerous modeling shots of Tichelman, some of them in provocative poses. By midafternoon Wednesday, the page appeared to have been deleted.


The charge has been upgraded to 2nd degree murder.

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Elam and his stupid shit

Masculinists Need Not Apply at AVFM
June 23, 2014 By Paul Elam 188 Comments

This is going to a short bulletin, as I haven’t the time for a full article.

For some years now I have seen people who identify as “masculist” or “masculinist” online in a few locations. I have even seen a few of them pop up here in the comments, usually with something really stupid to say.

I can’t (and don’t want to) control whatever fucktardery that some people choose to engage. All I can do is clarify, and when needed assert AVFM editorial policy, and the philosophy that goes into it.

From my personal perspective, the following applies to masculists.

Masculinism is feminism’s mentally and morally challenged younger brother. It is an ideology, and most, (I know, I know NAMASCALT), demonstrate that with political polemics, phallo-centrism and other forms of general stupidity.

You have, as best I can know these days, never seen a “masculist” article on the pages of this site, or even mild endorsement for any of the people so identified.

And that is how we roll. The principles of inclusiveness, pragmatism, evidence based, non ideological solutions good — ideology, separatism, divisiveness, polemics, well, not so much.

That is all.


That is enough. I don't know why Elam is shitting on his allies,allies that helped prop him up and his fucking website. Ever since they allowed women and gays to run wild at AVFM things have gone downhill. I liked what AVFM was,not what's it's become. Paul once told me to mend fences and now he's burning bridges,which is a stupid move. Perhaps Elam should practice what he preaches.

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Unseat a corrupt judge

Navy submariner Matthew Hindes is stationed on a submarine in the Pacific. But he’s been ordered to appear in a Michigan courtroom Monday in a custody battle with his ex-wife Angela involving their daughter, Kaylee.

Hindes was given permanent custody of Kaylee in 2010, after she was reportedly removed from Angela’s home by child protective services. Kaylee has been living with Hindes’ wife Benita-Lynn – her step-mother – in Washington state while Hindes is deployed aboard a nuclear submarine in the Pacific Ocean.

Despite Hindes’ assignment, a judge has ordered Hindes to appear in court or face contempt.

Hindes’ lawyers argue he should be protected by the Service members Civil Relief Act, which states courts in custody cases may “grant a stay of proceedings for a minimum period of 90 days” to defendants serving their country.

The judge hearing the case, circuit court judge Margaret Noe, disagreed, adding, “If the child is not in the care and custody of the father, the child should be in the care and custody of the mother.”

The sailor is not allowed to appear by Skype or phone, and in custody cases, being absent in court could have a huge effect on the outcome.

Hindes is not only facing the possibility of losing custody of his daughter, but also the chance to say goodbye

As a result of this blatant disregard for child welfare (the child was removed from the care of the mother by CPS) and intent to punish a father for being a member of the armed services, we call for the immediate resignation of Judge Margaret Noe.