Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Let's call Congressman Duncan Hunter on his move to exclude women from the draft

Congressman Duncan Hunter

First Congressman Duncan Hunter introduces an amendment that requires women to sign up for selective service then he votes against it. I'm tired of these bullshit moves by misguided stupid traditionalists. I'm tired of this. Hunter faces reelection in November. If this is how he is going to treat us men then I say we vote for his Democratic opponent. The Democrats have no problem including women in the draft and I fully support them on this. Assclowns like Hunter have to go. If you live in his district you can email him and tell him that he pulled a bullshit move. You can also contact your own Representative if you live outside Hunter's district. What Hunter did was a bullshit move by violating the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and he needs to be called out on it so contact your Representative right away.

Monday, May 30, 2016

California election endorsements

From my California correspondent:

I've written letters to the candidates on men's issues and this is what I've found: When it comes to Congressional Representative for the 31st District I would go with incumbent Pete Aguilar. For a Democrat he is willing to work with us. As far as the judiciary goes I have written to the jurist candidates seeking election about men's issues. I have received no responses so I cannot endorse anyone. As far as State Senator goes I endorse Mike Morrell and for Assemblyman Marc Steinorth.

I will be more than happy to cover you area as well just submit your information to masculistman@yahoo.com. If you've vetted the candidates in your area and you want the world to know about then it submit it here.

Canada becomes even more pussywhipped than it already is

Just when you thought Canada couldn't get even more pussy whipped than it already is they manage to go over the top. Freedoms are dead in Canada. A lot of people have compared the United States to Canada and said there is little difference between the two countries. I hope this video dispels that notion and brings to light the sharp contrasts between the two countries. If the so-called "conservatives" are on board with this legislation then the average conservative Canadian is fucked. A lot of Canadians don't care about this. They don't care about their rights. Although I sure they are a small number of Canadians who do care they will probably flow to the United States as refugees to avoid Trudeau's iron fisted laws. Before I conclude I would like to touch on something Lucian said and that is since it is illegal to oppress gender expression does that mean that I can act masculine and if feminists oppress my expressing myself do they go to jail for oppressing me and the way I express myself? Not likely. More feminist/liberal hypocrisy.

Which brings us to the new Canadian national anthem. Come on kids sing along okay:

Saturday, May 28, 2016

Modern dating

If you’re a man who’s tried (or considered trying) online dating, chances are you’ve worried you might meet a woman looking to use you for a free expensive dinner. It seems trivial in comparison to what women have to worry about when they filter through men on dating sites, but it’s still a concern, and it still happens to the best of us.

I’m a high school teacher and a freelance writer, but I’m also the son of a Michelin-awarded restaurateur. My online dating profile doesn’t mention my dad’s accomplishments, but in moments of insecurity, I’ve been known to name-drop in order to keep the woman interested. It’s never gone well, and it’s never attracted the right women. The women who see me as “Giorgio the teacher” or “Giorgio the writer” have never tried to use me for a free dinner. In fact, many of them seemed to feel guilty when I took them to expensive restaurants too early in the dating process. But the women who saw me as “Giorgio the restaurateur’s son” had no such reservations, and even that was fine, as long as we were having fun.

See more of our top stories on Facebook >>

Last December, I met someone who finally crossed the boundaries. She made the initial move by “liking” my profile, so I “liked” her back. Her profile was laced with the razor-sharp wit that I look for in a romantic partner, and one of her stated life goals was to try all 101 of Jonathan Gold’s top restaurant picks. Without promising anything, I noted that I too was a fan of Mr. Gold and was also hoping to one day frequent all 101 of his restaurant choices. We had the same dry humor and were equally excited about the then-new Star Wars movie, so I thought those would be our primary points of connection. It wasn’t until I asked her out for a drink that I suspected something was off.

“I’m not huge into drinking but maybe we can grab dinner sometime,” she replied, followed by a smiley face emoticon.

Nobody has to be “huge into drinking” to join you for a cocktail on a first date; this was a push that men who’ve dated in Los Angeles know all too well. The woman was setting the expectations high from the beginning, letting me know that her evenings were in high demand and that if I wanted one I was going to have to cough up more than $15 for a cocktail.

I told her my Tuesday night was open, and she wrote back, “I’m booked for Tuesday. Let’s do Saturday instead.” I was starting to find her pushy, but I thought maybe it was just in my head. I was lucky this girl wanted to offer her Saturday night to me, wasn’t I?

Are you a veteran of L.A.'s current dating scene? We want to publish your story

I suggested we try a new Italian restaurant in Silver Lake where an old friend of mine works. I wasn’t looking for a free dinner, but I was hoping to surprise him, and I was hoping that once this girl saw my restaurant connections, she’d be impressed enough to take me seriously as a romantic partner. The stakes were high for a first date. I felt like I was being pressured to overplay my hand, but I wanted to try this restaurant anyway, and going there with a pretty girl felt better than going there alone.

When we sat down for dinner, she suggested we order a bottle of wine. So much for “not huge into drinking.” Then she started suggesting items to share, which slowly crept into the $80 range. I declined on the bottle of wine but was too tempted by the various entrees to let her starve. We ordered four dishes to share, and I didn’t have to fight her for the privilege of paying the whole $130 check myself.

Our conversation was mostly superficial. I found myself retelling her key information that I’d mentioned in my profile, as though she’d never read it; she kept talking up her past accomplishments and future ambitions, even though for the time being she was living with her parents.

She kept mentioning that she had a high standard when it came to Italian restaurants, and eventually I reached a point where it seemed appropriate to name-drop my father. She had never heard of him, nor had she heard of his restaurant.

More L.A. Affairs columns

When the waiter brought us our check, he gave us a spiel about how their establishment is unique because customers have the “privilege” of being “allowed” to tip the kitchen as well as the servers. I asked my date how much I should tip. That’s always a bad sign: when you’re so desperate to impress your date that you have to ask her how much to tip, even though she has no intention of even attempting to pay.

She told me to tip 20%, so I did.

As we left, she told me without hesitation that she would love to see me again. I loved the reassurance. I hate spending the next few days after a date staring at my phone, waiting for a follow-up text message that never comes. I hugged her goodbye and watched her step into an Uber, hoping it would all lead to something as we got to know each other better.

Two days later, I received a text from her, excitedly informing me that she had made a reservation at my dad’s restaurant. She was going there on a Saturday night, company unspecified. Could it be that another poor sucker had been roped into sating this girl’s fine-dining craze? No, why would she text me to tell me about it? That would be shameless.

Even so, it made me uncomfortable. This girl hardly knew me. We had been out one time, and we hadn’t even kissed yet. Imagine if a man had gone to a woman’s father’s workplace after a first date. That would be creepy, right? What was the difference? Was she testing me to see how I’d react?

I told her, “Wow, you’re going to meet my dad. Weird…”

“Oh, yeah, I guess I am. Well, I’ll put in a good word for you!”

Her creepiness had officially killed any charm she’d once had on me.

I didn’t pursue her after that, but about a week later she contacted me again. She told me the person who was taking her to my dad’s restaurant had flaked on her and suggested, as though it was no big deal, that we go there together instead. This was too weird for me. I took a screenshot of the text, sent it to my best friend and asked what I should do.

“I say bail,” he advised.

I composed our parting text: “I’m going to have to say no. To be honest, it makes me really uncomfortable that you would make a reservation at my dad’s restaurant when we’ve only been out one time. I think you’re a great girl, though, and I wish you the best.”

She promptly came back at me with three consecutive texts:

“I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to make you uncomfortable.”

“I really don’t take this stuff too seriously.”

“Good luck to you.”

I had so many questions for her, like why she expected expensive dinners and bottles of wine if she “didn’t take it seriously,” but I thought asking would be in poor taste. So instead I just wished her good luck too, and in the end I didn’t even get to do that because my number had already been blocked.

Some men, frustrated after not getting a second date or not getting any action on the first, will wrongly accuse women of “just dating for the free meals.” I’m not that man. If a woman doesn’t want a second date, it’s not my business why, and I don’t know her well enough to hurl those kinds of accusations. I also don’t really mind if women are out there using men for free meals, because there are plenty of men out there using women for other things, and in the end our job is to learn from our experiences and spot the red flags so we aren’t the one getting used.


This is a follow up to the previous story.

Men are catching on,insist on Dutch treat

So much for chivalry.

Venmo, a peer-to-peer payment app owned by PayPal and popular with millennials, isn’t just letting 20-somethings split cab fares and utility bills — it’s turning guys into really stingy dates.

Shaquan Bailey, a 22-year-old caretaker, was thrilled when a guy she met online invited her out for their third date at a restaurant near her Bed-Stuy apartment.

She found the man charming over pizza and wine and, like a gentleman, he picked up the check and then walked Bailey back to her apartment.

She thought the date had gone well — until the guy sent her a $30 payment request on Venmo to cover half the dinner bill, which she grudgingly paid.

I was LMAO after reading that. Way to go,bro. If you're reading this cyber high 5.

“I cut him off so quickly and stopped texting him back,” Bailey told The Post. “I do not have time for scrubs.”

We don't have time for attention whore cock teasers either who commit date fraud by giving the promise of sex then retracting that at the last minute. Don't like bullshit don't hit us with bullshit. It's that fucking simple.

The app, launched in 2012, lets users link debit and credit cards online to send and request money.

In January, users digitally transferred more than $1 billion on the app.

“I had a guy who asked me to Venmo him to pay for a $3 well drink,” fumed Tammy, a 21-year-old beauty blogger who asked that her last name be withheld for professional reasons.

The last time I checked alcoholic beverages are not free so they have to charge you something. Three dollars sounds about right for an alcoholic beverage in a bar. It depends on where you go and how much they charge.

“And I was like, ‘Bye.’ Where are all the real men?”

We're on to bitches like you. You want equality in the boardroom and special treatment on a date. You want old fashion behavior from a man like picking up the tab but you think about providing sex. With me it's like if I spend money on you I want sex. That is the bottom line. On equality: it's all the way or not at all. Enough of this cherry picking bullshit.

She refused to cough up the dough.

Although what these guys did was in poor taste, financial expert and author Lynnette Khalfani-Cox defends them, noting that going Dutch is a sensitive topic.

“Communication about money matters is always fraught with misunderstanding, and Venmo is kind of a technological twist to these age-old issues about money and dating,” Khalfani-Cox told The Post. “Maybe these guys thought they were being modern by splitting the bill and acknowledging that women can pay for their fair share?”

These are guys the who are tired of the bullshit double standards. These are the guys who are tired of super empowered feminists one minute scared little waif the next. These are the guys that read my blog.

But to women like Kisha Pace, 31, of The Bronx, who was Venmo-requested by a former fling for a $50 meal, men should always pay for the first few dates.

Why? Because you're entitled to free entertainment? I don't know who told you that you are but the gravy train is derailing. You've pushed us too far and as men we will push back. Count on it.

“I can pay for my own bills, but I don’t think we should be splitting the bill until we’re seriously dating,” Pace, who did pay up, told The Post.

Then you can pay for your own meal and drinks. Why should it be on him? Seriously dating? Sounds like procrastination to me. Which means you expect it to be always on him.

The solution to the dilemma is simple, if a bit awkward.

“Both parties should agree on who’s paying for what before going on a date,” Khalfani-Cox said.


Monday, May 23, 2016

How Hillary’s “Feminist Army of Anti-Male Journalists” are Now Attacking Bernie Sanders

Feminist Journalists Are Completely Bias and Can’t Be Trusted to Report The News Accurately!

Sometimes, just for kicks, I will browse the Huffington Post’s Women’s Section for great laugh of what these liberal/progressive radicals think about the 2016 presidential election. Although I had some preconceived notions before I clicked on the page, my jaw dropped once I read a few articles about Bernie Sanders. These articles, for the most part, painted Bernie Sanders and his supporters in such a negative light I almost felt sorry for the guy.

Now, just to clear the air I am not a liberal, a progressive or anything remotely matching those two descriptions politically. But reading the feminist section of the Huffington post made me realize how truly manipulative and radical modern-day feminism has become. It is clear these liberal feminist within the Democratic Party had already anointed Hillary Clinton as their presidential candidate well before she collected a single signature.

With the help of liberal feminist within national journalism spearheading Hillary’s campaign she had even more so-called “new stories” painting her in a positive light. Sadly, this might work for a large number of uneducated voters who are not familiar with the Clinton’s shady past including their own “anti-woman” actions.

Most, if not all liberal feminist journalist writing at the Huffington post know Hillary’s history of demeaning “rape and sexual assault victims” when she was the first lady in the White House. Additionally, this should also be fully aware of the multiple acts of domestic violence Bill Clinton suffered through during all those years of marriage to the “Queen feminist Nazi”, also known as Hilary. Nevertheless, these anti-male feminist are willing to sweep this under the rug for the simple fact of getting “a woman in the White House.” Qualifications and personal history be damned!

Not only are feminist journalist willing to look the other way in defending Hillary, they are now turning their sights on one of their own. The feminist at the Huffingtion Post are now aiming to devour a fellow progressive feminist in a presidential election, not because he did anything wrong. Basically, they are turning on him simply because Bernie Sanders is male.

The Huffingtion Post Women’s section has painted Bernie Sanders in a very negative light over the past couple of weeks. Both he and his supporters (who are largely young and male) are now labeled as misogynist, “anti-woman” haters for stating the truth about Hillary, her campaign and the political process.

Recently, Jenavieve Hatch with the Huffingtion Post wrote a column explaining how the Bernie Sanders campaign has incited anti-woman and anti-feminist rhetoric. She writes,

the Sanders campaign’s insistence on being “robbed” has incited unnecessary aggression from its base. The messages Lange received show that poorly-channelled anger at the political process can easily spread, causing harm to those who cross its path — women in particular.

Ah, poor Hillary… She’s only woman who can’t stand on her own two feet. Make sure wonder what’s going to happen if she becomes president? Will she run to England or Canada when Russia or China fails to “play fair” with a female President of the United States? What a crock!

To add substance to her argument, Hatch explained when female reporters support Hillary Clinton they are often targets of sexist language, aggressive behavior and even threats regarding their news columns regarding Hillary. Sadly, this aspect occurs to all journalists today, not just feminist writers.

If I posted all the hate mail I receive from feminist on a weekly basis it could be 8 to 10 pages long. Do I cry about it? No! Why? Because it’s part of the business of being a men’s rights journalist. So Ms. Hatch needs to put her big girl panties on and get to work and stop bitching about how our society has evolved under liberal leadership of the last eight years.

But this should be a lesson to Bernie Sanders and his campaign. Although he considers himself a male feminist the moment he or his campaign staff “accurately criticizes” the supreme feminist Nazi known as Hillary Clinton you will be attacked viciously. Not only will you be attacked for honestly criticizing and pointing out the misdeeds of Bill and Hillary Clinton, you will also be attacked as a male.

So welcome Bernie Sanders to the new reality men face in the 21st century… male feminist or not! Good luck with the feminist crazies because it looks like they’re coming after you in a big way.


I'm not surprised by this. I knew sooner or later they were going to play the woman card against Sanders. I told you democrat men this would happen. I hope none of you are stupid enough to support Hillary Clinton. She will turn on you.

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Due process is still being kicked off campus

Academia’s descent into perpetual hysteria and incipient tyranny is partly fueled by the fiction that 1 in 5 college students is sexually assaulted and that campuses require minute federal supervision to cure this. Encouraged by the government’s misuse of discredited social science (one survey supposedly proving this 1-in-5 fiction), colleges and universities are implementing unconstitutional procedures mandated by the government.

The 2006 Duke lacrosse rape case fit the narrative about campuses permeated by a “rape culture.” Except there was no rape. In 2014, the University of Virginia was convulsed by a magazine’s lurid report of a rape that buttressed the narrative that fraternities foment the sexual predation supposedly pandemic in “male supremacist” America. Except there was no rape. Now, Colorado State University at Pueblo has punished the supposed rapist of a woman who says she was not raped.

Grant Neal, a CSU Pueblo pre-med major and athlete, began a relationship with Jane Doe (as identified in Neal’s lawsuit), although she, as a student in the Athletic Training Program, was not supposed to fraternize with athletes. Jane Doe texted an invitation to Neal to come to her apartment. The following is from Neal’s complaint against CSU Pueblo:

“As the intimacy progressed, knowing that they both wanted to engage in sexual intercourse, Jane Doe advised Plaintiff that she was not on birth control. Accordingly, Plaintiff asked if he should put on a condom. Jane Doe clearly and unequivocally responded ‘yes.’ . . . They proceeded to engage in consensual sexual intercourse, during which Jane Doe . . . demonstrated her enjoyment both verbally and non-verbally.”

The next day, one of Jane Doe’s classmates, who neither witnessed nor was told of any assault, noticed a hickey on the woman’s neck. Assuming an assault must have happened, the classmate told school officials that an assault had occurred. Jane Doe told school officials the sex was consensual: “I’m fine and I wasn’t raped.” Neal’s lawsuit says she told an administrator: “Our stories are the same and he’s a good guy. He’s not a rapist, he’s not a criminal, it’s not even worth any of this hoopla!” Neal recorded on his cellphone Jane Doe saying that nothing improper had transpired, and soon the two again had intercourse.

Undeterred, CSU Pueblo mixed hearsay evidence with multiple due process violations, thereby ruining a young man’s present (he has been suspended from the school for as long as Jane Doe is there) and blighting his future (his prospects for admission to another school are bleak).

Title IX of the Education Amendments enacted in 1972 merely says no person at an institution receiving federal funds shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of sex. From this the government has concocted a right to micromanage schools’ disciplinary procedures, mandating obvious violations of due process.

In 2011, the Education Department’s civil rights office sent “dear colleague” letters to schools directing them to convict accused persons on a mere “preponderance” of evidence rather than “clear and convincing” evidence. Schools were instructed to not allow accused students to cross-examine their accusers, but to allow accusers to appeal not-guilty verdicts, a form of double jeopardy.

Although a “dear colleague” letter is supposedly a mere “guidance document,” it employs the word “must” in effectively mandating policies. While purporting to just “interpret” Title IX, these letters shred constitutional guarantees. And the letters evade the legal requirement that such significant rulemaking must be subject to comment hearings open to a properly notified public. Even were CSU Pueblo inclined to resist such dictates — academic administrators nowadays are frequently supine when challenged — it would risk a costly investigation and the potential loss of the 11 percent of its budget that comes from Washington.

The Chronicle of Higher Education says the case raises this “intriguing” question: “What responsibility does a college have to move ahead with a third-party complaint if the supposed victim says she consented?” This question, which in a calmer time would have a self-evident answer, will be explored in Neal’s lawsuit. It should reveal what the school thought of Jane Doe’s statement exculpating Neal, who says a school official “brushed off” the recording and said that Jane Doe said what she said “just because she was scared of you.” Neal’s lawyer says he suspects that Jane Doe might now be intimating something “inappropriate” and is perhaps scared of losing her place in the Athletic Training Program.

CSU Pueblo should be scared of joining those schools that have lost lawsuits filed by students denied due process. Such suits are remedial education for educators ignorant of constitutional guarantees.


Several distinguished law professors have spoken up protesting "Dear Colleague". "Dear Colleague" has its critics in the Senate. Senator Lamar Alexander and Senator James Lankford are not big fans of "Dear Colleague" so let's let them know. Demand that Catherine Lhamon be brought up on criminal charges.

Inspirational words

Sunday, May 15, 2016

Way to go Australia

Lesbian, psychoctic, drug addict, Hillary

“Hillary hates kids. She was one nasty bitch when she was pregnant. My God, for nine months, she made my life a living hell and blamed me!

One has always believed it to be the case that psychotic Hillary was indeed a lesbian as well as being a loose, unhinged, lefty lunatic and here is a statement made by one of Bill's sperm chambers statements.

Not only are these people completely vacant, void of morals, dignity and normal behaviour, they are sexual deviants and drug addicts as well. None of these revelations comes as any surprise..

Here is just a small sample of these deviant's "normal" behaviour. No wonder it runs with "women's rights" as that would give it access to more fresh meat..

“What a joke! Sex is a waste of time to Hillary. When we were dating, she talked about making-out with her girlfriends in college because she knew it turned me on. Hillary seemed worldly and more sexually-experienced than me and, at the time, I liked it.”

SALLY MILLER: Hillary and her ‘coke habit’

Like other men I’ve known, Bill Clinton fantasized about having a covey of females, all with full breasts, shapely long legs, and tight, eager vaginas in bed with him.

After watching his bed-mates kiss and fondle each other for a while, then he’d join the action.

When I asked Bill if he shared his fantasies with Hillary, he laughed.

“What a joke! Sex is a waste of time to Hillary. When we were dating, she talked about making-out with her girlfriends in college because she knew it turned me on. Hillary seemed worldly and more sexually-experienced than me and, at the time, I liked it.”

“Before we married, I got her pregnant and she had an abortion. It bothered me because I didn’t know about it until it was over. Then, several months after the wedding, she slipped up again because she was too lazy to take the pill.

“Hillary hates kids. She was one nasty bitch when she was pregnant. My God, for nine months, she made my life a living hell and blamed me!

“From the beginning, our political advisors warned us that Hillary must take my last name and concentrate on having a child if I was going to have a future in politics. I saw the real Hillary after we got married.

“She’s a damn frigid bitch who prefers women; she won’t even compromise and be bi-sexual. All I hear is how much she despises penises; she thinks they are fucking ugly, like snakes.”

Bill mentioned, “The only time Hillary gets aroused or agree to ‘play sexy’ is after she snorts coke. But, even then, she’s rigid and frigid. Hillary goes ape-shit crazy–I mean screams, hits, and cusses–if I touch her breasts! Right after we started fooling around, she warned me to stay away from her tits, even telling me: ‘If you want to nurse–go home to your momma!’”

Hillary Clinton despised Bill’s brother Roger but, she had to be nice to him since he supplied her coke habit.

(Roger Clinton was charged with and convicted of a cocaine-related offense in 1985 and pardoned by Bill in 2001.)

Bill talked about Hillary taking off work lots of times, desperate to find Roger. She cursed Roger but, at the same time, she had to be nice since he was her only source of coke.

She smoked weed but coke was her addiction.

RELATED: Bill Clinton snorted cocaine off my coffee table, former lover says

I recall Bill saying, “Everyone, including my staff, people at the law firm, even friends, knows Hillary is a cokehead but that’s okay. We tolerate Hillary on coke cause without it, Hillary’s a raving maniac.

“My God, we’ve had to borrow money to replace lamps, chairs, all kinds of valuable shit in the governor’s mansion just because of Hillary’s temper! I’ve had to take Chelsea outside many times to keep her out of Hillary’s ‘line of fire.’ Without her ‘fix’ Hillary’s Hell on Wheels.”

All these years later, I think Hillary is completely selfish and unstable; she’s a façade when it comes to dependability, commitment, and dedication.

Hillary has an attitude of entitlement; she believes anything and everything she does is okay and no one can question her. She never stops talking out of both sides of her mouth.

I continue to ask Hillary supporters, “What has Hillary accomplished other than keeping herself in politics, garnering enormous sums of money—all for her, and, like a rock star, maintaining a presence in the media? What has Hillary Rodham Clinton EVER done for anyone, other than herself?”

I may not know men but I know women. I speak from experience: Hillary Clinton is a FAKE. If you can prove otherwise, I’ll kiss Hillary’s caboose!


Thursday, May 12, 2016

Feminist content to let only men die in wars

Though our nation hasn't had a draft since the 1970s, selective service registration remains a reality for young men. I admit that, as a mom to two young girls, selective service is not something I have ever given much thought to. It was only when I heard that Congress is seeking to expand the draft to include both genders that I realized how much I oppose it.

Earlier this year, a dramatic change was made to the nation’s military policies that opened nearly all combat roles to women. The next question to follow was, if women are eligible to participate in all combat roles, should selective service enrollment be made mandatory for women as well?

We are now one step closer to that becoming a reality.

The National Defense Authorization Act, headed for a House vote later this month, has attached to it an amendment titled “Draft America’s Daughters.” Some feminists are hailing it as a boon toward their cause, calling America’s history of the all-male draft discriminatory and the addition of women to selective service a huge leap for equality.

But being a feminist doesn't have to mean standing up for sending our daughters to war.

I am a feminist, and I do not support including women in selective service.

When you are not included in something that no one wants to do — in this case, going off to war — it’s not discrimination; it’s a privilege. Some say women should give up that privilege in the name of equality between men and women. But here’s the thing about equality: Men and women are not equal.

That’s right — I’m a feminist, I am a mother of two girls, and I am saying that men and women are not equal.

In the event of a draft, sending women off to war does not present an equal opportunity to women by nature of the fact that women are physically different from men. As much as we may work to try to level the playing field between men and women, the physical differences between us as created by nature make us inherently unequal and cannot be universally overcome.

Combat is not an equal opportunity situation for men and women, because the average woman does not have an equal opportunity to survive a combat situation. The Army's own studies have shown that women have more than double the rate of injury of their male counterparts in combat training. I can only imagine that those numbers would be even more dramatic in actual combat. I can't fathom sending my daughters off to fight in an already dangerous situation, where they are known to be at a physical disadvantage.

There are women who have made great contributions to our military. Women who have chosen a career in military service should be able to serve in whatever capacity their particular skills and abilities allow. But that doesn’t mean the average American woman is prepared to join our armed services and become the next G.I. Jane.

No mother, whether she has sons or daughters, ever wishes to send her child off to war. However, if I had sons, I could at least take comfort in knowing that our nation's young men are the most able-bodied people to take on this task and therefore most likely to return home to us safely. Should my daughters grow up to choose a career in military service, I would support them 100 percent, but the number of women who feel physically and emotionally capable of taking on that role are the exception and not the rule.

As much as feminism celebrates the women who feel they can take on any role a man can fill, we must also embrace the women who feel they can’t. If feminism, at its core, is about the power to fully empower women, then we have to make space for both sides. We can support our sisters in the armed forces while not subjecting the rest of the civilian female population to conscription.


Talk about fucking gall. I was floored while reading this. Talk about entitlement attitude. She is content sending men off to die so that fucking cunts like herself can sit around and bitch how bad men are. That;s women for you. If the position is CEO of a large company they are strong empowered superwomen. If the position is front lines of a war then they are dainty little flowers that need men's protection. This bullshit. We are tired of it.

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Teacher gets prison for sex with student

Kathryn Ronk

Pontiac — An Oakland County judge came down hard Tuesday on a 30-year-old former high school teacher who pleaded guilty to having sex with a 15-year-old student.

While state guidelines suggest 51-85 months for the offense, Judge Nanci Grant sentenced Kathryn Ronk of Birmingham to 6-15 years in prison.

Ronk appeared stunned at the sentence. The former Bishop Foley High School Spanish teacher, who faced up to life in prison under the original charges, pleaded guilty last month to two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct under a sentencing agreement that ranged from no prison time to a maximum of 15 years. She can be considered for parole in 51/2 years.

While Ronk was contrite, Grant was unmoved.

The judge noted that Ronk attended University of Michigan on a scholarship, graduated with the highest of grades and went on to graduate work.

"You're really very smart, an intelligent woman," Grant told Ronk, reminding her she had to know what she was doing with the 15-year-old sophomore was wrong.

Grant noted she was disturbed by "a double standard in this society."

"If this was a male teacher who had been involved with a 15-year-old female, there would be people here hanging from the ceiling trying to get every drop of blood," Grant said. "But because it is a woman, there seems to be a winking about what happened."

In addressing the court before sentencing, Ronk sobbed as she said she was "so sorry for the victim and his family, for the school and the community, my family ... and I'm so sorry for my husband."

"With (psychological) treatment, I'm getting better," she said. "I know I have to go away but this is a lifelong journey, and I am meeting it. ... I'm so sorry for those who I have hurt."

Grant told Ronk she appreciated her contrition, especially considering letters of support she had received from the woman's family and friends, which the judge found offensive.

"I have never seen letters of support for a defendant with nothing about the victim," Grant said. "They were all about you and what you were going through. Poor you. To ignore a crime and a victim and an ongoing involvement in school, outside school, in a car. You did something you shouldn't have done."

The victim, the judge said, is "still a boy figuring out the ways in the world," and may not feel the impact of the teacher's actions "for years to come."

Assistant prosecutor Heather Brown said the boy's family felt victimized and hoped Ronk "finds her faith and it will keep her strong. (Faith) is what is helping them and will help them forgive at some point."

Prior to sentencing, defense attorneys James Thomas and Steven Lynch told Grant their client was doing her best in a "very difficult situation," including daily psychological treatment and volunteer work at a food bank.

"There's no chance of this happening again," Thomas told Grant. "She will not be in a position to teach and will not be around children (after parole)."

Both attorneys declined comment outside the courtroom.

Ronk faces more charges in Macomb Circuit Court, including rape and engaging in sexually abusive activity with children, involving the boy at his home in Macomb Township and in a car in Sterling Heights.

A trial on the Macomb charges is scheduled for March 31.


Spanish teacher,huh. Ay Caramba. She has that look on her face that says it all. It would a crime in itself not to include this photo of her. After all it does say a lot. I hope during the second trial she gets the book thrown at her.

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Hillary and The Donald are neck and neck

Today Fox News, CNN, and ABC News are completely bewildered at the latest poll numbers showing Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton neck and neck in key swing states which may determine the November election.

CNN picked apart survey data and found Donald Trump essentially tied with Hillary Clinton in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. Not too surprisingly, Donald Trump has a double-digit lead in male voters in each of these three states. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is up nine points with women voters in these key states. ABC News also supported this data showing Donald Trump surpassing Hillary Clinton in male voters by a very wide margin.

The point best sums up the Quinnipiac University poll released today is this… Hillary Clinton does not believe men are worth talking about. Even the casual political observer has noticed in recent weeks Hillary Clinton does not discuss men or men’s issues at all. It’s almost like she has a philosophy which radiates “men don’t have issues”, “men don’t need a voice in society” and “men need to get on board with women’s issues”.

Men are tired of being scapegoats in society for women’s problems. For decades men have been the scapegoats for women not succeeding in the workforce, becoming victims of domestic violence, blamed for divorce, not having equal educational opportunities and a whole list of other social ills too many to count.

The Fox News segment with Megan Kelly is right on point. When Hillary Clinton is forced to defend her record against a male opponent she immediately goes to the women’s card and avoids answering the questions or fails to stand by her previous position. Hillary Clinton’s defenders step in and claim sexism on Hillary Clinton’s behalf, defending her lack of answering tough questions. Bill Clinton, for example, even accused Bernie Sanders of being “sexist” when he forced Hillary to “own up” to her own behavior.

Clearly, every time Hillary Clinton is forced to answer tough questions she throws the woman card on the table as a shield to deflect against her bad judgement. Men in our society know exactly how this system works. As men, we’ve all been there and experienced this form of gender shaming. Women voters also know how this game is played. Donald Trump even alluded to this phenomenon in a recent speech that had plenty of news coverage.

Today, if a male employee criticizes a fellow female coworker or subordinate justifiably, in many cases women turn around and claim discrimination, sexism, biased against women and a whole host of other social evils “men can only do against women”.

Katrina Pierson, the National Trump Campaign Spokeswoman said it best on Fox News,

Just because you criticize a woman, particularly in her criticism of you, does not make you a sexist.

Over the course of the next six months we will learn how deep the gender divide in our country has become. Will Hillary Clinton win the presidency by continuously playing the “woman card” by blaming men for our social problems? Or will Donald Trump finally put radical feminism, progressive feminist and a whole list of anti-male and anti-father groups back in the cage where they belong? Only time will tell which side will triumph in November. Regardless, this election season will not be so much about Republican or Democrat social policy as much as it will be between “common sense” or “sexist feminism”.


Sunday, May 8, 2016

W.C. Fields is no friend of men

A Voice For Men posted an article about W.C.Fields as a MGTOW. However at the end they have this:

This is not to say he was not capable of offering advice to budding MGTOWs. When an interviewer asked him how a young man could build wealth, he replied “When the little beggar is only ten years old, have him castrated and his taste buds destroyed. He’ll grow up never needing a woman, a steak, or a cigarette. Think of the money saved.”

Source scroll down to the bottom.

I know that AVFM has cut on MGTOW's in the past so I'm wondering if this salute is being offered with the left hand. As far as I'm concerned if anyone says a something like that they are no friend to men.

Monday, May 2, 2016

Feminist gets off on destroying innocent men

Clementine Ford, a self proclaimed feminist editor, has had a man fired for sending his (former) company screenshots of him calling her a "slut" - meanwhile, there are a multitude of messages Ms. Ford has posted online saying things like "Kill all men" and other incredibly sexist, shocking statements. A person of true equality would not support these type of statements being spewed out so casually. Ms. Ford should resign from her job as a writer and weekly columnist for Fairfax' Daily Life.

Sign the petition to get her fired

She bragged about destroying innocent men. This bitch is evil. She has to go. This guy in the video has my same attitude. Be a man and love the fact you are a man. Fuck everyone who has a problem with it.

Donald Trump reacts to Hillary's misandric dribble

Hey Donald,if you're reading this thanks. Thanks for speaking up for men we appreciate it.

Hillary Clinton Plans to Put Men on “Reservations” for Failing to Respect her “Progressive-Liberal Views!”

Hillary Clinton

The Open War Against Men is Finally Here Thanks to Hillary Clinton

On April 29, Hillary Clinton made some head spinning comments about men in her world view. In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Hillary Clinton has a plan for misbehaving men in American society. She plans to place them on a reservation where they apparently don’t have a voice and no rights to their opinion.

Hillary Clinton said, and I quote,

I have a lot of experience dealing with men who sometimes get off the reservation in the way they behave and how they speak.

I guess men should not say thinks in public that may be truthful, their opinion on social issues or exercise their constitutional rights. According to Hillary Clinton, men speaking out on women’s rights (otherwise known as female privilege) should all be sent to reservations for “social reeducation”.

According to CNN’s report,

The Democratic presidential front-runner did not elaborate which men she was referring to.

Of course, Hillary Clinton was meaning all men.

Progressive-feminism is becoming more radical by the month and with Hillary Clinton in the White House this outrageous feminist radicalization will get out of control in a hurry.

Recently, progressive-feminist have demanded radical changes to our society by treating men like cattle or sperm banks.

For example, a 22- year old single mother and university student suggested society should reduce the male population by 90% and the remaining 10% should be treated like slaves.

Then, progressive-feminist authors call for the “end of men” as the dominate sex in our society and happily flaunt their opinions in mainstream media. Sadly, there is not even the slightest push back by our social or political structures. I’m guessing, men are afraid to speak up about these issues for fear of ridicule.

Many white, middle-class women who are “Hillary” supporters are the same feminist who cry out “kill all men” and “blame the patriarchy” but fail to see their own, vast female privilege in American society.

So far, it seems when Hillary Clinton is called out for her scandals, many failures as a Sectary of State and mishandling of classified material she brushes the questions off. Now it seems when a question of accountability comes up, Clinton tells Trump to get back on the reservation with the other non-feminist males.

If Clinton is voted into office and we happen to get into a war with another superpower and we loose, will she blame the men for giving their lives in the war she created? If our economy crumbles will she blame men to stealing women’s money? Or, if her Presidency turns into a failure will she blame Bill Clinton for not being supportive to her and her needs?

With Hillary Clinton’s statements and progressive-feminist supporters only time will tell how they will react towards men once they get into power. For sure, if Hillary does loose this election she may regret not placing men in these no vote, no voice “reservations sooner? Or maybe just conservatives, including Donald Trump are the only people ?


I told you guys about castration camps and if Hillary gets into the White House they will become a reality. If you didn't believe me then you better believe me now. Democrat men: don't think you're immune. There have been male feminists who've been betrayed by their sisters so you are not immune. If you want to save your own necks I suggest you make sure Bernie Sanders gets the nomination. If Hitlery gets into the White House your nuts on on the chopping block just like ours are. No men will be exempt. Femitheist made that quite clear.

If that doesn't convince you then maybe this and this will.