Way to go Mexico

It's about time someone said "enough" to this bullshit. Sandman said he is appalled by the violence against the feminists. I don't know if he was sincere or just said that to keep YouTube off his back. In the event he was sincere I want to say I disagree with him and that these women have it coming. Feminism is a cancer and we now see that there are men who will fight back. Perhaps us American men can learn from our Mexican brethern.

Strong Successful Male on activism

Bill Burr nails the Karens on Saturday Night LIve

 

The funny thing is that the Karens in the audience were trying to manipulate Bill Burr into toning it down. Good luck on that. Bill Burr took on Philly and won so good luck on that one,Karens.

AOC bitch off

Growing up, I thought Hillary Clinton’s 1995 “Women’s Rights Are Human Rights“ speech was the epitome of feminism. Though that speech is just as relevant and strong today, the way feminism is perceived has changed. In July, Rep. Ted Yoho called Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a “fucking bitch” and “out of her freaking mind” on the steps of Capitol Hill. 

She is a fucking bitch. She acts mean to male Republicans. Especially Matt Gaetz who agrees with her on legislative issues. It is stunts like this that convince people she is out of her mind. 

After he begrudgingly made a rather empty apology, Ocasio-Cortez took to the House floor to give an impassioned, powerful speech condemning systemic sexism.  

So basically she threw a temper tantrum on the House Floor in front of the entire planet. She has no problem dishing it out but when it comes to receiving it she becomes a total Karen. 

Every single word she said hit the nail on the head and was felt by women around the world—because most of us, in some form, have been in this situation before. The speech went viral and thousands have posted in support of AOC, who many believe to be the face of Gen Z feminism. With just one speech, AOC implicitly launched a new wave of unapologetic women who are unashamed of standing up for themselves—in all spaces.

I am woman. Hear me whine. Those boys were mean to me. 

“This issue is not about one incident,” AOC said in her speech, explaining why she made the decision to take Yoho’s comments to Congress. “It is a culture of lack of impunity; of accepting violence and violent language against women; and an entire structure of power that supports that.” 

Violent language. You have to be shitting me. What a total Karen. 

Prior to the misogynistic attack, Yoho was “disgusted” by Ocasio-Cortez’s suggestion that poverty and unemployment have led to a rise in petty crimes. 

Unlike Sandy Cortez, Congressman Yoho has actually been impoverished. He had to work to get where he is. He wasn't given everything by daddy like Princess Sandy was. She had privilege over him. 

She told him he was being “rude,” and he then decided to escalate the situation by verbally accosting her.

More like she became a total bitch and he stood up for himself. Good for him. 

The words he retorted are emblematic of the discomfort men feel when an unapologetic, intelligent woman stands up for herself in a space where men feel they aren’t supposed to belong. Yoho is an example of a man who felt so threatened that a woman was self-assured enough to even respond to him—and not to simply stand back, take it and remain quiet. 

No, she is acting like a spoiled undisciplined brat with an entitlement attitude.

Instead of amplifying her voice, some media outlets reported that AOC “lashed out“ on Twitter and that her speech was a calculated response “to amplify her own political brand.” Others chalked her words up to AOC being “fiery.” Ocasio-Cortez did exactly what we preach any woman in her position should do—stand up for herself—and yet somehow the narrative became that she’s just trying to forward her personal political agenda. This rhetoric is not distinct from the way many Latinx women have been labeled—overly emotional, crazy and so on. But framing AOC and her speech in this manner makes the clear distinction between her words and Yoho’s. Why can he proudly state that he cannot “apologize for his passion” while Ocasio-Cortez continues to be branded as chaotic and juvenile?" 

Good for those media outlets. She is acting like a brat.

Her speech was not one any woman ever wants to make. Calling out sexism is never fun or pleasant. We are brought up and trained to ignore it. Having to sit and flesh out why this is wrong is extremely difficult. AOC had to rise and make a speech on her verbal abuse—and know that no matter what she said, many people still won’t listen, care or change. 

Yeah, pretty much. If sexism doesn't exist then invent it. That is what feminists do. 

She made a spectacle of something when she should have just shut up, so that validates calling her a bitch, right? 

Yeah, sure does. She made a spectacle of herself. “

I could not allow my nieces, I could not allow the little girls that I go home to, I could not allow victims of verbal abuse and worse to see that,” she said. “To see that excuse and to see our Congress accept it as legitimate and accept it as an apology and to accept silence as a form of acceptance.” 

AOC: The nation would have appreciated it if you hadn't pulled this little stunt. 

AOC knew that women everywhere were waiting to see what she would do next. Would she ignore it and brush it off, like the woman who is catcalled while walking home alone? Would she just pretend it didn’t happen, like we’re trained to do when we’re harassed on the subway? Would she laugh it off the way we do when we’re made uncomfortable and don’t want to make things “serious?” Or would she take this moment and use it to amplify the voices of women worldwide—voices that continue to be silenced every day?

What you described sounds like a porn category. 

Her speech is distinct from anything I’ve heard an elected official publicly say so heartily before, and I can’t help but think of how many lives she will touch because of it.

I got something she can touch. Congressman Yoho gave the rest of us the green light. I suggest we go for it. 

Her passion is something I wish I grew up seeing displayed in politics. We don’t always see women in politics make speeches such as AOC’s because they’ve been told to steer clear of criticism and not be seen as emotional. 

If you mean avoid any type of responsibility whatsoever rest assured. She is the reigning queen when it comes to that. AOC gets very emotional over empty parking lots. 

We’re told these characteristics are faults instead of strengths. There is no denying that AOC inspires women everywhere. 

To be what? Overgrown crybabies? That is not a good thing. 

The authenticity behind her path to Congress has already made an impact that can be seen and felt. It’s why Puerto Rican Samelys Lopez, an ex-homeless Congressional candidate, can run an incredible campaign in the 15th district of New York—neighboring that of AOC’S own Bronx district. And it’s why both women and men in politics always have some sort of opinion about her, good or bad. 

Mostly bad.

 

Misogynistic behavior is a problem that runs deep, and it’s not going away anytime soon. 

That's because women are not going away anytime soon. 

But how we respond to that needs to change, and it’s starting to, thanks to women like AOC. As a Latina myself, it is so incredibly wonderful to see the representation that AOC provides for women of color. 

That they are a bunch of Karens with a tan that lose touch with reality over the least little thing? Maybe women consider that a good thing but as a man I don't.

Whether it’s calling out unwarranted groping from men at clubs 

Was that you? Wow,talk about a small internet. 

or renouncing misogynistic behavior on the steps of Capitol Hill, we are united by the verbal abuse we face. As Yoho hid behind being deemed a “family man,” AOC declared that she is, in fact, “someone’s daughter too.” Oh yeah,she is definitely someone's daughter. 

Source

White women: the white man's partner in crime

Terrence Popp responds to Tomi Lahren

This video is fucking funny. Perhaps one of Popp's best.

A vote for Biden is a vote for feminism

I never published this for public consumption. How were you able to access it?

Wow just wow

AOC's real agenda

White Supremacists or white nationalists are not that numerous but they do have the right to free speech just as any other group does and they should be prosecuted if they cross the line just like any other group. Rights and responsibilities across the board.

What led me to this conclusion? Her message to the supposed white nationalists white supremacists whatever. She called out to the males but not the females. Like she was surprised there could be females among their ranks. A quick search among the images on the internet will let you know there are a lot of females among their ranks. You can find this out by using the search engine of your choice. It would probably take you a couple of seconds. That is not a long time nor is it difficult to do. So why didn't AOC know it? Because it's a cover.

Okay Masc. As a fellow MRA/MGTOW what group or groups are in AOC's crosshairs?

Us. AOC was talking to anti-feminists,MRA's and MGTOW's. Especially MRA's and MGTOW's.

Men. Please come back. There are women who will love you if you come back.

Is what she was really saying. Singing the siren's song.

By using "white supremacy/nationalism/whatever" robs non-caucasian men of their rights to the Men's Rights Movement and MGTOW. Also, it puts off non-racist white men. Also, it kept her from mentioning us thus robbing us of any coverage whatsoever and it prevent the MRA meme and the MGTOW meme from spreading and attracting new members. It served a three-fold purpose and it was very effective. If somebody other than AOC came up with the "white supremacy/nationalist/whatever" angle that is one thing but if AOC herself came up with it then underestimating her is something we dare not do.

AOC is a feminist. She had never hidden that nor has she denied it. She hangs around other like-minded women on the net so I can imagine that the MRM and MGTOW have been brought up numerous times. They are most likely not big fans of the MRM and MGTOW so I don't expect them to become our cheerleaders anytime soon. AOC is a position to hunt us down and punish us for rejecting her and her sisters. She can call for investigations into our activities even though we are not doing anything illegal. Will she open up an investigation into us? I don't know but it is a possibility.

A strong argument for MGTOW

Namee Arrow responds to a feminist shit talker:

Feminism is just a bunch of little angry girls. But honestly, all of you are missing the whole point of the question of MGTOW. Which is that men owe women nothing. There is no manning up. There is no good man. There is no gender-based social contract. Men have nothing to live up to for women. Men don't belong to you. Our lives, our resources are ours. Men need to explore their feelings and find what makes them happy. And women may have a hard time accepting that what makes a man happy is not women. And a lot of men are coming to this realization. Many don't even care about the only real threat women have and that is sex. Once a man can walk from sex he can walk from women. It's that easy. I have walked from sex and have tried to be friends with women. They all want to fuck me. They all want more. When they realize I want to treat them like an intellectual equal and just be buddies they only stick around until they have another man they want to work on. Then they ghost. Women cannot be friends with men who they aren't using as simps or who aren’t giving them attention. When a man won't simp or provide sex women are the ones who can't be bothered. A woman cannot be friends with a man. She can only use men. No woman is my equal. I have an identity without a woman. A woman will never have an identity outside the context of a man. Thus I am free. Thank you feminism for freeing me from any obligation to the welfare of women. Now all I have to do is leave this wretched America for a better life where I am not raped of my labor for the welfare of women. Your best bet men….work as little as you possibly can. Own nothing and avoid taxes. Let America collapse. Let the women slave. Just sit back, eat your popcorn and watch the show. Marriage and wage slavery is for suckers.

The way this dude put it is just perfect.

Elizabeth Warren embraces misandry

2020 presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren appealed to young women with a plethora of life advice in a video Wednesday, saying, “Dump the guy who ghosted you.”

The Massachusetts senator discussed “everything from student debt to reproductive rights” in an exclusive video with Elle titled “I’ve Got A Plan For That.”

The video features questions that Elle readers submitted for Warren, such as, “I’ve been casually dating a guy for the past three months, but now he’s ghosting me. He won’t return my texts, but he still looks at all my Instagram Stories. What do I do?”

“Give him up,” Warren said in the video. “You’re too good for him. If he wants to go silent, let him go. He is not the one for you.”

“You’re better than that,” she whispered. Warren tweeted out the video with the caption, “You deserve better. Dump the guy who ghosted you, convince the roommate to let you adopt a dog, and I’ll take care of canceling your student loan debt!”

You deserve better. Dump the guy who ghosted you, convince the roommate to let you adopt a dog, and I'll take care of canceling your student loan debt!

Elizabeth Warren Wants You to Ditch That Guy, Get a Dog, and Vote to Tax the Rich
In an exclusive video with ELLE.com, Warren answers reader questions because—if you haven't heard—she has a plan for that.

Another reader posed the question to Warren, “I really want a dog, but my roommate isn’t into the idea. How do I convince her?”

Warren suggested bringing the reluctant roommate along to the dog shelter to convince her that a dog is a good idea.

“Make it specific, and you’ll have a roommate who will be into a dog.”

The 2020 presidential candidate also discussed a question on student loan debt, promising to eradicate student debt, and suggested that to take the perfect selfie, you should “stop thinking about yourself.”

“When you go back and look at the selfies later on, what you mostly remember is what a great time you had,” Warren said. “For me, selfies are about fun. So have some fun!”

Source

Warren is making the same mistake Hillary made by dismissing or discounting the male vote. If I were a democrat I would be angry that Warren is playing the misandry card. This move will backfire on her and cost her support from men.

Comedians versus feminists 2

Comedians versus feminists 1

Trump levels the playing field

Let's thank President Trump for taking this heroic stance in reinstating men's rights at the executive level. The more of us he hears from the better.

Dave Futrelle lies about MGTOW

I was at Dave Futrelle's website where he was ragging on the great MGTOW movement that is waking men up to the realities of feminism. Futrelle's lies are well known throughout the manosphere and we find his ineptness quite comical. Then again Dave has always been an unintentional comedian. Anyway, I left the following comment on his website. Let's see if he has the manhood to publish it:

As usual, Dave has no idea what he is talking about. MGTOW, along with the Men's Rights Movement, are very justified in their positions. It is feminism that is illegitimate and dangerous. It is brave men who stood up to these feminist monsters and for that these men are heroes.

Very sincerely,

Masculist Man-Masculist/Men's Rights Activist and Man Going His Own Way

BTW, the pet store is having a sale on cats but only if you buy in bulk which I'm sure you will. So while you are renewing your restraining orders against Dave you can go buy 50 cats at a time.

Matriarchy goes after fair minded judge

New Jersey Superior Court Judge John F. Russo Jr. is facing a possible three-month suspension without pay for asking an alleged sexual assault victim whether she tried closing her legs to prevent the assault.

The Advisory Committee on Judicial Conduct overseeing the case say he has violated the Code of Judicial Conduct with this line of questioning in addition to numerous other instances in recent years, the Washington Post reports.

In 2016, Russo was overseeing a case where a woman was seeking a restraining order against the father of her child, who she claims raped her and threatened her life. In the transcript from the hearing, Russo began a line of questioning by asking, “Do you know how to stop somebody from having intercourse with you?” According to the transcript, the judge had the woman list out ways to prevent an assault. She suggested attempting to physically harm her assailant, saying no, and running away. When asked if there was anything else she could have done, the woman responded, “That’s all I know.” To which, Russo asked, “Block your body parts? Close your legs? Call the police? Did you do any of those things?”

The committee found Russo’s line of questioning to be “unwarranted” and “egregious given the potential for those questions to re-victimize the plaintiff, who sought redress from the court under palpably difficult circumstances.” According to the committee’s report, Russo denied the woman’s request for a restraining order, citing her answers to his line of questioning as reason for his decision.

Russo stands by his line of questioning, saying that it was necessary to “demonstrate the element of force or coercion used during the assault.” He denies that the questions were inappropriate; however, the committee claims that Russo has agreed to not ask those types of questions in the future. In March 2018, Russo’s lawyer, David F. Corrigan, made a statement to the local NBC News station, saying, “Judge Russo looks forward to a public hearing in which he will be able to respond to the allegations against him.” This was right after the complaint was filed.

The committee's investigation into the matter includes interviews with Russo and two dozen other individuals. The recommendation for his suspension, a 45-page document, was released earlier this week. According to the New York Times, the New Jersey Supreme Court has set a hearing for July to determine what disciplinary actions will be taken.

Source

The SPLC eats its own

The Southern Poverty Law Center has fired co-founder Morris Dees, the group announced Thursday.

“As a civil rights organization, the SPLC is committed to ensuring that the conduct of our staff reflects the mission of the organization and the values we hope to instill in the world,” SPLC president Richard Cohen said in a statement. “When one of our own fails to meet those standards, no matter his or her role in the organization, we take it seriously and must take appropriate action.”

Dees, 82, co-founded the SPLC in 1971 and was its chief litigator.

The Montgomery Advertiser, reporting on the Alabama-based organization in 1994, flagged concerns about its practices in an eight-part series that later earned a Pulitzer nomination.

The SPLC tracks hate groups in the U.S. and works to prevent discrimination against minorities, but the Advertiser‘s series aired allegations of discrimination against black employees, who “accused . . . Dees, the center’s driving force, of being a racist.”
Dees was also criticized in the Advertiser‘s reports of being “more focused on raising money than fighting injustice” even though he was also “a figure seen as heroic by some.” The organization had $450 million in assets in 2017, according to tax records.
By Thursday the group had removed Dees’s biography from their website, but his name and a description of his role remain in the summary of the organization’s history.

The group promised to take “a number of immediate, concrete next steps,” including having a third party conduct a “comprehensive assessment of our internal climate and workplace practices.” It did not specify what Dees had done to prompt his firing.

Source

Tucker Carlson stands his ground

Tucker Carlson aka The Man
Some bullshit tapes about how Tucker Carlson spoke his mind about women recently surfaced. Feminists who have said horrid things about men are demanding Tucker apologize. Unlike Greg Gutless,Tucker stood his ground and told them to go fuck themselves. In an age where conservative men like Sean Hannity play the white knight Tucker is a man and a realist. For that Tucker Carlson we at the Men's Rights Blog salute you.

Secretary of Education shuts down Obama's kangaroo courts

A judicial process that doesn’t allow the accused to cross-examine his accuser or reliably see the evidence against him is a civil libertarian’s nightmare. It traduces every principle of fairness and is blatantly un-American.

Yet Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is about to get savaged for replacing just such a process with something more in keeping with our longstanding legal norms.

The Education Department is preparing new rules that would roll back the monstrously unfair Obama-era requirements for how colleges handle sexual-assault and harassment allegations. It will be a significant advance for due process, which is almost as out of style on campus as free speech.

In one of its least defensible actions, the Obama administration used its Office for Civil Rights to impose its preferred procedures for handling sexual-assault cases on all the universities in the country that receive federal funds. It did it via a 19-page “Dear Colleague” letter, in the name of Title IX, the provision in federal law prohibiting sexual discrimination in education.

The process was terrible. It blew right by the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires public notice and comment before such rules go into effect. And the substance was worse. If the letter reads as if it was written by inflamed activists who had no interest in balanced proceedings, that’s because it was.

It required colleges to adopt a “preponderance of evidence” standard rather than a “clear and convincing” standard.

It more or less forbade colleges from allowing the cross-examination of accusers.

It adopted a remarkably broad definition of sexual harassment to include “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature.”

The administration also encouraged the use of a “single investigator-adjudicator system,” i.e., one person as investigator, judge and jury.

The Obama rules are medieval in the sense that they ignore central developments in Anglo-American justice that arose hundreds of years ago.

In their important book “The Campus Rape Frenzy,” KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor Jr. describe how the rules often played out: “Start with an alcohol-soaked set of facts that no state’s criminal law would consider sexual assault. Add an incomplete ‘investigation,’ unfair procedures, and a disciplinary panel uninterested in evidence of innocence. Stir in a de facto presumption of guilt based on misguided Obama administration dictates, ideological zeal, and fear of bad publicity.”

The result has, inevitably, been jaw-dropping miscarriages of justice. Everyone should want perpetrators of sexual assault to be punished — and in the criminal-justice system, not just by colleges — but elementary protections for the accused can’t be discarded in the process.

One reason the Obama rules were so lopsided is that they were crafted in an atmosphere of moral panic. It was assumed that there was a spiraling epidemic of sexual assault on campus. Taylor and Johnson note, to the contrary, that sexual assaults of female college students dropped by more than half between 1997 and 2013, and that young women in college are less likely to be assaulted than those who are not in college.

The Obama rules have been receiving a battering in the courts, where due process is still taken seriously.

A US district court judge wrote in a 2016 ruling against Brandeis University: “If a college student is to be marked for life as a sexual predator, it is reasonable to require that he be provided a fair opportunity to defend himself and an impartial arbiter to make that decision. Put simply, a fair determination of the facts requires a fair process, not tilted to favor a particular outcome, and a fair and neutral fact-finder, not predisposed to reach a particular conclusion.”

This is the animating spirit behind the DeVos changes. They are still being formulated, but a New York Times report suggests that they will correct the worst excesses of the Obama rules and interject fairness into proceedings that were, shamefully, designed to lack it.

Source

Let's thank Betsy Devos: Betsy.Devos@ed.gov and let her know that what she is doing is fantastic and that we fully support it and her. The more of us they hear from the better so let's do it.

Feminist's son is accused of rape

I am a feminist. I have marched at the barricades, subscribed to Ms. magazine, and knocked on many a door in support of progressive candidates committed to women’s rights. Until a month ago, I would have expressed unqualified support for Title IX and for the Violence Against Women Act.

But that was before my son, a senior at a small liberal-arts college in New England, was charged—by an ex-girlfriend—with alleged acts of “nonconsensual sex” that supposedly occurred during the course of their relationship a few years earlier.

What followed was a nightmare—a fall through Alice’s looking-glass into a world that I could not possibly have believed existed, least of all behind the ivy-covered walls thought to protect an ostensible dedication to enlightenment and intellectual betterment.

It began with a text of desperation. “CALL ME. URGENT. NOW.”

That was how my son informed me that not only had charges been brought against him but that he was ordered to appear to answer these allegations in a matter of days. There was no preliminary inquiry on the part of anyone at the school into these accusations about behavior alleged to have taken place a few years earlier, no consideration of the possibility that jealousy or revenge might be motivating a spurned young ex-lover to lash out. Worst of all, my son would not be afforded a presumption of innocence.

In fact, Title IX, that so-called guarantor of equality between the sexes on college campuses, and as applied by a recent directive from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, has obliterated the presumption of innocence that is so foundational to our traditions of justice. On today’s college campuses, neither “beyond a reasonable doubt,” nor even the lesser “by clear and convincing evidence” standard of proof is required to establish guilt of sexual misconduct.

These safeguards of due process have, by order of the federal government, been replaced by what is known as “a preponderance of the evidence.” What this means, in plain English, is that all my son’s accuser needed to establish before a campus tribunal is that the allegations were “more likely than not” to have occurred by a margin of proof that can be as slim as 50.1% to 49.9%.

How does this campus tribunal proceed to evaluate the accusations? Upon what evidence is it able to make a judgment?

The frightening answer is that like the proverbial 800-pound gorilla, the tribunal does pretty much whatever it wants, showing scant regard for fundamental fairness, due process of law, and the well-established rules and procedures that have evolved under the Constitution for citizens’ protection. Who knew that American college students are required to surrender the Bill of Rights at the campus gates?

My son was given written notice of the charges against him, in the form of a letter from the campus Title IX officer. But instead of affording him the right to be fully informed, the separately listed allegations were a barrage of vague statements, rendering any defense virtually impossible. The letter lacked even the most basic information about the acts alleged to have happened years before. Nor were the allegations supported by any evidence other than the word of the ex-girlfriend.

The hearing itself was a two-hour ordeal of unabated grilling by the school’s committee, during which, my son later reported, he was expressly denied his request to be represented by counsel or even to have an attorney outside the door of the room. The questioning, he said, ran far afield even from the vaguely stated allegations contained in the so-called notice. Questions from the distant past, even about unrelated matters, were flung at him with no opportunity for him to give thoughtful answers.

The many pages of written documentation that my son had put together—which were directly on point about his relationship with his accuser during the time period of his alleged wrongful conduct—were dismissed as somehow not relevant. What was relevant, however, according to the committee, was the unsworn testimony of “witnesses” deemed to have observable knowledge about the long-ago relationship between my son and his accuser.

That the recollections of these young people (made under intense peer pressure and with none of the safeguards consistent with fundamental fairness) were relevant—while records of the accuser’s email and social media postings were not—made a mockery of the very term. While my son was instructed by the committee not to “discuss this matter” with any potential witnesses, these witnesses against him were not identified to him, nor was he allowed to confront or question either them or his accuser.

Thankfully, I happen to be an attorney and had the resources to provide the necessary professional assistance to my son. The charges against him were ultimately dismissed but not before he and our family had to suffer through this ordeal. I am of course relieved and most grateful for this outcome. Yet I am also keenly aware not only of how easily this all could have gone the other way—with life-altering consequences—but how all too often it does.

Across the country and with increasing frequency, innocent victims of impossible-to-substantiate charges are afforded scant rights to fundamental fairness and find themselves entrapped in a widening web of this latest surge in political correctness. Few have a lawyer for a mother, and many may not know about the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which assisted me in my research.

There are very real and horrifying instances of sexual misconduct and abuse on college campuses and elsewhere. That these offenses should be investigated and prosecuted where appropriate is not open to question. What does remain a question is how we can make the process fair for everyone.

I fear that in the current climate the goal of “women’s rights,” with the compliance of politically motivated government policy and the tacit complicity of college administrators, runs the risk of grounding our most cherished institutions in a veritable snake pit of injustice—not unlike the very injustices the movement itself has for so long sought to correct. Unbridled feminist orthodoxy is no more the answer than are attitudes and policies that victimize the victim.

Source

Karma. That is the best way to put it. Karma.