Former heads of state urge EU to outlaw anti-feminism
Europe, October 28, 2013 By Robert O'Hara
Earlier this month in Rome a council comprised of former European heads of state called on the European Parliament to establish national surveillance units to monitor citizens suspected of anti-feminist leanings.
The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), a “tolerance watchdog”, which includes former presidents of the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Albania, Latvia, and Cyprus, and former prime ministers of Spain and Sweden, made the proposal in a report delivered during a 45-minute speech to the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE).
The proposal, titled the Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance calls for “concrete action to combat intolerance, in particular with a view to eliminating racism, colour bias, ethnic discrimination, religious intolerance, totalitarian ideologies, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-feminism and homophobia.”
Notice "sexism is not on the list. (sarcasm)I wonder why.(/sarcasm)
These “special administrative units,” the report says, “should preferably operate within the Ministry of Justice.”
“There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant,” it states, especially “as far as freedom of expression is concerned.”
It also calls for actual criminal sanctions to be levied against offenders.
Congratulations. You have just eliminated basic freedoms and the economy of United Europe in one piece of legislation. Swift move.
European Dignity Watch, a civil rights watchdog group based in Brussels, has warned that this directive “aims to impose governmental control over the social and economic behavior of citizens in the widest possible sense.”
In a scathing critique, the group says that the ECTR Framework’s basic principles are flawed and that it “interferes in an unprecedented manner with citizens’ freedom and rights” and “distorts the concepts of ‘justice’ and ‘equality’.”
Finally some common sense at the end. Europe doesn't look too male friendly right now.
Source
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Anti-male article from Time magazine
One of the most pernicious biases in the media is the bias against men. Time today published a piece by Jeffrey Kluger titled: “Women Make Better Doctors Than Men.”
In a new report released by the University of Montreal, investigators found that women outperformed men on certain metrics of patient care.
Kluger suggests, ironically, that the difference may be due to some of the oldest stereotypes of the sexes.
It’s possible the female doctors were simply more willing to devote more time to their patients.
No fear, though, because no anti-male, sexist article can be complete with out a bit of ageism thrown in for good measure.
…there’s hope for improvement. The younger the doctors in their study were, the narrower the divide between the sexes, suggesting that hurry-up male doctors are aging out of the system, being replaced by a newer, gentler generation.
One need not wonder whether a similar story might have appeared in Time had the results been inverted. A quick search of the Time online archives reveals the following titles:
"Women at the Auto Repair Shop: Better at Haggling, Yet More Likely to Get Ripped Off" – a piece that celebrates women for being good at shopping, and then blames men for their failure to protect themselves from being ripped off.
"Do Women Make Better Traders than Men?"
"What Stereotype? Women Are Better Than Men at Parking, Study Finds"
"Why Women Are Better at Everything"
"Study: Women Better at Using Social Media to Keep in Touch"
"Survey: Women More Satisfied With the College Experience"
All of these titles return on the first page of results. The search criteria: men better than women!
Not surprisingly, there were no exact returns for that criteria.
Source: click here
More bullshit at Crime uh er Time Magazine. Watch them become irrelevant. The same irrelevancy that the New York Times was looking at. In fact it got so bad at the NYT that they had to actually print genuine news stories without the usual liberal bias. They were looking at their finances going into the red. The same will happen with Time Magazine: it's either sink or swim.
In a new report released by the University of Montreal, investigators found that women outperformed men on certain metrics of patient care.
Kluger suggests, ironically, that the difference may be due to some of the oldest stereotypes of the sexes.
It’s possible the female doctors were simply more willing to devote more time to their patients.
No fear, though, because no anti-male, sexist article can be complete with out a bit of ageism thrown in for good measure.
…there’s hope for improvement. The younger the doctors in their study were, the narrower the divide between the sexes, suggesting that hurry-up male doctors are aging out of the system, being replaced by a newer, gentler generation.
One need not wonder whether a similar story might have appeared in Time had the results been inverted. A quick search of the Time online archives reveals the following titles:
"Women at the Auto Repair Shop: Better at Haggling, Yet More Likely to Get Ripped Off" – a piece that celebrates women for being good at shopping, and then blames men for their failure to protect themselves from being ripped off.
"Do Women Make Better Traders than Men?"
"What Stereotype? Women Are Better Than Men at Parking, Study Finds"
"Why Women Are Better at Everything"
"Study: Women Better at Using Social Media to Keep in Touch"
"Survey: Women More Satisfied With the College Experience"
All of these titles return on the first page of results. The search criteria: men better than women!
Not surprisingly, there were no exact returns for that criteria.
Source: click here
More bullshit at Crime uh er Time Magazine. Watch them become irrelevant. The same irrelevancy that the New York Times was looking at. In fact it got so bad at the NYT that they had to actually print genuine news stories without the usual liberal bias. They were looking at their finances going into the red. The same will happen with Time Magazine: it's either sink or swim.
Sunday, October 13, 2013
A Voice For Men at Queen's Park in Toranto
I'd like to turn this back on the feminists: We hear your here,we hear you're queer now how about you disappear.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Another perspective of femitheist
It all starts innocently by Lucian Valsan
Apparently, there’s a debate, a discussion if you prefer, within the AVFM’s inner circle and MRM circles in general regarding whether the outing of Krista Milburn (also known as Femitheist) was the right thing to do.
I must confess that I am still appalled that this discussion takes place to begin with. At the end of the day, there’s no difference between the Krista Milburn business and The Agent Orange files episode. In both cases, some particularly sick individuals advocating mass murder, child abuse, eugenics, genocide and other practices worthy of the Third Reich or the Soviet Union were exposed for the whole world to see what they really think and talk about when they are under the protection of anonymity. So why is this particular case somehow different?
The words of two MRAs that I respect made me write this article. Had it not been for them, I would have dismissed the issue as non-relevant whilst sending a big thumbs up to JtO for his work.
One of the two MRAs that I respect told me that Krista Milburn poses no threat for men whatsoever. But is it really the case? At the moment of writing these words, Krista Milburn’s Youtube Channel has 11451 subscribers. By comparison, Paul Elam’s channel has 9206 subscribers. That’s right. The founder of this place, against whom an American national media venue is preparing a hit piece for alleged crimes of eating kittens has LESS influence and less subscribers than the piece of human vermin called Krista Milburn who, amongst other things, advocated the reduction of male population to negligible dimensions — a goal which she has never abandoned.
According to Krista Milburn, she supports a 90:10 female-male ratio and hopes to accomplish this through non-violent means but she does “not endorse achieving this by engaging in any sort of killing, genocide, or any other enactments of violence against anyone.”[1] According to her supporters (surprisingly some MRAs amongst them) this statement of hers is supposed to calm me so I no longer despise this piece of human vermin because cute little Krista doesn’t want to castrate or kill all men (or at least now she says she doesn’t want that anymore) – but just happens to hold the same views as other genocidal maniacs of the tormented history of Europe.
At the end of the day, Adolf Hitler didn’t always envision concentration camps and mass killings. In 1920, in Salzburg (Austria), the young, dashing and charismatic Adolf was talking only about the eradication of the “Jewish spirit”[2]. Nothing about mass murders that did happen at the end of the day.
In the same period, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was talking about “peace through socialism and classless society after taking down the bourgeois spirit”. Nothing about the Gulags, the NKVD (later on the KGB), the brainwashing through torture experiments like Pitești or Aiud conducted including on children[3]. But these things happened.
Also, more recently, Charles Manson created his own cult of deranged individuals – only this time it was not a Party but a Family – and his creation impressed numerous remarkable people who called this “the whole Charlie Manson package.”
What do Charles Manson, Vladimir Lenin and Adolf Hitler have in common? For starters, all three of them were egocentric maniacs. Second of all, none of them killed anybody. Thirdly, all of them are responsible for trying to “change the world” by force whilst practicing the doublespeak of non-violence in their early days. The rest is just a question of nuance and semantics. The tenets are identical.
Is it really far fetched to compare Krista Milburn with those three? Perhaps it is. But think of it this way: Nobody thought of Lenin in 1914, of Hitler in 1918 or of Manson in 1954 as individuals even remotely dangerous for the society – despite the fact that all three of them had already expressed utopian totalitarian views.
A better example than those three is Nicolae Ceaușescu. The ruthless Romanian dictator even served prison time in his early 20s for spreading Communist agitation and ideas that decades after were to become the tenets of his dictatorship, a dictatorship that was to become the most oppressive in the former Eastern Block which took a quarter of a century to overturn. Ceaușescu also advocated non-violent means to achieve the Socialist paradise. And even now there are some sick individuals who dare to defend him.
How were all these possible? Because as the old say goes, in order for the evil to prevail, it’s enough that good men do nothing. Very few (virtually nobody) did anything to stop these maniacs while it was still possible.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the USSR, a significant majority of people declared themselves outraged when very few good men decided to publish all the secret files about all the individuals. The pressure was immense in all the Eastern Block countries. However, good men disregarded the calls for ”compassion” and outed the former members of the repressive apparatus. Had it not been for all those good men, the history of the last 25 years in some of the European countries could’ve been entirely different.
And this brings us back to Krista Milburn – an egocentric utopian totalitarian maniac who under the guise of a neotenous face and claims of “non-violence” advocates for nothing less than yet another cleansing of the human population – this time along sex lines, as opposed to religious lines (Hitler), racial lines (Manson) or class lines (Lenin).
And here we are, with a lot of people, including some MRAs, calling us to tone down because “she’s not really a danger” or “she hasn’t done anything yet”. Or, some other people calling “free speech” on what she’s advocating – as if AVfM had demanded to shut her up. On the contrary – more free speech to Krista, please! And, if possible, with more audience, for the whole world to see the piece of human vermin she is.
Free speech, however, doesn’t mean free reign, nor does it mean that her right to free speech trumps the responsibilities that come with it. Just because she has a vagina and an arguably attractive face doesn’t mean she’s potentially any less dangerous than any other egocentric maniac.
If she really means what she’s saying (and I, for one, take her very seriously), then she, and her defenders, shouldn’t have any problem with her taking the responsibility for what she’s saying.
Let me be more clear: If this piece of human refuse were to be in my community – I’d love to know up front. If she were to be employed in a store from which I buy food, I’d like to know so I can stop buying food from that store until she’s either fired or the store goes bankrupt. If she were a teacher in the school where my kids or my nieces are going, I’d love to know that, so I can move them away as soon as possible. Because at the end of the day, not even her defenders would let their own sons to be educated by Krista. At least not as long as they are in their right minds.
Does what I say lack compassion for her? Yes, and I do. Call it my “intolerant nature” if you like. I tend to be highly intolerant with fascists, eugenic maniacs, former members of the Politburo, Communists and other totalitarian-oriented Utopian thinkers. If I had been more tolerant with these kinds of individuals, I’d still be living in hell – so no, thank you.
Another MRA that I respect tried to tell me that she is now redeeming herself and no longer advocates for mass killings. Well, I’ve seen former torturers in gulags claiming to now be advocating for democracy and/or freedom and at the first sign of trouble came back to their original ideas. So these kinds of attitudes coming from Krista should be treated at the very least with extreme skepticism if not outright dismissed.
Maybe I am too tired for this shit. Maybe I am too much of a grumpy Eastern European to get the nuances of this egocentric, nihilistic psychopath. Maybe. But, at the end of the day, I’ve seen this film before and each time nobody did anything about it before things went very wrong.
I wish I were wrong but for now it has been the case every single time that human beings learned one thing and one thing only from history: the fact that humans learn absolutely nothing from history.
Source:click here
I've had the same arguements with those white knights over there so I know how he feels. Lucian presents a strong arguement which supports what I've been saying: why grief over a fallen foe? Even if she never harms anyone herself she is still influencing others and they might turn her ideas into action. This is what I said.
Apparently, there’s a debate, a discussion if you prefer, within the AVFM’s inner circle and MRM circles in general regarding whether the outing of Krista Milburn (also known as Femitheist) was the right thing to do.
I must confess that I am still appalled that this discussion takes place to begin with. At the end of the day, there’s no difference between the Krista Milburn business and The Agent Orange files episode. In both cases, some particularly sick individuals advocating mass murder, child abuse, eugenics, genocide and other practices worthy of the Third Reich or the Soviet Union were exposed for the whole world to see what they really think and talk about when they are under the protection of anonymity. So why is this particular case somehow different?
The words of two MRAs that I respect made me write this article. Had it not been for them, I would have dismissed the issue as non-relevant whilst sending a big thumbs up to JtO for his work.
One of the two MRAs that I respect told me that Krista Milburn poses no threat for men whatsoever. But is it really the case? At the moment of writing these words, Krista Milburn’s Youtube Channel has 11451 subscribers. By comparison, Paul Elam’s channel has 9206 subscribers. That’s right. The founder of this place, against whom an American national media venue is preparing a hit piece for alleged crimes of eating kittens has LESS influence and less subscribers than the piece of human vermin called Krista Milburn who, amongst other things, advocated the reduction of male population to negligible dimensions — a goal which she has never abandoned.
According to Krista Milburn, she supports a 90:10 female-male ratio and hopes to accomplish this through non-violent means but she does “not endorse achieving this by engaging in any sort of killing, genocide, or any other enactments of violence against anyone.”[1] According to her supporters (surprisingly some MRAs amongst them) this statement of hers is supposed to calm me so I no longer despise this piece of human vermin because cute little Krista doesn’t want to castrate or kill all men (or at least now she says she doesn’t want that anymore) – but just happens to hold the same views as other genocidal maniacs of the tormented history of Europe.
At the end of the day, Adolf Hitler didn’t always envision concentration camps and mass killings. In 1920, in Salzburg (Austria), the young, dashing and charismatic Adolf was talking only about the eradication of the “Jewish spirit”[2]. Nothing about mass murders that did happen at the end of the day.
In the same period, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was talking about “peace through socialism and classless society after taking down the bourgeois spirit”. Nothing about the Gulags, the NKVD (later on the KGB), the brainwashing through torture experiments like Pitești or Aiud conducted including on children[3]. But these things happened.
Also, more recently, Charles Manson created his own cult of deranged individuals – only this time it was not a Party but a Family – and his creation impressed numerous remarkable people who called this “the whole Charlie Manson package.”
What do Charles Manson, Vladimir Lenin and Adolf Hitler have in common? For starters, all three of them were egocentric maniacs. Second of all, none of them killed anybody. Thirdly, all of them are responsible for trying to “change the world” by force whilst practicing the doublespeak of non-violence in their early days. The rest is just a question of nuance and semantics. The tenets are identical.
Is it really far fetched to compare Krista Milburn with those three? Perhaps it is. But think of it this way: Nobody thought of Lenin in 1914, of Hitler in 1918 or of Manson in 1954 as individuals even remotely dangerous for the society – despite the fact that all three of them had already expressed utopian totalitarian views.
A better example than those three is Nicolae Ceaușescu. The ruthless Romanian dictator even served prison time in his early 20s for spreading Communist agitation and ideas that decades after were to become the tenets of his dictatorship, a dictatorship that was to become the most oppressive in the former Eastern Block which took a quarter of a century to overturn. Ceaușescu also advocated non-violent means to achieve the Socialist paradise. And even now there are some sick individuals who dare to defend him.
How were all these possible? Because as the old say goes, in order for the evil to prevail, it’s enough that good men do nothing. Very few (virtually nobody) did anything to stop these maniacs while it was still possible.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the USSR, a significant majority of people declared themselves outraged when very few good men decided to publish all the secret files about all the individuals. The pressure was immense in all the Eastern Block countries. However, good men disregarded the calls for ”compassion” and outed the former members of the repressive apparatus. Had it not been for all those good men, the history of the last 25 years in some of the European countries could’ve been entirely different.
And this brings us back to Krista Milburn – an egocentric utopian totalitarian maniac who under the guise of a neotenous face and claims of “non-violence” advocates for nothing less than yet another cleansing of the human population – this time along sex lines, as opposed to religious lines (Hitler), racial lines (Manson) or class lines (Lenin).
And here we are, with a lot of people, including some MRAs, calling us to tone down because “she’s not really a danger” or “she hasn’t done anything yet”. Or, some other people calling “free speech” on what she’s advocating – as if AVfM had demanded to shut her up. On the contrary – more free speech to Krista, please! And, if possible, with more audience, for the whole world to see the piece of human vermin she is.
Free speech, however, doesn’t mean free reign, nor does it mean that her right to free speech trumps the responsibilities that come with it. Just because she has a vagina and an arguably attractive face doesn’t mean she’s potentially any less dangerous than any other egocentric maniac.
If she really means what she’s saying (and I, for one, take her very seriously), then she, and her defenders, shouldn’t have any problem with her taking the responsibility for what she’s saying.
Let me be more clear: If this piece of human refuse were to be in my community – I’d love to know up front. If she were to be employed in a store from which I buy food, I’d like to know so I can stop buying food from that store until she’s either fired or the store goes bankrupt. If she were a teacher in the school where my kids or my nieces are going, I’d love to know that, so I can move them away as soon as possible. Because at the end of the day, not even her defenders would let their own sons to be educated by Krista. At least not as long as they are in their right minds.
Does what I say lack compassion for her? Yes, and I do. Call it my “intolerant nature” if you like. I tend to be highly intolerant with fascists, eugenic maniacs, former members of the Politburo, Communists and other totalitarian-oriented Utopian thinkers. If I had been more tolerant with these kinds of individuals, I’d still be living in hell – so no, thank you.
Another MRA that I respect tried to tell me that she is now redeeming herself and no longer advocates for mass killings. Well, I’ve seen former torturers in gulags claiming to now be advocating for democracy and/or freedom and at the first sign of trouble came back to their original ideas. So these kinds of attitudes coming from Krista should be treated at the very least with extreme skepticism if not outright dismissed.
Maybe I am too tired for this shit. Maybe I am too much of a grumpy Eastern European to get the nuances of this egocentric, nihilistic psychopath. Maybe. But, at the end of the day, I’ve seen this film before and each time nobody did anything about it before things went very wrong.
I wish I were wrong but for now it has been the case every single time that human beings learned one thing and one thing only from history: the fact that humans learn absolutely nothing from history.
Source:click here
I've had the same arguements with those white knights over there so I know how he feels. Lucian presents a strong arguement which supports what I've been saying: why grief over a fallen foe? Even if she never harms anyone herself she is still influencing others and they might turn her ideas into action. This is what I said.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Keep Hillary out of the Whitehouse
From Stop Hillary PAC:
Hillary Clinton and her SuperPAC cronies have declared war on Stop Hillary PAC.
That's why I'm writing you this urgent email today – just hours from our critical fundraising deadline.
If you can step up right now and support our efforts to defeat Hillary Clinton, I need your contribution in the next few hours – before our make-or-break August 31st fundraising deadline.
I needyour immediate support to enable Stop Hillary PAC to fight back against the MILLIONS being spent right now to install Hillary in the White House.
As you know, Hillary Clinton's team has announced a multi-million dollar fundraising haul.
Hillary Clinton must never become president of the United States. I know it, you know it, and millions of Americans – Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike – know it.
But massive forces are aligning to begin the coronation of "President Hillary."
I need everyone who has pledged to defeat Hillary in 2016 to donate at least $35 before this important fundraising deadline to have any chance of keeping pace with the Clinton machine.
Friend, can I count on your immediate donation of $35?
They may have the fat cat donors...but we have the American people.
Thousands of great supporters have already stepped up again, and I need your support once again. but so far. So please click the link below to make an important gift today.
If supporters like you – who have already signed our pledge to defeat Hillary – step up immediately, we will send a strong message to Hillary and the liberal elite. Otherwise, we will be crushed by shady special interest money.
I urgently need you to back us up on this.
Thanks for your support.
Ted Harvey
Senator Ted Harvey (R)
Colorado State Senator
Co-Founder, Stop Hillary PAC
Click here to contribute.
I can think of a lot of reasons why Hillary should never be President. Benghazi proves she should have never been Secretary Of State. Let's cut to the chase: Hillary Clinton is a feminist statist. Do you want to give a feminist statist the power to issue Executive Orders? Think about it.
Hillary Clinton and her SuperPAC cronies have declared war on Stop Hillary PAC.
That's why I'm writing you this urgent email today – just hours from our critical fundraising deadline.
If you can step up right now and support our efforts to defeat Hillary Clinton, I need your contribution in the next few hours – before our make-or-break August 31st fundraising deadline.
I needyour immediate support to enable Stop Hillary PAC to fight back against the MILLIONS being spent right now to install Hillary in the White House.
As you know, Hillary Clinton's team has announced a multi-million dollar fundraising haul.
Hillary Clinton must never become president of the United States. I know it, you know it, and millions of Americans – Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike – know it.
But massive forces are aligning to begin the coronation of "President Hillary."
I need everyone who has pledged to defeat Hillary in 2016 to donate at least $35 before this important fundraising deadline to have any chance of keeping pace with the Clinton machine.
Friend, can I count on your immediate donation of $35?
They may have the fat cat donors...but we have the American people.
Thousands of great supporters have already stepped up again, and I need your support once again. but so far. So please click the link below to make an important gift today.
If supporters like you – who have already signed our pledge to defeat Hillary – step up immediately, we will send a strong message to Hillary and the liberal elite. Otherwise, we will be crushed by shady special interest money.
I urgently need you to back us up on this.
Thanks for your support.
Ted Harvey
Senator Ted Harvey (R)
Colorado State Senator
Co-Founder, Stop Hillary PAC
Click here to contribute.
I can think of a lot of reasons why Hillary should never be President. Benghazi proves she should have never been Secretary Of State. Let's cut to the chase: Hillary Clinton is a feminist statist. Do you want to give a feminist statist the power to issue Executive Orders? Think about it.
Thursday, August 22, 2013
JTO on toning it down and why it's never going to happen
MRAs: be quiet, be more polite by John Hembling (JTO)
Apparently, the issues addressed by the men’s rights movement are legitimate issues.
The rate of workplace death – somewhere around 93 percent male – is a real issue. The rate of male suicide – where 4 out of 5 who die by their own hand are men – that’s real, too. The overwhelming majority of the homeless who are male – real. The fact that men are sentenced more harshly in the criminal courts, and that fathers are grossly mistreated and abused by the family courts – real. And indirectly, children mistreated by those same family courts, who are denying them healthy relationships with their fathers, is a real issue as well.
These are real issues – and feminists have even deigned to acknowledge that they are real issues. I’m not being sarcastic at all.
There are also a few issues not agreed on by the self-appointed public arbiters of truth or fiction, those gender ideologues calling themselves “feminist” and claiming that all they ever wanted was equality, that most slippery of political goals.
Consider routine male infant genital mutilation – that’s not a real issue, apparently. Never mind that hundreds of children die every year from the shock and trauma of having the most sensitive part of their anatomy severed with no anaesthetic, and that the practice was normalized specifically to desensitize the sexual organs of boys by a medical quack in the 19th century. In spite of the fact that the sexual mutilation of girls is almost universally condemned – doing the exact same things to infant boys is no problem, and as an ongoing outrage and abomination – it’s not a real issue, and those objecting should sit down, shut up, and stop whining. Stop whining already.
Similarly, just as feminists and other fascists agree that mutilating male infants is routine but don’t see any particular problem with the continuation of the practice – men and boys are increasingly disenfranchised by the education system. Female graduation outcomes account for more than 65% of all graduation from institutions of higher education. This is not debated by feminists, but rather than recognizing the growing inequality produced by a systematically biased education system, they celebrate this as a positive outcome. Feminism is all about equality, and if feminist policies in education produce a growing inequality, then obviously, we need more feminism – to – ah, fix the problem.
Human rights activists who might become angry when their brothers, sons, fathers and friends are systematically marginalized by all this, ahem, equality, should pipe down, don’t get so angry, be more polite, wait your turn, and can you just be quiet, because the feminists are busy taking care of your issues, or they would be, if only you’d be silent, go away, and stop inconveniencing them by illuminating the human damage their policies produce.
The sadists informing public policy don’t like it when you point out that they are sadists.
But the fact is that the men and women in the men’s rights movement recognize human harm done directly to men and boys, and harm done indirectly to women and girls by feminist driven policies, are outraged by the decades of fucking indifference from the public when this human damage is pointed out.
Ill say that again. The human damage produced in full knowledge by feminist driven domestic policy is met with almost total indifference. It has been the case for decades, and those of us who actually give a shit about addressing these problems are just a little bit goddamn tired of that indifference.
Out of every 100 suicides, 80 are male. Oh well, yawn, who cares. Oh yeah, and in a world where men die earlier, when men kill themselves more, when men die violent deaths more than anybody else, where men comprise the majority of the homeless, and are increasingly disenfranchised by the education system – we are treated to an apparently never-ending narrative about how the whole world is a male-advantaging patriarchy in which being male means getting a cruise through life with the difficulty setting at easy.
Well, that’s not really all of it, even. There’s also rape culture. That’s a populist narrative in which it is claimed that the rape of women and girls is a central feature of our culture. It is claimed that the rape of women and girls is normalized, that we are socialized to accept rape as if it is acceptable.
However, the reality is that rape has no sex, and that if we are to throw out the politicized definition in most dictionaries and look only at violent sexual victimization – it’s men and boys who are the predominant victims across our culture. This is not to suggest that women don’t get raped, and that they are not also victimized, but we are living in a culture where the rape of men and boys, while it occurs with greater frequency, has been defined in the dictionary to not exist. It happens in the real world, but the dictionary says that’s not rape, and besides – boys raped by their teachers are lucky to get some – because they don’t get to say no, they are sex machines, not human beings, and certainly not children sexually abused by those they should have been able to trust.
Yeah, this rape culture is one where only the rape of women is treated as acceptable.
And for those of us who recognize the humanity of more human beings than just the members of our culture’s leisure caste – when faced with indifference at human harm, and sometimes the sadistic glee flaunted by abusers, sociopaths, criminals, and gender ideologues with political power – we get a little bit angry.
That’s not quite fair. We don’t get a little bit angry at the injustice, abuse, indifference, and the gleeful sadistic mockery and scorn heaped those most wounded, who are silenced by the prevailing zeitgeist – it is deserving of a deep and white hot rage which drives any real human rights movement.
But what we keep hearing is that, oh yes, the issues of this movement are real and legitimate, oh yes. But we’re too angry. In fact, if only we weren’t so angry, if only we weren’t so loud, then they – those people who have deigned to acknowledge that the concerns of the movement are real – they would have been willing to address these issues, if only we were less angry, not so loud and not so insistent. In fact, if men’s human rights advocates would just be polite, just be quiet, and just learn to shut up and sit down, feminists would be solving the problem’s we’ve been so vocal about. So seriously guys, why can’t you just be quiet and go away – because honestly, you’re really holding the whole class back.
That’s the message. It’s a bargain, isn’t it? Just be quiet and go away, and feminists will solve the problems we’ve been talking, or in some cases, shouting about. The issues are real, so say even the feminists, but doggone it, those darned MRAs are so angry and nasty – they’re the ones stopping anyone from addressing issues like 80% of suicides who are male or the fact that 90% of the homeless are men.
If only MRAs weren’t so loud, obnoxious and angry, these problems would be solved. Well, that’s the bargain being offered.
Time for a reality check.
MRAs were polite. Men’s human rights activists were polite, and did not express their anger, and played by the rules for decades. Oh yes, this movement is over a century old, and for most of that time, almost all the principal activists and writers within the movement stuck strictly to the facts, keep their tone civil, and hardly offended or upset anyone.
And you know how much notice anybody took of the issues, such as suicide, homelessness, joblessness, predatory and corrupt courts, violent death and so on?
The public took no notice whatsoever. Oh yes, the issues addressed by the men’s rights movement are real, and we’ll get right on that – hey, look – The Real Housewives of Las Vegas is on, oooooh shiny bullshit on my TV screen.
If the violent deaths of women were treated with the same total contempt and disinterest that the deaths of men and boys earn, there would be not feminists, but actual female rights organizations executing public officials in the town square, and putting whole cities to the torch.
However, the bargain being offered now is that if only we would just politely quiet down, fold our hands in our laps and go obediently away – well, by golly, all the issues we’re so inappropriately angry about would be solved almost right away.
And like just about everything else from the propaganda machine of the cult of hate and human damage calling itself feminism, this is a fraud. What they’re really saying when they tell us we’re too loud, and too angry, is that it would be awfully nice if we would just shut up, and go back to quietly and conveniently killing ourselves, or dying on the job of keeping everything else running for the benefit of the members of the leisure caste.
Get back to work for the benefit of those who disregard the humanity of men in preference for the utility of men. Go back to quietly and conveniently absorbing and dispensing violence for the benefit of your social betters. And when you’re broken beyond your continued utility to the leisure caste of our society, kindly be so good as to quietly and uncomplainingly kill yourself, so nobody who matters is troubled by the unsightly spectacle of a human being in pain.
That is the bargain being offered by those who say, in public, or in print, that the anger demonstrated by this human rights movement is inappropriate and counter productive, and that we should all just be more polite.
Here’s the counter offer.
To those acknowledging the reality of this movement’s complaints, workplace death, infant mutilation, corrupt courts, a systematic and abusive bias in the education system: Keep telling us to be quiet and polite. We’ll come for each of you. And we’ll target you with the spotlight, and put your indifference and contempt for the suffering of human beings on public display. Because we recognize that what you’re trying to do is coerce men to go quietly to their deaths, for your own convenience. We recognize that you know your continued exploitation of the disposability of human beings other than yourself is what you fear losing. We also know that without this movement, without the public discomfort created by a loud, angry and in many cases obnoxious men’s rights movement, what you’d have instead would be the redress of these grievances in the oldest and most basic format used by upright apes through the history of the human species.
Source:click here
I love how JTO fucking nailed this. It is fucking perfect. Fuck you Cathy Young,you showed your true colors. Go shove it up your Soviet shithole cunt. Fuck you bitch and everyone who agrees with you. We don't serve you and if we ever did the only thing we would serve you is a subpeona. Again fuck you. Here is some music to top it off:
Let us not forget who made this article possible:
Fuck you cunt.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Wrongfully expelled man sues Xavier Unversity
Maryland guard Dez Wells suing Xavier for expulsion
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 10:13 PM EDT..
University of Maryland guard Dez Wells filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday seeking damages against his former school, Xavier University, and its president, Father Michael Graham, over what he asserts was his wrongful expulsion last summer.
Dez Wells played for Maryland last season after he was expelled by Xavier. (USA Today Sports)The suit alleges Xavier failed to follow its own policies when deciding to expel him following a 2012 allegation of sexual assault. The local prosecutor investigated the case and not only declined to charge Wells but declared in media accounts the allegation "didn't reach anything close to a standard of proof" and "should never have gotten to the point where someone's reputation is ruined." A grand jury also declined to indict the basketball star.
The lawsuit, filed at the United States District Court in Cincinnati, seeks monetary compensation as well as an overturning of the expulsion to clear Wells' name of what he calls a false accusation.
Wells, according to his attorney, has no interest in returning to Xavier, but has suffered "severe emotional distress" for having been essentially deemed a rapist – and heckled as such while playing road games. This, Wells said, is his best chance to set the record straight with the public and hold Xavier accountable.
"From the moment this nightmare began, I've been trying to get everyone to understand that I am innocent," Wells said in a statement through attorney Peter Ginsberg. "The supposed leaders at Xavier destroyed my reputation. It needs to make this right. Xavier needs to set the record straight."
Xavier released a statement from Father Graham to Yahoo! Sports on Tuesday evening.
"We have read the complaint and the allegations of wrongdoing are unfounded and cannot be supported," Graham said. "The process used by the Xavier University Conduct Board (UCB) applies to all of our students and is the standard used in American universities. After members of the Conduct Board reached their decision, the matter was considered and upheld in an appeal. The sanction for the offense was expulsion.
"The University has never revealed the specific charge against Dez Wells other than to say he was found responsible for a violation of the Student Code of Conduct. The university will vigorously defend the process and the decision."
After being expelled in the summer of 2012, Wells transferred to Maryland. The NCAA, in a rare move, ruled on appeal to grant him immediate eligibility rather than make him sit out a season like most transfers. He started 37 of 38 games and led the Terrapins in scoring with 13.1 points a game. He will be a focal point of the team again this season.
It is highly unusual, if not unprecedented, for an active, high-profile player to file a federal suit against another NCAA member institution. Adding to the uniqueness of the case, Wells' most powerful advocate is Hamilton, Ohio prosecutor Joseph Deters, who has forcefully and publicly, defended Wells and blasted Xavier's handling of the incident as "fundamentally unfair."
"If I thought [Wells] did this, he'd be in prison," Deters says in the lawsuit. "I wouldn't pull any punches."
Wells' lawsuit alleges Xavier failed to follow its own policies when deciding to expel him. (USA Today Sports)Wells, a native of Raleigh, N.C., was named to the Atlantic 10 All-Rookie team following the 2011-12 season.
Last summer, on the night of June 7, 2012, he engaged in what he asserts was consensual sex with an Xavier student.
The two, among others, had been hanging out that night in their dorm playing a game of group "truth or dare," according to the lawsuit. "A number of the dares were sexual in nature," the suit alleges, including lap dances and stripping. The two kissed multiple times during the evening before going to the woman's room, where, according to the suit, she asked if Wells had a condom before they had sex.
The next day she reported to the campus police she had been sexually assaulted. She later met with Cincinnati police but declined to press charges. Undeterred, Deters, the local prospector assigned two staff members to look into the incident.
Deters, according to the suit, quickly "developed serious concerns about [the] truthfulness of the allegations." He left messages with Father Graham, the Xavier president, in an effort to convey those concerns but the messages were not returned, the suit alleges. He later discussed with another Xavier official and instructed his concerns be passed on to Graham.
Before the prosecutor finished his work and a grand jury cleared Wells, however, the player was called before Xavier's University Conduct Board, where the lawsuit alleges a group of administrators, faculty and students "impermissibly placed the burden on Wells to prove his innocence."
The suit runs through a litany of what it alleges are breaches of the UCB rules and procedures. It also hammers the group for either dismissing or ignoring the concerns of the prosecutor's office, failing to wait for "vital laboratory tests" and allowing for just a brief, two-day appeal process. It also alleged UCB members "had received woefully inadequate training" to make a ruling on these kinds of cases.
The UCB expelled Wells on Aug. 3, 2012. On Aug. 28, a grand jury declined to indict him and Deters took to the local media to stand up for the player and urge Xavier to reconsider.
Ginsberg alleges Xavier acted unfairly to Wells because it was under pressure from an investigation by the U.S. Education Department's Office of Civil Rights for mishandling previous allegations brought against male students and treating them too leniently.
"It was much more anxious to appease the Department of Education then satisfy its own obligations to fairness for its own students," Ginsberg told Yahoo! Sports Tuesday night. "Unfortunately, Dez was the sacrificial lamb."
Ginsberg cites Father Graham ignoring the prosecutor's urge for caution and reconsideration as proof.
"It should have been clear to university officials on their own that the accusations were fictitious," Ginsberg said. "Add to that a trained professional with no skin in the game was imploring Father Graham to hold off and act responsibly and Father Graham simply ignored Mr. Deters admonitions."
The suit seeks a jury trial in Ohio and seeks unspecified damages. Outside the specific wording of the lawsuit, Wells stated he is also seeking an apology from Father Graham.
Source: click here
Tue, Aug 20, 2013 10:13 PM EDT..
University of Maryland guard Dez Wells filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday seeking damages against his former school, Xavier University, and its president, Father Michael Graham, over what he asserts was his wrongful expulsion last summer.
Dez Wells played for Maryland last season after he was expelled by Xavier. (USA Today Sports)The suit alleges Xavier failed to follow its own policies when deciding to expel him following a 2012 allegation of sexual assault. The local prosecutor investigated the case and not only declined to charge Wells but declared in media accounts the allegation "didn't reach anything close to a standard of proof" and "should never have gotten to the point where someone's reputation is ruined." A grand jury also declined to indict the basketball star.
The lawsuit, filed at the United States District Court in Cincinnati, seeks monetary compensation as well as an overturning of the expulsion to clear Wells' name of what he calls a false accusation.
Wells, according to his attorney, has no interest in returning to Xavier, but has suffered "severe emotional distress" for having been essentially deemed a rapist – and heckled as such while playing road games. This, Wells said, is his best chance to set the record straight with the public and hold Xavier accountable.
"From the moment this nightmare began, I've been trying to get everyone to understand that I am innocent," Wells said in a statement through attorney Peter Ginsberg. "The supposed leaders at Xavier destroyed my reputation. It needs to make this right. Xavier needs to set the record straight."
Xavier released a statement from Father Graham to Yahoo! Sports on Tuesday evening.
"We have read the complaint and the allegations of wrongdoing are unfounded and cannot be supported," Graham said. "The process used by the Xavier University Conduct Board (UCB) applies to all of our students and is the standard used in American universities. After members of the Conduct Board reached their decision, the matter was considered and upheld in an appeal. The sanction for the offense was expulsion.
"The University has never revealed the specific charge against Dez Wells other than to say he was found responsible for a violation of the Student Code of Conduct. The university will vigorously defend the process and the decision."
After being expelled in the summer of 2012, Wells transferred to Maryland. The NCAA, in a rare move, ruled on appeal to grant him immediate eligibility rather than make him sit out a season like most transfers. He started 37 of 38 games and led the Terrapins in scoring with 13.1 points a game. He will be a focal point of the team again this season.
It is highly unusual, if not unprecedented, for an active, high-profile player to file a federal suit against another NCAA member institution. Adding to the uniqueness of the case, Wells' most powerful advocate is Hamilton, Ohio prosecutor Joseph Deters, who has forcefully and publicly, defended Wells and blasted Xavier's handling of the incident as "fundamentally unfair."
"If I thought [Wells] did this, he'd be in prison," Deters says in the lawsuit. "I wouldn't pull any punches."
Wells' lawsuit alleges Xavier failed to follow its own policies when deciding to expel him. (USA Today Sports)Wells, a native of Raleigh, N.C., was named to the Atlantic 10 All-Rookie team following the 2011-12 season.
Last summer, on the night of June 7, 2012, he engaged in what he asserts was consensual sex with an Xavier student.
The two, among others, had been hanging out that night in their dorm playing a game of group "truth or dare," according to the lawsuit. "A number of the dares were sexual in nature," the suit alleges, including lap dances and stripping. The two kissed multiple times during the evening before going to the woman's room, where, according to the suit, she asked if Wells had a condom before they had sex.
The next day she reported to the campus police she had been sexually assaulted. She later met with Cincinnati police but declined to press charges. Undeterred, Deters, the local prospector assigned two staff members to look into the incident.
Deters, according to the suit, quickly "developed serious concerns about [the] truthfulness of the allegations." He left messages with Father Graham, the Xavier president, in an effort to convey those concerns but the messages were not returned, the suit alleges. He later discussed with another Xavier official and instructed his concerns be passed on to Graham.
Before the prosecutor finished his work and a grand jury cleared Wells, however, the player was called before Xavier's University Conduct Board, where the lawsuit alleges a group of administrators, faculty and students "impermissibly placed the burden on Wells to prove his innocence."
The suit runs through a litany of what it alleges are breaches of the UCB rules and procedures. It also hammers the group for either dismissing or ignoring the concerns of the prosecutor's office, failing to wait for "vital laboratory tests" and allowing for just a brief, two-day appeal process. It also alleged UCB members "had received woefully inadequate training" to make a ruling on these kinds of cases.
The UCB expelled Wells on Aug. 3, 2012. On Aug. 28, a grand jury declined to indict him and Deters took to the local media to stand up for the player and urge Xavier to reconsider.
Ginsberg alleges Xavier acted unfairly to Wells because it was under pressure from an investigation by the U.S. Education Department's Office of Civil Rights for mishandling previous allegations brought against male students and treating them too leniently.
"It was much more anxious to appease the Department of Education then satisfy its own obligations to fairness for its own students," Ginsberg told Yahoo! Sports Tuesday night. "Unfortunately, Dez was the sacrificial lamb."
Ginsberg cites Father Graham ignoring the prosecutor's urge for caution and reconsideration as proof.
"It should have been clear to university officials on their own that the accusations were fictitious," Ginsberg said. "Add to that a trained professional with no skin in the game was imploring Father Graham to hold off and act responsibly and Father Graham simply ignored Mr. Deters admonitions."
The suit seeks a jury trial in Ohio and seeks unspecified damages. Outside the specific wording of the lawsuit, Wells stated he is also seeking an apology from Father Graham.
Source: click here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)