Showing posts sorted by date for query activism. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query activism. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Tuesday, March 23, 2021
Saturday, August 3, 2019
Male student at USC takes on title ix
To help Kursat Christoff Pekgoz click here.
This young man is engaging in activism. He is going about it in the right way. Let's support him.
Wednesday, October 3, 2018
They finally get it
President Trump continued his defense Tuesday of his Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, mocking one of Kavanaugh's accusers at a Mississippi campaign rally.
The latest move by Trump came just hours after he had highlighted the possibility of false accusations against young men in the midst of a cultural moment brought on in the past year by the #MeToo movement.
"I think that it's a very scary time for young men in America when you can be guilty of something that you may not be guilty of," Trump said Tuesday afternoon outside the White House. "This is a very difficult time."
Kavanaugh's nomination remains in limbo this week, as the FBI looks into allegations of sexual assault made by numerous women. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., vowed again on Tuesday to vote on the nomination by the end of the week, insisting that the results of the FBI inquiry be kept private, for senators only to see.
Late last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard from both Kavanaugh, and Christine Blasey Ford, who alleges Kavanaugh drunkenly pinned her down on a bed and groped her against her will at a high school gathering in 1982. Scrutiny has been building this week on Kavanaugh, not only because of the accusations, but because of his testimony at that hearing.
A number of Kavanaugh's classmates have publicly said he misrepresented or lied about his drinking habits when he was in school, while he testified under oath in front of the Senate.
President Trump said that if Kavanaugh did lie to Congress, then "that would not be acceptable," but the White House has said the administration does not feel that Kavanaugh lied under oath.
At the same time, a backlash to that backlash has begun brewing in conservative circles. Many Republican senators have said they view the accusations and subsequent questions as desperate delay tactics on the part of Democrats.
"A vote against Kavanaugh is a 'yes' vote for more of these despicable tactics being used time and time again in the future," said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, on the Senate floor Tuesday.
President Donald Trump speaks to the media before departing from the White House en route to speak with electrical workers in Philadelphia, Penn.
President Trump, as well as his family, have raised fears about the possibility of politically motivated false accusations. Trump himself has been accused of a range of sexual misconduct, from harassment to assault. He has denied every accusation.
"You could be somebody that was perfect their entire life and someone could accuse you of something," Trump told reporters Tuesday afternoon. "You are truly guilty until proven innocent."
And the rally in Southaven, Miss., on Tuesday night, Trump went further. He mocked Ford's testimony, noting she said she could remember how many beers she consumed but couldn't remember details about where the house was where she says the assault happened or how she got home that night.
Trump asked a series of questions, acting out both sides of Ford's congressional testimony to laughs and applause from the crowd.
"What neighborhood was it in? 'I don't know.' Where's the house? 'I don't know.' Upstairs, downstairs, where was it? "I don't know but I had one beer that's the only thing I remember!" Trump said. "And a man's life is in tatters! A man's life is shattered."
After Ford's testimony last week, Trump had called her a "very credible witness."
"It's a damn sad situation," Trump told the roaring crowd on Tuesday, after chants of "We want Kavanaugh! We want Kavanaugh!" had quieted.
"Think of your son," Trump said. "Think of your husband."
Michael R. Bromwich, one of Ford's lawyers, called it a "a vicious, vile and soulless attack" in a post on Twitter.
Trump's comments echoed a message his son, Donald Trump Jr., relayed in an interview that aired this week on DailyMailTV. Trump Jr. said he fears more for his sons than for his daughters in the age of #MeToo.
"I got boys and I got girls, and when I see what's going on right now — it's scary," Trump Jr. said. "The other problem is for the people that are real victims of these things, when it is so obviously political in cases like this, I think it diminishes the real claims."
The idea that people in the U.S. are wrongfully "guilty until proven innocent" is an idea that wasn't manifesting itself politically on the right until last week, GOP pollster Frank Luntz told The Washington Post.
"In this era of #MeToo, there are a lot of men — and some women — who believe that justice no longer exists in America," Luntz said.
This raises the possibility of conservatives rallying around the Kavanaugh confirmation fight and cutting into the enthusiasm advantage among Democratic women, many of whom who were politically activated when Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016. NPR's Danielle Kurtzleben reported recently on how women have swung further towards the Democrats this year than in elections going back at least two decades.
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll from Sept. 23, just a week after the allegations were known, showed interest in the election among white men at 64 percent, higher than in 2010 when Republicans retook the House and 2014 when the GOP took control of the Senate.
Source
This is awareness. The President of the United States of America is addressing our issues. This is what activism can accomplish. Proof it can be done. Don't let anyone tell you you can't do it. You have the power to effect pro-male change,brothers. Are you going to use that power? I am. Are you?
The latest move by Trump came just hours after he had highlighted the possibility of false accusations against young men in the midst of a cultural moment brought on in the past year by the #MeToo movement.
"I think that it's a very scary time for young men in America when you can be guilty of something that you may not be guilty of," Trump said Tuesday afternoon outside the White House. "This is a very difficult time."
Kavanaugh's nomination remains in limbo this week, as the FBI looks into allegations of sexual assault made by numerous women. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., vowed again on Tuesday to vote on the nomination by the end of the week, insisting that the results of the FBI inquiry be kept private, for senators only to see.
Late last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard from both Kavanaugh, and Christine Blasey Ford, who alleges Kavanaugh drunkenly pinned her down on a bed and groped her against her will at a high school gathering in 1982. Scrutiny has been building this week on Kavanaugh, not only because of the accusations, but because of his testimony at that hearing.
A number of Kavanaugh's classmates have publicly said he misrepresented or lied about his drinking habits when he was in school, while he testified under oath in front of the Senate.
President Trump said that if Kavanaugh did lie to Congress, then "that would not be acceptable," but the White House has said the administration does not feel that Kavanaugh lied under oath.
At the same time, a backlash to that backlash has begun brewing in conservative circles. Many Republican senators have said they view the accusations and subsequent questions as desperate delay tactics on the part of Democrats.
"A vote against Kavanaugh is a 'yes' vote for more of these despicable tactics being used time and time again in the future," said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, on the Senate floor Tuesday.
President Donald Trump speaks to the media before departing from the White House en route to speak with electrical workers in Philadelphia, Penn.
President Trump, as well as his family, have raised fears about the possibility of politically motivated false accusations. Trump himself has been accused of a range of sexual misconduct, from harassment to assault. He has denied every accusation.
"You could be somebody that was perfect their entire life and someone could accuse you of something," Trump told reporters Tuesday afternoon. "You are truly guilty until proven innocent."
And the rally in Southaven, Miss., on Tuesday night, Trump went further. He mocked Ford's testimony, noting she said she could remember how many beers she consumed but couldn't remember details about where the house was where she says the assault happened or how she got home that night.
Trump asked a series of questions, acting out both sides of Ford's congressional testimony to laughs and applause from the crowd.
"What neighborhood was it in? 'I don't know.' Where's the house? 'I don't know.' Upstairs, downstairs, where was it? "I don't know but I had one beer that's the only thing I remember!" Trump said. "And a man's life is in tatters! A man's life is shattered."
After Ford's testimony last week, Trump had called her a "very credible witness."
"It's a damn sad situation," Trump told the roaring crowd on Tuesday, after chants of "We want Kavanaugh! We want Kavanaugh!" had quieted.
"Think of your son," Trump said. "Think of your husband."
Michael R. Bromwich, one of Ford's lawyers, called it a "a vicious, vile and soulless attack" in a post on Twitter.
Trump's comments echoed a message his son, Donald Trump Jr., relayed in an interview that aired this week on DailyMailTV. Trump Jr. said he fears more for his sons than for his daughters in the age of #MeToo.
"I got boys and I got girls, and when I see what's going on right now — it's scary," Trump Jr. said. "The other problem is for the people that are real victims of these things, when it is so obviously political in cases like this, I think it diminishes the real claims."
The idea that people in the U.S. are wrongfully "guilty until proven innocent" is an idea that wasn't manifesting itself politically on the right until last week, GOP pollster Frank Luntz told The Washington Post.
"In this era of #MeToo, there are a lot of men — and some women — who believe that justice no longer exists in America," Luntz said.
This raises the possibility of conservatives rallying around the Kavanaugh confirmation fight and cutting into the enthusiasm advantage among Democratic women, many of whom who were politically activated when Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016. NPR's Danielle Kurtzleben reported recently on how women have swung further towards the Democrats this year than in elections going back at least two decades.
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll from Sept. 23, just a week after the allegations were known, showed interest in the election among white men at 64 percent, higher than in 2010 when Republicans retook the House and 2014 when the GOP took control of the Senate.
Source
This is awareness. The President of the United States of America is addressing our issues. This is what activism can accomplish. Proof it can be done. Don't let anyone tell you you can't do it. You have the power to effect pro-male change,brothers. Are you going to use that power? I am. Are you?
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
Muslim husband owns feminist wife
Liberals are quick to attack conservatives for violence and misogyny—but continue to give Islam a free pass.
Radical left-wing activist, Lacy MacAuley, who leads violent protest group “Antifa” in Washington, DC, came to regret that stance—after she accompanied her Muslim boyfriend to his homeland of Turkey, where “misogyny and patriarchy run deep.”
The Gateway Pundit dug up a ten-month-old archived blog post from MacAuley’s website. Called, “My experience of intimate partner violence, trapped in Turkey,” MacAuley explains her experience:
I fell in love with an energetic, charismatic activist I met in November when I was present to write about resistance to the G20 Summit, a global event in Antalya, Turkey. After I came home to the US, we talked every day. He was lovely and charming, I thought at the time. He offered a ready smile, engaging kindness, and intelligent conversation. He said all the right things to convince me that he cared about women’s rights and activism. In February, I decided to return to Turkey with the promise of love driving me forward. I couldn’t have known things would turn sour.
She then describes their first fight:
“I had wanted to interview a local woman for an article on Syrian refugees. He did not approve. He knew the woman and did not like her, so he strictly forbade me from speaking with her… I just stood in the middle of the room not knowing what to do. Of course, as a Western woman, no one had ever forbidden me from speaking with anyone else. It was a strange feeling: Don’t I have a mouth to speak? Why can I not use it as I wish?
This is elementary feminism. No man has the power to silence a woman, just because he is a man.”
Things only got worse from there:
“Things deteriorated rapidly,” she wrote. “His insecurity and childishness got worse. In the following weeks, I was violently pushed, blocked from leaving freely, and repeatedly told not to speak. If I spoke anyway, anger erupted… Unwanted sex? Rape? All the time. He did not stop to determine whether I consented to sex. Several times, he turned off my wifi and lied about it, a modern-day form of gaslighting. He verbally criticized me for using social media, my main link to the rest of my life back in the US, and tried to discourage me from using it.”
Through it all, MacAuley couldn’t quite understand how a Muslim man so dedicated to liberal causes could be anything less than a feminist:
“I couldn’t have guessed that this man, who said he cared about women’s rights, who spoke of how many activist friends that he had, who had participated in many protests in the past, would turn on me, and that he would become so angry and irrational.”
Though MacAuley doesn’t seem to realize it, she answers her own question later in the blog post:
“One-third of men surveyed in Turkey in 2013 stated that it is “occasionally necessary” to commit acts of violence against women, and 28 percent stated that violence could be used to ‘discipline women.’ I did not want to believe that I was in this statistic.”
Upon leaving Turkey, MacAuley has continued her work to rally against “totalitarianism” and “sexism” in the United States.
But like many liberals, she seems to still be unaware that the fact that women, minorities, and just about everyone else, are more free and more respected in the United States than most of the world.
Source
Some call this unfortunate. I call it karma.
Radical left-wing activist, Lacy MacAuley, who leads violent protest group “Antifa” in Washington, DC, came to regret that stance—after she accompanied her Muslim boyfriend to his homeland of Turkey, where “misogyny and patriarchy run deep.”
The Gateway Pundit dug up a ten-month-old archived blog post from MacAuley’s website. Called, “My experience of intimate partner violence, trapped in Turkey,” MacAuley explains her experience:
I fell in love with an energetic, charismatic activist I met in November when I was present to write about resistance to the G20 Summit, a global event in Antalya, Turkey. After I came home to the US, we talked every day. He was lovely and charming, I thought at the time. He offered a ready smile, engaging kindness, and intelligent conversation. He said all the right things to convince me that he cared about women’s rights and activism. In February, I decided to return to Turkey with the promise of love driving me forward. I couldn’t have known things would turn sour.
She then describes their first fight:
“I had wanted to interview a local woman for an article on Syrian refugees. He did not approve. He knew the woman and did not like her, so he strictly forbade me from speaking with her… I just stood in the middle of the room not knowing what to do. Of course, as a Western woman, no one had ever forbidden me from speaking with anyone else. It was a strange feeling: Don’t I have a mouth to speak? Why can I not use it as I wish?
This is elementary feminism. No man has the power to silence a woman, just because he is a man.”
Things only got worse from there:
“Things deteriorated rapidly,” she wrote. “His insecurity and childishness got worse. In the following weeks, I was violently pushed, blocked from leaving freely, and repeatedly told not to speak. If I spoke anyway, anger erupted… Unwanted sex? Rape? All the time. He did not stop to determine whether I consented to sex. Several times, he turned off my wifi and lied about it, a modern-day form of gaslighting. He verbally criticized me for using social media, my main link to the rest of my life back in the US, and tried to discourage me from using it.”
Through it all, MacAuley couldn’t quite understand how a Muslim man so dedicated to liberal causes could be anything less than a feminist:
“I couldn’t have guessed that this man, who said he cared about women’s rights, who spoke of how many activist friends that he had, who had participated in many protests in the past, would turn on me, and that he would become so angry and irrational.”
Though MacAuley doesn’t seem to realize it, she answers her own question later in the blog post:
“One-third of men surveyed in Turkey in 2013 stated that it is “occasionally necessary” to commit acts of violence against women, and 28 percent stated that violence could be used to ‘discipline women.’ I did not want to believe that I was in this statistic.”
Upon leaving Turkey, MacAuley has continued her work to rally against “totalitarianism” and “sexism” in the United States.
But like many liberals, she seems to still be unaware that the fact that women, minorities, and just about everyone else, are more free and more respected in the United States than most of the world.
Source
Some call this unfortunate. I call it karma.
Friday, March 10, 2017
MRA's shit on International Women's Day and I fucking love it
Angry men take stand on International Women’s Day
March 8, 201710:57pm
Emma Reynolds news.com.au
ANGRY blokes have hit the roads for a traffic-stopping rally in support of men’s rights — on International Women’s Day.
Protesters in cars and trucks displayed signs calling for the recognition of men let down by family courts, child support or domestic violence laws.
A sign on the back of a truck in a Brisbane read, “Stop the war on dads”, while a convoy on the M1 northbound on the Gold Coast stopped traffic for about 10 minutes this morning.
The convoy blocked three lanes at Pimpama, forcing motorists to use just one lane and slowing traffic to a 5km/h crawl.
Campaign group Australian Brotherhood of Fathers has been planning the nationwide protest for weeks, calling on its 40,000 Facebook followers across the country to get in a car, motorbike or truck and spend up to an hour on the road.
Organiser Leith Erikson told news.com.au it wasn’t a deliberate decision to have the protest on International Women’s Day, but he thought it was “a good thing”.
The Brisbane-based activist said protesters had also been out on the roads in Sydney, Adelaide and Melbourne after the ABF came up with the idea for “rolling protests” on the nation’s motorways.
“We’ve been lobbying the government and media for four years,” he said. “We needed to take our message to the community in a different way.
“We’re raising awareness about the terrible issues of men’s suicide, broken relationships and mental health issues. Forty-two men take their lives each week in this country.
“If women believe we are stealing their thunder, let them believe that. It’s the last thing I’m worried about.”
He said he believes the “gender pay gap is a lie” and that “if women are not in top positions in business or government, it’s based on their ability to be there.”
Mr Erikson questioned why more attention was not paid to International Men’s Day on November 19.
He said he is “not anti-female” and has concerns for the rights of women too, but that men are facing a “national emergency”.
Signs at today’s protest also displayed the words “21 fathers”, referring to an ABF awareness campaign about the number of Australian dads it claims take their own lives each week because of separation or family access issues.
Its website says this figure “came about initially as anecdotal evidence” from men’s rights organisations and support groups for men dealing with self-harm and family access issues.
The organisation is focused on “improving the rights of fathers and families” and ensuring children have equal access to both parents.
Mr Erikson posted photos of vehicles stopping traffic today on Facebook and said there would be more protests across every major city to “acknowledge the on going ignorance and failures to protect our children by our state and federal families and health ministers along with the state, territory and federal Attorney-Generals (sic).”
While others are spending the day celebrating women, was the protesters’ timing inappropriate? Or were they right to speak up for men? Tell us what you think in the comments.
Source
This is fantastic. I love activism and these guys know how to do it. It's about time shit like this was flinged back at the feminasties. You motherfuckers are awesome. 5km/h=3.11 mph so we'll round it off to 3 mph if anyone wants to know.
Saturday, September 17, 2016
Ivanka Trump is thinned skinned
Feet held to the fire, Ivanka Trump lost her cool in an interview this week.
On Wednesday, Cosmopolitan.com pressed her to address her father's egregious remarks about pregnancies and working women and pushed her to explain why the presidential candidate's recently unveiled child care plan hadn't accounted for paternity leave or leave for same-sex couples.
"I think you have a lot of negativity in these questions," Trump countered. She ended her conversation with interviewer Prachi Gupta a few minutes later.
Earlier this week, Donald Trump reiterated his intention to make child care a tax-deductible expense for men and women who earn up to $250,000 each year and added that expectant mothers would be entitled to six weeks of paid family leave. During that speech, Ivanka stood by his side. But when it came time for her to speak up, it seems she was less prepared.
Given her heavy influence on her father's team and her stated commitment to working mothers, Cosmopolitan.com wanted to know how she squared his newly declared ideals with his previous assertion that an expectant mother is an "inconvenience for a business."
Faced with the 2004 statement, Ivanka fired back. "I think my father has put forth a very comprehensive and really revolutionary plan to deal with a lot of issues," she said. "So I don't know how useful it is to spend too much time with you on this if you're going to make a comment like that."
And when Gupta refused to back down, Trump fumed: "Well, you said he made those comments. I don't know that he said those comments." Gupta cited her source, at which point Trump seemed to claim her words would be manipulated. "[T]here's plenty of time for you to editorialize around this," she retorted.
Cosmopolitan.com published a full transcript of the interview, which includes Trump's attempt to explain why only women "in recovery in the immediate aftermath of childbirth" are accommodated under Donald Trump's policies.
"I'm going to jump off, I have to run," Ivanka Trump said, cutting the interview short. "I apologize."
Source
We're voting for Donald Trump not his daughter. Donald Trump is the visionary our country needs. Ivanka is just a spoiled brat. If we keep up the activism we can make sure men get a break in this society. The alternative is Hillary the castrating witch Clinton. I'll go with Donald Trump.
On Wednesday, Cosmopolitan.com pressed her to address her father's egregious remarks about pregnancies and working women and pushed her to explain why the presidential candidate's recently unveiled child care plan hadn't accounted for paternity leave or leave for same-sex couples.
"I think you have a lot of negativity in these questions," Trump countered. She ended her conversation with interviewer Prachi Gupta a few minutes later.
Earlier this week, Donald Trump reiterated his intention to make child care a tax-deductible expense for men and women who earn up to $250,000 each year and added that expectant mothers would be entitled to six weeks of paid family leave. During that speech, Ivanka stood by his side. But when it came time for her to speak up, it seems she was less prepared.
Given her heavy influence on her father's team and her stated commitment to working mothers, Cosmopolitan.com wanted to know how she squared his newly declared ideals with his previous assertion that an expectant mother is an "inconvenience for a business."
Faced with the 2004 statement, Ivanka fired back. "I think my father has put forth a very comprehensive and really revolutionary plan to deal with a lot of issues," she said. "So I don't know how useful it is to spend too much time with you on this if you're going to make a comment like that."
And when Gupta refused to back down, Trump fumed: "Well, you said he made those comments. I don't know that he said those comments." Gupta cited her source, at which point Trump seemed to claim her words would be manipulated. "[T]here's plenty of time for you to editorialize around this," she retorted.
Cosmopolitan.com published a full transcript of the interview, which includes Trump's attempt to explain why only women "in recovery in the immediate aftermath of childbirth" are accommodated under Donald Trump's policies.
"I'm going to jump off, I have to run," Ivanka Trump said, cutting the interview short. "I apologize."
Source
We're voting for Donald Trump not his daughter. Donald Trump is the visionary our country needs. Ivanka is just a spoiled brat. If we keep up the activism we can make sure men get a break in this society. The alternative is Hillary the castrating witch Clinton. I'll go with Donald Trump.
Thursday, July 28, 2016
Let's thank Mike Pence
The Republican Vice Presidential candidate Mike Pence stood up for men on the O'Reilly Factor (7-27-16). Apparently activism is working. Thanks to everyone who wrote Donald Trump on his Facebook page. Apparently we got through. Let's thank him standing up for the rights of men during his interview with Bill O'Reilly.
Thursday, July 16, 2015
Tell the Univeristy of Minnesota to abandon anti-male draconian practice
From SAVE Services:
The University of Minnesota President, Eric Kaler, is attempting to enact an affirmative consent policy at the school. Members of the University's Board of Regents asked him to hold off until they could review such a serious change at their next meeting. Now, the President is getting pressured into enacting the policy by media, even though affirmative consent would result in draconian and overbroad definitions of sexual assault crimes. Such definitions would require the school to call innocent students 'criminals'.Please contact President Kaler now and tell him to NOT pass an affirmative consent policy, and to instead stick with state definitions of crimes.
Call: (612) 626-1616
Or Email: upres@umn.edu
This is a good sign. They are proceeding with caution. 15-20 years ago they would be enthusiastic about a pro-feminist policy change. Hell they would be shouting it on top of roofs so that everyone could hear that they take women's complaints seriously and they didn't care if the complaints were genuine or not they just went with them. Gushing all over themselves about how sensitive they are to women's concerns. Today that is not the case. Today they are proceeding with caution and rightfully so. We are no longer sitting back and taking it. We are no longer sitting on the sidelines wondering when the misandry would end because as long as we did nothing nothing would change. We finally got fed up and decided to push back and that is when things got turned around. Men's Rights Activism works don't let anyone tell you it doesn't.
The University of Minnesota President, Eric Kaler, is attempting to enact an affirmative consent policy at the school. Members of the University's Board of Regents asked him to hold off until they could review such a serious change at their next meeting. Now, the President is getting pressured into enacting the policy by media, even though affirmative consent would result in draconian and overbroad definitions of sexual assault crimes. Such definitions would require the school to call innocent students 'criminals'.Please contact President Kaler now and tell him to NOT pass an affirmative consent policy, and to instead stick with state definitions of crimes.
Call: (612) 626-1616
Or Email: upres@umn.edu
This is a good sign. They are proceeding with caution. 15-20 years ago they would be enthusiastic about a pro-feminist policy change. Hell they would be shouting it on top of roofs so that everyone could hear that they take women's complaints seriously and they didn't care if the complaints were genuine or not they just went with them. Gushing all over themselves about how sensitive they are to women's concerns. Today that is not the case. Today they are proceeding with caution and rightfully so. We are no longer sitting back and taking it. We are no longer sitting on the sidelines wondering when the misandry would end because as long as we did nothing nothing would change. We finally got fed up and decided to push back and that is when things got turned around. Men's Rights Activism works don't let anyone tell you it doesn't.
Friday, May 1, 2015
The Vladek Filler saga comes to an end
Vladek Filler wins again
May 1, 2015 By Robert Franklin
At last, Vladek Filler is a free man. Oh, he’s been “free,” as in “no longer in jail,” for over two years. But when I say “free,” I mean free of all the consequences of the vendetta waged against him by his ex-wife and a shamefully corrupt Ellsworth, Maine prosecutor’s office that stopped at nothing to railroad an innocent man.
That man, Vladek Filler, has always been factually innocent, but now he’s officially, legally so. A state appeals court quashed his conviction of assault, the only prize former District Attorney Carletta Bossano’s office had to show for its relentless hounding of him.
It all started some eight years ago when, in the midst of their divorce and child custody fight, Vladek’s wife, Ligia Filler, claimed that he had raped her. Despite the fact that he had no police record, that the claim occurred during a child custody battle and that Ligia Filler was obviously emotionally unstable, Assistant District Attorney, Mary Kellett pursued the case against Filler with a zeal borne, not of a desire for justice, but of a desire for blood.
Kellett’s behavior in Filler’s case was not merely morally and ethically wrong, although it was both those things. It apparently was the product of her blind faith in the notion that women never lie about rape. I say that because of the multiple other rape and sexual assault cases prosecuted by Kellett that were either overturned on appeal or that she lost outright. Most prosecutors have a sense of when to charge a case, when to take one to trial and when an accused is probably innocent. Kellett seems to have had no such sense, at least when it came to sexual assault charges.
Otherwise, why did she not offer Vladek the dismissal the facts of his case so clearly warranted? Put simply, all Kellett had was the word of a woman who had every reason to lie and on whose behalf there was literally no evidence. Most prosecutors can see such a case for what it is — a sure loser.
Not only that, but the family court judge that viewed the same evidence Kellett did gave primary custody to Vladek, not his wife. How likely is it that a family court judge would place children with a father if the judge had the slightest inkling that the father might have done what his wife claimed? Without a doubt, that judge saw the truth — an emotionally disabled mother making wild, unsubstantiated charges against her husband for the sole purpose of keeping him out of his children’s lives.
Mary Kellett didn’t care. She knew, as few others did, that she would violate any rule of prosecutorial ethics and criminal procedure in order to put an innocent man in prison. And she almost succeeded. Filler was at first convicted, but the very judge who heard his trial for rape overturned the conviction on — of course — the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct.
But Kellett wasn’t finished. Ligia also claimed that Vladek had tossed water on her during an argument. Now, most prosecutors wouldn’t waste their time on such a trivial matter, particularly since, once again, there was no evidence that Vladek had done any such thing. But again, he was convicted, and again it was due to Kellett’s misconduct. Filler served 21 days in jail.
It is that conviction that the appellate court overturned on April 24th. It too was the product of Kellett’s many ethical violations.
But Filler is not a man to allow injustice to run free in the streets. Not content with complete vindication of all his actions by courts of law, he took on the District Attorney’s Office and Mary Kellett specifically, filing a grievance against her for her blatant wrongdoing.
He won that one too. Mary Kellett now has the distinction of being the only prosecutor in the history of the state to have been suspended from the practice of law due to her ethical violations while in the service of the people of the county.
But even that isn’t the end of the story. In last year’s election, DA Bossano was ousted from office due in no small part to her failure to oversee the corrupt behavior of her subordinate, Kellett.
In short, Vladek Filler’s story is that of a lone man standing up to a system of criminal prosecution that was all too used to running roughshod over men accused of sexual assault. What Mary Kellett did in Filler’s case are the actions of a lawyer to whom it never occurs that there might be adverse consequences to her violations of law. Almost certainly, she’d done similar things countless times before and was astonished when one person stood up and shouted “Halt!”
Mary Kellett is now out of a job and has a black mark on her record as an attorney.
If this had been an NBA championship series, Vladek Filler would have swept the opposition. Eight years later, he has his children and his criminal record is unblemished. He is indeed a free man.
What he doesn’t have, though, is his good name. Oh, the people who know him admire him and he has the love of his children and the avid support of his sister who did yeoman service on his behalf throughout his legal ordeal.
But the same Maine news media that were all too eager to shout from the rooftops allegations made against him, that reported his convictions, that unquestioningly channeled Ligia’s false claims and Kellett’s false statements about the case have suddenly gone quiet. Yes, those who were happy to convict an innocent man in their own court — that of public opinion — don’t care to report the fact that, at long last, he’s not guilty of the offenses charged. So far, not a word of his exoneration has been reported in the local or state news media.
In its own way, that’s every bit as shameful as Mary Kellett’s illegal, immoral and unethical conduct.
But in the end, Vladek Filler is the last man standing. For eight years, he stood against the enormous power of the state criminal justice system and won. That’s something for every reader of this blog to ponder. Vladek Filler’s grit and determination have been rewarded. Maybe yours can be as well.
And perhaps best of all, there are two kids (no longer little) down in Georgia who have a father they can look up to. They too can learn a thing or two about the power of being right and not backing down. Those kids may not yet realize it, but they’ve got a dad whose example will serve them all their lives.
Source
This is great. I've been following this from the beginning and now I'm glad it has been concluded. This is a solid MRA victory. This is one we should be proud of. We were pushed around and now we are pushing back. We weren't nice about things we were militant and we accomplished a successful pushback. Thank you to all those involved. For all those did the work and activism know that your work has paid off and that not only is Vladek Filler a free man Mary N. Kellett is a disbarred disgraced feminist former attorney who found out the hard way that you don't fuck with MRA's. We gave feminists an asswhopping they won't soon forget.
May 1, 2015 By Robert Franklin
At last, Vladek Filler is a free man. Oh, he’s been “free,” as in “no longer in jail,” for over two years. But when I say “free,” I mean free of all the consequences of the vendetta waged against him by his ex-wife and a shamefully corrupt Ellsworth, Maine prosecutor’s office that stopped at nothing to railroad an innocent man.
That man, Vladek Filler, has always been factually innocent, but now he’s officially, legally so. A state appeals court quashed his conviction of assault, the only prize former District Attorney Carletta Bossano’s office had to show for its relentless hounding of him.
It all started some eight years ago when, in the midst of their divorce and child custody fight, Vladek’s wife, Ligia Filler, claimed that he had raped her. Despite the fact that he had no police record, that the claim occurred during a child custody battle and that Ligia Filler was obviously emotionally unstable, Assistant District Attorney, Mary Kellett pursued the case against Filler with a zeal borne, not of a desire for justice, but of a desire for blood.
Kellett’s behavior in Filler’s case was not merely morally and ethically wrong, although it was both those things. It apparently was the product of her blind faith in the notion that women never lie about rape. I say that because of the multiple other rape and sexual assault cases prosecuted by Kellett that were either overturned on appeal or that she lost outright. Most prosecutors have a sense of when to charge a case, when to take one to trial and when an accused is probably innocent. Kellett seems to have had no such sense, at least when it came to sexual assault charges.
Otherwise, why did she not offer Vladek the dismissal the facts of his case so clearly warranted? Put simply, all Kellett had was the word of a woman who had every reason to lie and on whose behalf there was literally no evidence. Most prosecutors can see such a case for what it is — a sure loser.
Not only that, but the family court judge that viewed the same evidence Kellett did gave primary custody to Vladek, not his wife. How likely is it that a family court judge would place children with a father if the judge had the slightest inkling that the father might have done what his wife claimed? Without a doubt, that judge saw the truth — an emotionally disabled mother making wild, unsubstantiated charges against her husband for the sole purpose of keeping him out of his children’s lives.
Mary Kellett didn’t care. She knew, as few others did, that she would violate any rule of prosecutorial ethics and criminal procedure in order to put an innocent man in prison. And she almost succeeded. Filler was at first convicted, but the very judge who heard his trial for rape overturned the conviction on — of course — the grounds of prosecutorial misconduct.
But Kellett wasn’t finished. Ligia also claimed that Vladek had tossed water on her during an argument. Now, most prosecutors wouldn’t waste their time on such a trivial matter, particularly since, once again, there was no evidence that Vladek had done any such thing. But again, he was convicted, and again it was due to Kellett’s misconduct. Filler served 21 days in jail.
It is that conviction that the appellate court overturned on April 24th. It too was the product of Kellett’s many ethical violations.
But Filler is not a man to allow injustice to run free in the streets. Not content with complete vindication of all his actions by courts of law, he took on the District Attorney’s Office and Mary Kellett specifically, filing a grievance against her for her blatant wrongdoing.
He won that one too. Mary Kellett now has the distinction of being the only prosecutor in the history of the state to have been suspended from the practice of law due to her ethical violations while in the service of the people of the county.
But even that isn’t the end of the story. In last year’s election, DA Bossano was ousted from office due in no small part to her failure to oversee the corrupt behavior of her subordinate, Kellett.
In short, Vladek Filler’s story is that of a lone man standing up to a system of criminal prosecution that was all too used to running roughshod over men accused of sexual assault. What Mary Kellett did in Filler’s case are the actions of a lawyer to whom it never occurs that there might be adverse consequences to her violations of law. Almost certainly, she’d done similar things countless times before and was astonished when one person stood up and shouted “Halt!”
Mary Kellett is now out of a job and has a black mark on her record as an attorney.
If this had been an NBA championship series, Vladek Filler would have swept the opposition. Eight years later, he has his children and his criminal record is unblemished. He is indeed a free man.
What he doesn’t have, though, is his good name. Oh, the people who know him admire him and he has the love of his children and the avid support of his sister who did yeoman service on his behalf throughout his legal ordeal.
But the same Maine news media that were all too eager to shout from the rooftops allegations made against him, that reported his convictions, that unquestioningly channeled Ligia’s false claims and Kellett’s false statements about the case have suddenly gone quiet. Yes, those who were happy to convict an innocent man in their own court — that of public opinion — don’t care to report the fact that, at long last, he’s not guilty of the offenses charged. So far, not a word of his exoneration has been reported in the local or state news media.
In its own way, that’s every bit as shameful as Mary Kellett’s illegal, immoral and unethical conduct.
But in the end, Vladek Filler is the last man standing. For eight years, he stood against the enormous power of the state criminal justice system and won. That’s something for every reader of this blog to ponder. Vladek Filler’s grit and determination have been rewarded. Maybe yours can be as well.
And perhaps best of all, there are two kids (no longer little) down in Georgia who have a father they can look up to. They too can learn a thing or two about the power of being right and not backing down. Those kids may not yet realize it, but they’ve got a dad whose example will serve them all their lives.
Source
This is great. I've been following this from the beginning and now I'm glad it has been concluded. This is a solid MRA victory. This is one we should be proud of. We were pushed around and now we are pushing back. We weren't nice about things we were militant and we accomplished a successful pushback. Thank you to all those involved. For all those did the work and activism know that your work has paid off and that not only is Vladek Filler a free man Mary N. Kellett is a disbarred disgraced feminist former attorney who found out the hard way that you don't fuck with MRA's. We gave feminists an asswhopping they won't soon forget.
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Pro-male women?
Beware The Coming Breed of “Pro-Male” Women
By Ashlar Ben David
As Roosh accurately predicted it would a couple years ago, the manosphere is now mainstream. Excited as I am to see and be a part of this change in the direction of the narrative, I find it also prudent to discuss where these changes will lead and how we can remain vigilant—lest our guards drop and we find ourselves in unpleasant circumstances once more.
Now that feminism is starting to be considered “uncool” by many women, more and more of them will begin to openly speak against it. It does not matter if they were feminists last week; if it hurts their status today, then women will throw even their best friends under the bus without batting an eye. Many will quickly and sharply denounce their old friends, even taking the extra step of becoming openly “pro-male” if it becomes a popular stance that celebrities endorse (which it will).
To many men, this will appear to be progress. In some ways, it really will be. But consider that a “pro male” woman, a real one, is just a person who respects other people. She’s probably also a “pro female” woman, and just pro-humanity in general. As such, truly pro-male women probably never identified as feminists to begin with, having seen through the layers of deception and nonsense early on.
So the pro-male women are already the ones who are treating us well, and will continue to do so regardless of what is popular in the cultural narrative and indoctrinated into the masses through expertly hypnotic media outlets. The newly “pro-male” women we will see are simply going to be doing what women always do: outwardly going along with whatever gets them what they want, while inwardly having wildly different feelings and motives.
Remember, women are like water: their behavior conforms to the shape of whatever container you put them in.
If the media says “being feminist is uncool, being pro-male is the new black,” then women will jump on board. Their old beliefs will be discarded in a flash, since they were never real beliefs to begin with. Nor are her new ones, which is why she can make the switch without one iota of discomfort or cognitive dissonance.
The reason I am giving this warning today is that men will soon be in a uniquely vulnerable position and we will want to stay wary of this. Having been denied the opportunity to build real, loving relationships with real, loving women, we have pragmatically settled on simply sleeping with as many attractive and easy women as we can while committing nothing and compromising even less. As such, I believe that men are in a state of deep and painful yearning for true femininity—with all its supportive and healing qualities—and will be fairly easy to trick with a presentation that appears to be what we’ve been looking for.
We have seen before how prominent manosphere personalities have thrown everything out the window to get married, tarnishing their own legacies and making themselves out to be hypocrites all to lock down that “one special girl who showed them how wrong they were.” Now, I am certainly not denying the possibility that they truly did meet a unicorn, a beautiful and feminine supportive and loving woman who wasn’t just a manipulative, back-stabbing slut in a unicorn uniform.
But what all experienced men know is far more likely, is that they got tricked by a woman with better game than them. I suppose we shall see as time goes on, whether those relationships end early or not. Regardless, I don’t want to see a whole slew of learned men suddenly changing their minds and hearts because the cute girl they’re dating supports “men’s rights” or took a class about it.
Of course, the thing to keep in mind above else is this:
Women don’t really “believe in causes”—most of the time anyway. When you spend enough time around them, and around the kinds of people who “protest for causes” and “do activism,” you will tend to find that all such people—regardless of sex—are all heart and no brain, all passion and no reason, and are generally just protesting because they enjoy the feeling of it.
They think it’s fun to make signs and yell about things. And to be fair, it actually can be pretty fun. But the point is that most women are not nearly as attached to their “causes” as they seem, with the exception of the fervor with which they fight for animal rights.
So do not be fooled that the newly “pro-male” woman “gets it” so to speak, or understands the red pill man’s perspective. She does not. She has not one of the thousands of requisite male experiences she would have to have in order to “understand our side of things.”
At worst, she is saying it because she’s an undercover feminist trying to get some dirt on men. At best, she is saying it because she likes you and wants to impress you.
And as the frog sank, he surely thought “I knew it all along”….
Source
I've been talking about this until I'm blue in the face. That is why I never trusted the "pro-male woman". In fact I was banned by a "pro-male woman" so I'm aware of what they are like. There is also this. Roosh is a player so he knows a lot about women. I like to think that maybe definitions is a bridge to the rest of the manosphere,from MRA's to MGTOW's to PUA's. Proof we can work together.
By Ashlar Ben David
As Roosh accurately predicted it would a couple years ago, the manosphere is now mainstream. Excited as I am to see and be a part of this change in the direction of the narrative, I find it also prudent to discuss where these changes will lead and how we can remain vigilant—lest our guards drop and we find ourselves in unpleasant circumstances once more.
Now that feminism is starting to be considered “uncool” by many women, more and more of them will begin to openly speak against it. It does not matter if they were feminists last week; if it hurts their status today, then women will throw even their best friends under the bus without batting an eye. Many will quickly and sharply denounce their old friends, even taking the extra step of becoming openly “pro-male” if it becomes a popular stance that celebrities endorse (which it will).
To many men, this will appear to be progress. In some ways, it really will be. But consider that a “pro male” woman, a real one, is just a person who respects other people. She’s probably also a “pro female” woman, and just pro-humanity in general. As such, truly pro-male women probably never identified as feminists to begin with, having seen through the layers of deception and nonsense early on.
So the pro-male women are already the ones who are treating us well, and will continue to do so regardless of what is popular in the cultural narrative and indoctrinated into the masses through expertly hypnotic media outlets. The newly “pro-male” women we will see are simply going to be doing what women always do: outwardly going along with whatever gets them what they want, while inwardly having wildly different feelings and motives.
Remember, women are like water: their behavior conforms to the shape of whatever container you put them in.
If the media says “being feminist is uncool, being pro-male is the new black,” then women will jump on board. Their old beliefs will be discarded in a flash, since they were never real beliefs to begin with. Nor are her new ones, which is why she can make the switch without one iota of discomfort or cognitive dissonance.
The reason I am giving this warning today is that men will soon be in a uniquely vulnerable position and we will want to stay wary of this. Having been denied the opportunity to build real, loving relationships with real, loving women, we have pragmatically settled on simply sleeping with as many attractive and easy women as we can while committing nothing and compromising even less. As such, I believe that men are in a state of deep and painful yearning for true femininity—with all its supportive and healing qualities—and will be fairly easy to trick with a presentation that appears to be what we’ve been looking for.
We have seen before how prominent manosphere personalities have thrown everything out the window to get married, tarnishing their own legacies and making themselves out to be hypocrites all to lock down that “one special girl who showed them how wrong they were.” Now, I am certainly not denying the possibility that they truly did meet a unicorn, a beautiful and feminine supportive and loving woman who wasn’t just a manipulative, back-stabbing slut in a unicorn uniform.
But what all experienced men know is far more likely, is that they got tricked by a woman with better game than them. I suppose we shall see as time goes on, whether those relationships end early or not. Regardless, I don’t want to see a whole slew of learned men suddenly changing their minds and hearts because the cute girl they’re dating supports “men’s rights” or took a class about it.
Of course, the thing to keep in mind above else is this:
Women don’t really “believe in causes”—most of the time anyway. When you spend enough time around them, and around the kinds of people who “protest for causes” and “do activism,” you will tend to find that all such people—regardless of sex—are all heart and no brain, all passion and no reason, and are generally just protesting because they enjoy the feeling of it.
They think it’s fun to make signs and yell about things. And to be fair, it actually can be pretty fun. But the point is that most women are not nearly as attached to their “causes” as they seem, with the exception of the fervor with which they fight for animal rights.
So do not be fooled that the newly “pro-male” woman “gets it” so to speak, or understands the red pill man’s perspective. She does not. She has not one of the thousands of requisite male experiences she would have to have in order to “understand our side of things.”
At worst, she is saying it because she’s an undercover feminist trying to get some dirt on men. At best, she is saying it because she likes you and wants to impress you.
And as the frog sank, he surely thought “I knew it all along”….
Source
I've been talking about this until I'm blue in the face. That is why I never trusted the "pro-male woman". In fact I was banned by a "pro-male woman" so I'm aware of what they are like. There is also this. Roosh is a player so he knows a lot about women. I like to think that maybe definitions is a bridge to the rest of the manosphere,from MRA's to MGTOW's to PUA's. Proof we can work together.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Federal court gives men a weapon to fight back against false accusers
Students Accused of Rape Can Fight Back // Court OKs Suits Against University, Employees, and Female
With so much attention focused on alleged failures to prosecute students accused of date rape, the problem of universities whose judicial proceedings are unfair to the accused have been largely overlooked
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRLog (Press Release) - May 19, 2014 - WASHINGTON, D.C. -- WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 19, 2014): With so much attention focused on the alleged failures of many universities to forcefully prosecute male students accused of date rape and sexual assault, the problem of universities whose judicial proceedings are unfair to the accused, and/or are overzealous because of pressure from female students or otherwise, have been largely overlooked.
But now a new judicial ruling gives those wrongly convicted a powerful new weapon - they can sue the university, the employees who participated in the proceedings, and even the accused herself in federal court for substantial monetary damages and other remedies, notes public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who was twice called a “radical feminist.”
After a school tribunal at Saint Joseph's University found a male student to have committed sexual assault arising out of an incident of allegedly consensual sexual intercourse, he took legal action, says Banzhaf, who has been successful in over 100 sex discrimination proceedings.
The federal court held that he was entitled to sue the private university under the state's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and that he could also sue the university, university employees, and the female complainant for defamation (slander), with the court holding that their accusatory statements about him were not legally privileged.
Interestingly, the court said that he could also sue the female complainant for intentionally interfering with his contractual relations with the school; an important ruling, suggests Banzhaf, because for such an intentional tort he can seek much higher punitive damages in addition to general damages. Also, the court ruled that the mere fact that the tribunal found that the male student had committed the wrongful act complained of was not conclusive as to his guilt or innocence, and did not shield the female complainant from this type of legal liability.
Several additional claims by the plaintiff were not accepted by the court on the basis of the complaint which had been filed, but the court said that the male student was not precluded from bringing up these claims again, provided they were properly pleaded.
These claims included, said Banzhaf: breach of contract, violation of Title IX (discrimination against him by the school on the basis of his gender), negligence, making public statements which place him in a false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (which might also warrant punitive damages).
"Female university students in 'he said, she said' rape and sexual assault cases, who were dissatisfied with the way the school handled the situation, are increasingly seeking legal remedies.
But now men who feel that the pendulum has swung too far, or that they were not treated fairly in school judicial proceedings, suddenly also have powerful legal weapons on their side.
Also, says Banzhaf, it is likely that some attorneys will take these cases on a contingency fee basis, so that both rich and poor students can go after both the universities and any women who improperly accuse them. Female students, knowing that they may have to repeat their allegations under oath in open court, may think carefully before bringing any unfounded charges, he predicts.
Source
Well shut my mouth. This is a blessing,it truly is. It's about time someone in government took action and gave men a legal remedy to fight against the injustice of being falsely accused. This is what activism and making our concerns known accomplishes. There are lots of twists and turns on this road but if it yields victories such as this one then it is worth it.
With so much attention focused on alleged failures to prosecute students accused of date rape, the problem of universities whose judicial proceedings are unfair to the accused have been largely overlooked
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRLog (Press Release) - May 19, 2014 - WASHINGTON, D.C. -- WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 19, 2014): With so much attention focused on the alleged failures of many universities to forcefully prosecute male students accused of date rape and sexual assault, the problem of universities whose judicial proceedings are unfair to the accused, and/or are overzealous because of pressure from female students or otherwise, have been largely overlooked.
But now a new judicial ruling gives those wrongly convicted a powerful new weapon - they can sue the university, the employees who participated in the proceedings, and even the accused herself in federal court for substantial monetary damages and other remedies, notes public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who was twice called a “radical feminist.”
After a school tribunal at Saint Joseph's University found a male student to have committed sexual assault arising out of an incident of allegedly consensual sexual intercourse, he took legal action, says Banzhaf, who has been successful in over 100 sex discrimination proceedings.
The federal court held that he was entitled to sue the private university under the state's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and that he could also sue the university, university employees, and the female complainant for defamation (slander), with the court holding that their accusatory statements about him were not legally privileged.
Interestingly, the court said that he could also sue the female complainant for intentionally interfering with his contractual relations with the school; an important ruling, suggests Banzhaf, because for such an intentional tort he can seek much higher punitive damages in addition to general damages. Also, the court ruled that the mere fact that the tribunal found that the male student had committed the wrongful act complained of was not conclusive as to his guilt or innocence, and did not shield the female complainant from this type of legal liability.
Several additional claims by the plaintiff were not accepted by the court on the basis of the complaint which had been filed, but the court said that the male student was not precluded from bringing up these claims again, provided they were properly pleaded.
These claims included, said Banzhaf: breach of contract, violation of Title IX (discrimination against him by the school on the basis of his gender), negligence, making public statements which place him in a false light, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (which might also warrant punitive damages).
"Female university students in 'he said, she said' rape and sexual assault cases, who were dissatisfied with the way the school handled the situation, are increasingly seeking legal remedies.
But now men who feel that the pendulum has swung too far, or that they were not treated fairly in school judicial proceedings, suddenly also have powerful legal weapons on their side.
Also, says Banzhaf, it is likely that some attorneys will take these cases on a contingency fee basis, so that both rich and poor students can go after both the universities and any women who improperly accuse them. Female students, knowing that they may have to repeat their allegations under oath in open court, may think carefully before bringing any unfounded charges, he predicts.
Source
Well shut my mouth. This is a blessing,it truly is. It's about time someone in government took action and gave men a legal remedy to fight against the injustice of being falsely accused. This is what activism and making our concerns known accomplishes. There are lots of twists and turns on this road but if it yields victories such as this one then it is worth it.
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Kennesaw State University opens men's center
MHRM Now an Institutional Presence at Kennesaw State University
January 18, 2014 By VFM News and Commentary
Collegiate Activism Director Sage Gerard has successfully institutionalized the MHRM in the southeast United States.
At Kennesaw State University (KSU), student organizations (SOs) are organized into two tiers:
•Registered Student Organization (RSO) - A RSO is a SO that can freely set up table events and represent the KSU community. RSOs do not have much pull, but RSO status can only be achieved by demonstrating demand in the student body. Sage was able to generate this demand with your help.
•Certified Student Organization (CSO) - A CSO is a sought-after status that grants a SO the right to reserve space on campus and request funding from the Student Activities and Budget Advisory Committee (SABAC) for events of any scale, including entire conferences.
Sage founded KSU Men (KSUM) back in November, but KSU could only grant KSUM RSO status due to KSUM’s uncertain future. For that reason, KSUM could represent men’s rights, but had limited capacity to act.
After much effort, Sage secured CSO status for KSUM, making KSUM an integral part of the KSU community.
KSUM will now begin deliberations with KSU and AVFM regarding space reservations for a conference and speaker’s circuit for late 2014 or early 2015, depending on space availability and other factors.
Source
January 18, 2014 By VFM News and Commentary
Collegiate Activism Director Sage Gerard has successfully institutionalized the MHRM in the southeast United States.
At Kennesaw State University (KSU), student organizations (SOs) are organized into two tiers:
•Registered Student Organization (RSO) - A RSO is a SO that can freely set up table events and represent the KSU community. RSOs do not have much pull, but RSO status can only be achieved by demonstrating demand in the student body. Sage was able to generate this demand with your help.
•Certified Student Organization (CSO) - A CSO is a sought-after status that grants a SO the right to reserve space on campus and request funding from the Student Activities and Budget Advisory Committee (SABAC) for events of any scale, including entire conferences.
Sage founded KSU Men (KSUM) back in November, but KSU could only grant KSUM RSO status due to KSUM’s uncertain future. For that reason, KSUM could represent men’s rights, but had limited capacity to act.
After much effort, Sage secured CSO status for KSUM, making KSUM an integral part of the KSU community.
KSUM will now begin deliberations with KSU and AVFM regarding space reservations for a conference and speaker’s circuit for late 2014 or early 2015, depending on space availability and other factors.
Source
Friday, January 10, 2014
Feminist oppression of children
We fear Carina Kolodny’s children, and so should your sons
January 10, 2014 By John Hembling (JtO)
I fear Carina Kolodny’s children, and so should you.
Why, you may wonder, should you fear them, and for that matter, who on Earth is Carina Kolodny?
According to her byline at the Huffington Post, she’s a writer, media activist, and sex educator. Apparently, she also holds a Masters in Social Media & Social Change. In other words, she’s a professional Social Justice Warrior (SJW). For some readers, that may seem like a positive appellation.
For clarity this is an individual who repeatedly engages in arguments on “social justice,” often in a shallow or poorly reasoned way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A Social Justice Warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily believe anything they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting “on behalf of.” The term also connotes an established tendency to advance arguments based solely on the immediate utility of moral one-upmanship, and completely unattached to reality, truth, or any core moral principals such as non-initiation of violence.
But returning to Kolodny’s children, and why fear is an appropriate response to them: they’re rapists and violent criminals. Does that sound hyperbolic? It’s worse than you think. Kolodny’s children, those children, teenagers, and in time, the adults they will become are not simply her actual offspring. In fact, Carina Kolodny doesn’t have children. Rather, they are all the children and teenagers raised to believe in the same popularized narrative Kolodny perpetuates in her writing, media activism, and sex education.
What narrative? This one; “It is a young woman’s responsibility to safeguard herself from rape, assault, harassment, stalking and abuse because boys will be boys and some of them just can’t help themselves.”
There are two separate and contradictory ideas at play in Kolodny’s quote, so we will examine each one independently. The first is that of self-responsibility. Apparently, when contemplated for women or girls, the Social-Justiciar and sex-educator Carina Kolodny finds it objectionable. Protecting yourself is not girls’ jobs, it is society’s job to protect girls (and apparently no one else).
“It is a young woman’s responsibility to safeguard herself from rape, assault, harassment, stalking…”
Kolodny is being sarcastic, but why? Yes every young woman (and old woman, and every young man, and old man) has a personal responsibility to mitigate risk, to make responsible decisions about attire, displays of wealth, and to generally avoid stupid, unnecessary risk of criminal victimization. This is not to suggest that any individual falling prey to criminal victimization is at greater fault than whatever violent perpetrator may have committed such victimization–but being an adult means taking responsibility for oneself. That this needs to be explicitly stated is one more indictment of the modern ideology of gender flying under the big “F” brand name. Women apparently are not to be treated like adults: that appears to be the sarcastic underlying assumption of Kolodny’s humor.
But now, let’s return to her opinions on the propensities of boys and girls. The reason, unfortunately, that women have to safeguard themselves against rape – you know, as if they are adults — is because “boys will be boys” and they “Just cant help themselves.”
That’s right, if your son, your brother, or yourself happens to be male – he’s not a human being, he’s a rape-inclined animal, and only the careful guidance of a right-thinking feminist will prevent him from his inevitable realization of his “true nature”: a violent sexual predator.
What is more devious about this formulation of hers, however, is that it’s ultimately a lie. Kolodny would undoubtedly object and claim she doesn’t believe men are “that way” by nature, but rather that they are socially conditioned to behave that way, and that the rest of her remarks are ironic or sarcastic. But our culture does not teach men that rape is OK, it has never taught men that. Since boys and men are not taught that rape is OK and never have been in this culture, the only reasonable conclusion she and those of her ideological ilk can therefore reach is that, whether the cause is “natural” or “socially constructed,” boys and men are inherently rapey and have to be taught otherwise.
This whole confusing ideological Gordion Knot of Kolodny’s fucktardery can be cut cleanly with one statement: she’s an ignorant bigot and only an ignorant bigot would say the things she’s saying, even supposedly in jest. Boys aren’t inherently rapey, and neither are they taught to be, you stupid bigoted asshole. All your garbage does is teach them to hate their natural sexuality and believe themselves to be potential rapists when the vast majority of them are not and never will be so inclined. In fact, news flash you stupid bitch: even if you encouraged boys to rape, most of them would recoil and refuse.
Kolodny’s article continues on with her hatemongering bigotry with various admonitions and advice to be imparted to young men by their mothers, and possibly, if they were properly socialized, maybe even their fathers.
I have had quite enough of Carina Kolodny and every other fuck who subscribes to the ideology of gendered hatred she promotes. Fuck Kolodny’s open letter to the mothers of boys, and fuck every other vile, hateful garbage-spewing ideologue singing from the same songbook. My patience for those who heap hate, disdain and contempt on men and boys is exhausted. No, Social Justice Warriors, boys are not innately rapey, nor are they taught by our society to be rapey. Both are hateful disgusting deplorable lies, and fuck you for spreading either one of them.
There is really no point in further criticizing or attempting to converse with such hatred than to just identify it as what it is.
However, we do have a few suggestions to offer the mothers and fathers of boys growing up in what is now a feminist-dominated culture. Here’s a few words of advice on that score:
When you speak to your son, teach him that his identity is his own. It will be his own choice to be the man he wants to be. Not the man other people may demand him become because of his utility to them, or his convenient disposability, or his need to be shamed for things supposedly in his character that aren’t actually there. Teach him to beware of those who will confer an identity on him, especially in such a manner as Kolodny does. Tell him he is not a “good” man, nor a “bad” man, as both of those ideas are traps designed to control him. Those intellectual traps are for the convenience of those who disregard and even deny his fundamental humanity. If some stupid fuck tells you you’ve got a “rape switch” tell him to go to Hell. If some stupid fuck tells you your inconvenient erection means you’re “objectifying women” tell them to go fuck themselves. If someone tells you it’s your job to “stop rape,” tell them it’s their job to stop murder first and otherwise go fuck themselves.
You may also want to teach your son something he will never learn from this culture’s mainstream feminist narrative. Admittedly, he may figure this out himself, but why not give him a heads-up when he’s 10, rather than when he’s in his 30′s and sorts it out for himself? His sexuality, particularly his sexual desire, is his own. Nobody is entitled to it. No, he is not required to fuck just because a girl wants to. No, he is not inferior if he finds a particular girl (or boy) unattractive. No, he is not to be shamed if he has standards in women. No, his penis is not a dancing pony expected to fuck on demand. And his right to say “no” to a sexual encounter is every bit as vital and real as a girl’s right to the same.
This, of course runs against the populist public narrative. In the popular narrative, it is not merely assumed that masculine sexuality is predatory, exploitive, and 95 other negative adjectives. It is also flatly assumed that the sexuality, and the sexual desire of men, is a public resource to be not merely condemned and criticized, but used as a lever of control over, either through direct exploitation or through shame.
Your son’s penis is not simply not a weapon, as it it characterized by mainstream propaganda. It is also an intimate part of a boy’s body to which nobody else has a right. He will be living in a world where women assume ownership of his sexuality and desire. The idea that a man is always on, always eager, that he really doesn’t even have a right of refusal, is common; that he has a right of refusal is something he isn’t even taught to consider. He should be taught to consider it in the face of a culture that endlessly suggests otehrwise.
Your sons should know that he should command his own sexual self-ownership. A few useful phrases for your son to add to his repertoire might include variations of “talk to the hand bitch”, and “look sweety, I’m not actually gay, but for tonight, you should assume I am.”
“My cock is fabulous, but do not ever assume you’re entitled to it, or entitled to my wallet for another of whatever sugary shit your drinking tonight.”
You might also want to convey to your son that nobody has any right to initiate violence against him. We’re all familiar with the common admonition to “never hit a woman.” This carries the implied, but false, implication that women can rightfully initiate violence against him. This includes feminine incitement to other compliant men acting on the behalf of members of the leisure caste. Your son will need to know explicitly that he has a right to his own integrity and freedom from coercion or other violence. Indeed, his explicit moral right to self defence even against members of “the weaker sex.” If a girl slaps him, he probably shouldn’t slap back (in a just world this would be allowed, but we don’t live in a just world), but he should never accept it and should probably forever terminate his relationship with any woman who does that to him.
Your son will also likely be bombarded by public messaging admonishing him to “respect women.”
Not respect people. Not respect other men. No. Just respect women. But of course, this doesn’t actually mean respect women as individuals, because individuals have to earn respect. No, the respect they mean is like the respect that Indian peasants were supposed to have toward white British colonialists: the “respect for women” they want is the respect of an inferior to a superior. Don’t give it to them. Real respect is something earned, not commanded by fiat. The common admonition to young boys to respect women is actually a command to demonstrate obeisance – while also invisibly acknowledging the fraudulent doctrinal conception of female-as-inferior. Why else would respect for individuals of a particular social caste require the common command for respect?
Aside from respecting the fundamental respect for basic rights and courtesy due to all human beings until they demonstrate otherwise, your son should only respect those who earn his respect. You should tell him to do so with or without instruction from public opinion-crafters. If the “respect” publicly propagandized to boys and men of “women” were the respect of humans as individuals with basic human rights, they would say “people,” and not merely the social caste “women.” Teach him to recognize this for what it is: a demand for unearned. And teach him that this hateful “respect for women” canard is all the proof he will ever need that feminists lie when they say “feminism is about equality.”
On the matter of sex between men and women, you might also want to acquaint your son with the increasing, absurd and amoral public ethic of feminine non-accountability.
This idea, increasingly popular, is that women, distinct from men, are held exempt from any concept of responsibility in matters sexual. This is important knowledge of the mine-field that gender ideologues have chosen to create for members of the disposable social caste to negotiate.
If your son makes any decision, or takes any action – whether drunk or sober – he will be held responsible for it. In the legal and popular culture today, this is the reality: a woman is – due to the ideology of her inferiority as a human – explicitly not a responsible actor in her own life. For example, if a man and woman are both intoxicated during a sexual encounter – SHE is a victim, and HE is a victimizer. Yeah, that makes sense, right? If two people are drunk, the one with a penis is automatically the rapist.
It doesn’t end there either. Increasingly, any withdrawl of her consent makes you her rapist, even if it’s days or even weeks later.
Your son, when he is very young, may not understand this. Most young children are actually far more rational than most adults. As young people, they are not yet acculturated to many of the widely accepted stupidities and insanities people like Carina Kolodny buy into and peddle to an unthinking public. So it will be up to you to teach him that BECAUSE of MAGIC, or Fairies, or Wizards, or Aliens from planet X – that women are uniquely incapable of having opinions or making choices – particularly after drinking a grey goose martini.
Or, maybe just tell him that hateful bigoted nutjobs who think like this are in control, and he needs to be aware of it.
Your son, as he matures from a child into a sexually mature and active person, will be well-advised to demand evidence of mature accountability and self-responsibility from the women he allows into his life. We live in a world contorting reality into pretzels to exempt women from personal responsibility. It is rare to find those few women who demand their own realized adulthood, which includes personal responsibility. Your son will need a tool-kit to detect the real adults among a vast majority of female victim-toddlers whose irresponsible whims and moody tantrums are used to justify the suppression of the rights of others, and even justify violence on her behalf.
Such a toolkit is being developed by the various current practitioners of MGTOW – although details of the same are outside the scope of this discussion.
Advise your son to exclude women who fail these tests from his life.
Last but not least, while there may be many other important talks to have with your sons, you will also wish to discuss the various meanings and social values of words like “slut” and related terminology. As a parent taking on the task of describing sexual relationships in the real world of today you must remember that words like “slut,” “whore,” and even “rapist” take on different meanings when used by different people. If you can’t be honest about the real world with your child then you have no business engaging in such conversations. Leave that to others who are more capable.
“Slut” has several different meanings, three of which will be mentioned here:
The most currently popular of these is the use by gender ideologues of slut as a “positive” label. This is the reclamation by feminists of what they assert was once a condemning insult. In this application, it is claimed that slut means a sexually liberated, free-spirited and unashamed woman positively exercising her sexuality. Picture the proud self-identifying sluts of the emergent public parades known as “slut-walks” around the world. In reality, the term “slut” used in this context really means “grifter.” A self-identifying feminist slut is as sex-denying, as condemning, and as hatefully judgemental as a klansman opining on issues of the black community. Just ask a slut-walker if they’d like to go for a quick shag, and see that sluttiness precipitate into a shower of false outrage. “Sexually irresponsible jackass” might be another, more accurately descriptive, way to phrase it.
The term “slut” is also used to condemn a woman of truly open sexuality. But interestingly, this condemnation is often from another female. The sexual openness of one woman is, in this context, treated as de-valuing the woman offering that condemnation. This is also likely why among a certain subset of the feminist mainstream, sex-workers are criminalized and marginalized. Female prostitutes, by providing sexual access for a finite exchange of money, break the sexual trade-union of state feminism. A slut who, within the reasonable limits of hygiene personal capacity, will fuck just “anyone” (or the whole hockey team) is seen by sexually-withholding women as a threat to the control of the market.
The final use of the term “slut” to be mentioned here is the usage of the term by men. In this instance it is a term of admiration for women who place high value on honesty in their own sexual communication, as well as physical affection, openness and sexual disinhibition. This is by far the least-commonly used of the three different meanings of slut. But it is also a genuine term of admiration and affection – even among men who themselves are sexually insecure, or sexually cautious.
Related to the multi-definitioned term “slut” are two other words, namely “whore” and the aforementioned “grifter.” “Whore” of course is a much-misused term. Opportunist lawyers, politicians, attention seekers and other bottom feeding creatures are regularly labeled as whores, in an abuse of the word, and a failure to understand the nature of actual pay-for-sex merchants. Actual whores – of the type practicing their business honestly, are arguably a valuable part of their community. They provide a useful service, often under very difficult conditions. Much of the world still criminalizes the independent practice of sex for money, creating a criminalized environment of escalated harm for sexual service providers as well as their customers.
“Grifter” is of course a term somewhat out of fashion in modern usage. This may be because the practice of grifting so closely resembles what is the populist ethical practice of sex, and manipulation through access control.
A fourth term, “rapist,” is perhaps the most troubling of these terms. Among the gender ideologues presently dominating public narrative – like Carina Kolodny – a rapist is any man who is labeled one based on no more than the whim of a female accuser. The term once meant a sexual criminal, including women sexually abusing minors or anyone else who couldn’t reasonably consent to sex. However, “rape,” while it retains the powerful stigma and condemnation of violent sexual victimization is increasingly coming to mean any sexual activity in which a member of the disposable sex participates.
The disposable sex being you, my son.
But of course, in the practice of parenting – particularly of boys, these are just a few of the talks a responsible and loving parent will have to have. It is boys now being raised with an awareness of this culture’s need to control them through shame and coercion who will grow into men who cannot be controlled, or manipulated to their own self-destructive utility to others.
What the gender ideology of State Feminism always promised, namely a humanitarian, equalist society, is coming. But it is not coming from feminism. Even so, it’s coming with the inevitability of gravity, and it will be boys going their own way – and the men they become who bring it. These men, some of whom exist now as MGTOWs, are not men allowing themselves to be defined by their utility, or by their approval by women. They are not the tamed lap dogs that even radical feminists privately find repulsive just as they publicly demand continued male obedience.
It is not the point of this article to establish the thesis that boys are not naturally any of the evils routinely heaped onto them as if defining masculine identity. For the real parents of boys, this simple reality requires no exposition except for you to explain to them that the popular narrative lies about them and subjects them to unearned hate, to to teach them to be aware of it without accepting the hate. The talks you, the parent of a boy will have, will arm him to defend against the self-hatred they want him to absorb, and arm him to be ready to define himself by his own compass, and to armour himself against a poisonous wind which would warp him into a man of conditional identity rather than sovereign adulthood.
Your son should know that a boy taught to be a “good man” by feminist standards is one whose public personhood depends on consensus of utility and approval by dysfunctional women and their lapdogs. His identity to them is dependent, and referential. A “real man” is based on the (stated or unstated) agreement of his mother’s friends. And boys raised by mothers to be these pleasing slaves, so that they may one day be approved of by their female contemporaries, eventually becoming the cooperative beasts of burden we typically call husbands and fathers. Do your son a favour and teach him not to allow himself to become a compliant servant of men and women who would use him as a disposable utility.
Finally, teach your boy to use his own best judgement, and to seek only the counsel of those who first prove that they believe he is a sovereign adult and that women should be treated as no less and no more than that. Otherwise, teach him to beware those who would confer on him any identity he himself does not gladly accept or, better yet, craft for himself.
Teach him also of the ideologues who hate him based only on an aspect of biology, and to recognize them. And let him learn to fuck their shit up.
Source
I love how JTO fucking nailed it. He described men's liberation perfectly. My hats off to him this is the best stuff I've read in a long time and I'm glad someone else is saying it too.
January 10, 2014 By John Hembling (JtO)
I fear Carina Kolodny’s children, and so should you.
Why, you may wonder, should you fear them, and for that matter, who on Earth is Carina Kolodny?
According to her byline at the Huffington Post, she’s a writer, media activist, and sex educator. Apparently, she also holds a Masters in Social Media & Social Change. In other words, she’s a professional Social Justice Warrior (SJW). For some readers, that may seem like a positive appellation.
For clarity this is an individual who repeatedly engages in arguments on “social justice,” often in a shallow or poorly reasoned way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A Social Justice Warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily believe anything they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting “on behalf of.” The term also connotes an established tendency to advance arguments based solely on the immediate utility of moral one-upmanship, and completely unattached to reality, truth, or any core moral principals such as non-initiation of violence.
But returning to Kolodny’s children, and why fear is an appropriate response to them: they’re rapists and violent criminals. Does that sound hyperbolic? It’s worse than you think. Kolodny’s children, those children, teenagers, and in time, the adults they will become are not simply her actual offspring. In fact, Carina Kolodny doesn’t have children. Rather, they are all the children and teenagers raised to believe in the same popularized narrative Kolodny perpetuates in her writing, media activism, and sex education.
What narrative? This one; “It is a young woman’s responsibility to safeguard herself from rape, assault, harassment, stalking and abuse because boys will be boys and some of them just can’t help themselves.”
There are two separate and contradictory ideas at play in Kolodny’s quote, so we will examine each one independently. The first is that of self-responsibility. Apparently, when contemplated for women or girls, the Social-Justiciar and sex-educator Carina Kolodny finds it objectionable. Protecting yourself is not girls’ jobs, it is society’s job to protect girls (and apparently no one else).
“It is a young woman’s responsibility to safeguard herself from rape, assault, harassment, stalking…”
Kolodny is being sarcastic, but why? Yes every young woman (and old woman, and every young man, and old man) has a personal responsibility to mitigate risk, to make responsible decisions about attire, displays of wealth, and to generally avoid stupid, unnecessary risk of criminal victimization. This is not to suggest that any individual falling prey to criminal victimization is at greater fault than whatever violent perpetrator may have committed such victimization–but being an adult means taking responsibility for oneself. That this needs to be explicitly stated is one more indictment of the modern ideology of gender flying under the big “F” brand name. Women apparently are not to be treated like adults: that appears to be the sarcastic underlying assumption of Kolodny’s humor.
But now, let’s return to her opinions on the propensities of boys and girls. The reason, unfortunately, that women have to safeguard themselves against rape – you know, as if they are adults — is because “boys will be boys” and they “Just cant help themselves.”
That’s right, if your son, your brother, or yourself happens to be male – he’s not a human being, he’s a rape-inclined animal, and only the careful guidance of a right-thinking feminist will prevent him from his inevitable realization of his “true nature”: a violent sexual predator.
What is more devious about this formulation of hers, however, is that it’s ultimately a lie. Kolodny would undoubtedly object and claim she doesn’t believe men are “that way” by nature, but rather that they are socially conditioned to behave that way, and that the rest of her remarks are ironic or sarcastic. But our culture does not teach men that rape is OK, it has never taught men that. Since boys and men are not taught that rape is OK and never have been in this culture, the only reasonable conclusion she and those of her ideological ilk can therefore reach is that, whether the cause is “natural” or “socially constructed,” boys and men are inherently rapey and have to be taught otherwise.
This whole confusing ideological Gordion Knot of Kolodny’s fucktardery can be cut cleanly with one statement: she’s an ignorant bigot and only an ignorant bigot would say the things she’s saying, even supposedly in jest. Boys aren’t inherently rapey, and neither are they taught to be, you stupid bigoted asshole. All your garbage does is teach them to hate their natural sexuality and believe themselves to be potential rapists when the vast majority of them are not and never will be so inclined. In fact, news flash you stupid bitch: even if you encouraged boys to rape, most of them would recoil and refuse.
Kolodny’s article continues on with her hatemongering bigotry with various admonitions and advice to be imparted to young men by their mothers, and possibly, if they were properly socialized, maybe even their fathers.
I have had quite enough of Carina Kolodny and every other fuck who subscribes to the ideology of gendered hatred she promotes. Fuck Kolodny’s open letter to the mothers of boys, and fuck every other vile, hateful garbage-spewing ideologue singing from the same songbook. My patience for those who heap hate, disdain and contempt on men and boys is exhausted. No, Social Justice Warriors, boys are not innately rapey, nor are they taught by our society to be rapey. Both are hateful disgusting deplorable lies, and fuck you for spreading either one of them.
There is really no point in further criticizing or attempting to converse with such hatred than to just identify it as what it is.
However, we do have a few suggestions to offer the mothers and fathers of boys growing up in what is now a feminist-dominated culture. Here’s a few words of advice on that score:
When you speak to your son, teach him that his identity is his own. It will be his own choice to be the man he wants to be. Not the man other people may demand him become because of his utility to them, or his convenient disposability, or his need to be shamed for things supposedly in his character that aren’t actually there. Teach him to beware of those who will confer an identity on him, especially in such a manner as Kolodny does. Tell him he is not a “good” man, nor a “bad” man, as both of those ideas are traps designed to control him. Those intellectual traps are for the convenience of those who disregard and even deny his fundamental humanity. If some stupid fuck tells you you’ve got a “rape switch” tell him to go to Hell. If some stupid fuck tells you your inconvenient erection means you’re “objectifying women” tell them to go fuck themselves. If someone tells you it’s your job to “stop rape,” tell them it’s their job to stop murder first and otherwise go fuck themselves.
You may also want to teach your son something he will never learn from this culture’s mainstream feminist narrative. Admittedly, he may figure this out himself, but why not give him a heads-up when he’s 10, rather than when he’s in his 30′s and sorts it out for himself? His sexuality, particularly his sexual desire, is his own. Nobody is entitled to it. No, he is not required to fuck just because a girl wants to. No, he is not inferior if he finds a particular girl (or boy) unattractive. No, he is not to be shamed if he has standards in women. No, his penis is not a dancing pony expected to fuck on demand. And his right to say “no” to a sexual encounter is every bit as vital and real as a girl’s right to the same.
This, of course runs against the populist public narrative. In the popular narrative, it is not merely assumed that masculine sexuality is predatory, exploitive, and 95 other negative adjectives. It is also flatly assumed that the sexuality, and the sexual desire of men, is a public resource to be not merely condemned and criticized, but used as a lever of control over, either through direct exploitation or through shame.
Your son’s penis is not simply not a weapon, as it it characterized by mainstream propaganda. It is also an intimate part of a boy’s body to which nobody else has a right. He will be living in a world where women assume ownership of his sexuality and desire. The idea that a man is always on, always eager, that he really doesn’t even have a right of refusal, is common; that he has a right of refusal is something he isn’t even taught to consider. He should be taught to consider it in the face of a culture that endlessly suggests otehrwise.
Your sons should know that he should command his own sexual self-ownership. A few useful phrases for your son to add to his repertoire might include variations of “talk to the hand bitch”, and “look sweety, I’m not actually gay, but for tonight, you should assume I am.”
“My cock is fabulous, but do not ever assume you’re entitled to it, or entitled to my wallet for another of whatever sugary shit your drinking tonight.”
You might also want to convey to your son that nobody has any right to initiate violence against him. We’re all familiar with the common admonition to “never hit a woman.” This carries the implied, but false, implication that women can rightfully initiate violence against him. This includes feminine incitement to other compliant men acting on the behalf of members of the leisure caste. Your son will need to know explicitly that he has a right to his own integrity and freedom from coercion or other violence. Indeed, his explicit moral right to self defence even against members of “the weaker sex.” If a girl slaps him, he probably shouldn’t slap back (in a just world this would be allowed, but we don’t live in a just world), but he should never accept it and should probably forever terminate his relationship with any woman who does that to him.
Your son will also likely be bombarded by public messaging admonishing him to “respect women.”
Not respect people. Not respect other men. No. Just respect women. But of course, this doesn’t actually mean respect women as individuals, because individuals have to earn respect. No, the respect they mean is like the respect that Indian peasants were supposed to have toward white British colonialists: the “respect for women” they want is the respect of an inferior to a superior. Don’t give it to them. Real respect is something earned, not commanded by fiat. The common admonition to young boys to respect women is actually a command to demonstrate obeisance – while also invisibly acknowledging the fraudulent doctrinal conception of female-as-inferior. Why else would respect for individuals of a particular social caste require the common command for respect?
Aside from respecting the fundamental respect for basic rights and courtesy due to all human beings until they demonstrate otherwise, your son should only respect those who earn his respect. You should tell him to do so with or without instruction from public opinion-crafters. If the “respect” publicly propagandized to boys and men of “women” were the respect of humans as individuals with basic human rights, they would say “people,” and not merely the social caste “women.” Teach him to recognize this for what it is: a demand for unearned. And teach him that this hateful “respect for women” canard is all the proof he will ever need that feminists lie when they say “feminism is about equality.”
On the matter of sex between men and women, you might also want to acquaint your son with the increasing, absurd and amoral public ethic of feminine non-accountability.
This idea, increasingly popular, is that women, distinct from men, are held exempt from any concept of responsibility in matters sexual. This is important knowledge of the mine-field that gender ideologues have chosen to create for members of the disposable social caste to negotiate.
If your son makes any decision, or takes any action – whether drunk or sober – he will be held responsible for it. In the legal and popular culture today, this is the reality: a woman is – due to the ideology of her inferiority as a human – explicitly not a responsible actor in her own life. For example, if a man and woman are both intoxicated during a sexual encounter – SHE is a victim, and HE is a victimizer. Yeah, that makes sense, right? If two people are drunk, the one with a penis is automatically the rapist.
It doesn’t end there either. Increasingly, any withdrawl of her consent makes you her rapist, even if it’s days or even weeks later.
Your son, when he is very young, may not understand this. Most young children are actually far more rational than most adults. As young people, they are not yet acculturated to many of the widely accepted stupidities and insanities people like Carina Kolodny buy into and peddle to an unthinking public. So it will be up to you to teach him that BECAUSE of MAGIC, or Fairies, or Wizards, or Aliens from planet X – that women are uniquely incapable of having opinions or making choices – particularly after drinking a grey goose martini.
Or, maybe just tell him that hateful bigoted nutjobs who think like this are in control, and he needs to be aware of it.
Your son, as he matures from a child into a sexually mature and active person, will be well-advised to demand evidence of mature accountability and self-responsibility from the women he allows into his life. We live in a world contorting reality into pretzels to exempt women from personal responsibility. It is rare to find those few women who demand their own realized adulthood, which includes personal responsibility. Your son will need a tool-kit to detect the real adults among a vast majority of female victim-toddlers whose irresponsible whims and moody tantrums are used to justify the suppression of the rights of others, and even justify violence on her behalf.
Such a toolkit is being developed by the various current practitioners of MGTOW – although details of the same are outside the scope of this discussion.
Advise your son to exclude women who fail these tests from his life.
Last but not least, while there may be many other important talks to have with your sons, you will also wish to discuss the various meanings and social values of words like “slut” and related terminology. As a parent taking on the task of describing sexual relationships in the real world of today you must remember that words like “slut,” “whore,” and even “rapist” take on different meanings when used by different people. If you can’t be honest about the real world with your child then you have no business engaging in such conversations. Leave that to others who are more capable.
“Slut” has several different meanings, three of which will be mentioned here:
The most currently popular of these is the use by gender ideologues of slut as a “positive” label. This is the reclamation by feminists of what they assert was once a condemning insult. In this application, it is claimed that slut means a sexually liberated, free-spirited and unashamed woman positively exercising her sexuality. Picture the proud self-identifying sluts of the emergent public parades known as “slut-walks” around the world. In reality, the term “slut” used in this context really means “grifter.” A self-identifying feminist slut is as sex-denying, as condemning, and as hatefully judgemental as a klansman opining on issues of the black community. Just ask a slut-walker if they’d like to go for a quick shag, and see that sluttiness precipitate into a shower of false outrage. “Sexually irresponsible jackass” might be another, more accurately descriptive, way to phrase it.
The term “slut” is also used to condemn a woman of truly open sexuality. But interestingly, this condemnation is often from another female. The sexual openness of one woman is, in this context, treated as de-valuing the woman offering that condemnation. This is also likely why among a certain subset of the feminist mainstream, sex-workers are criminalized and marginalized. Female prostitutes, by providing sexual access for a finite exchange of money, break the sexual trade-union of state feminism. A slut who, within the reasonable limits of hygiene personal capacity, will fuck just “anyone” (or the whole hockey team) is seen by sexually-withholding women as a threat to the control of the market.
The final use of the term “slut” to be mentioned here is the usage of the term by men. In this instance it is a term of admiration for women who place high value on honesty in their own sexual communication, as well as physical affection, openness and sexual disinhibition. This is by far the least-commonly used of the three different meanings of slut. But it is also a genuine term of admiration and affection – even among men who themselves are sexually insecure, or sexually cautious.
Related to the multi-definitioned term “slut” are two other words, namely “whore” and the aforementioned “grifter.” “Whore” of course is a much-misused term. Opportunist lawyers, politicians, attention seekers and other bottom feeding creatures are regularly labeled as whores, in an abuse of the word, and a failure to understand the nature of actual pay-for-sex merchants. Actual whores – of the type practicing their business honestly, are arguably a valuable part of their community. They provide a useful service, often under very difficult conditions. Much of the world still criminalizes the independent practice of sex for money, creating a criminalized environment of escalated harm for sexual service providers as well as their customers.
“Grifter” is of course a term somewhat out of fashion in modern usage. This may be because the practice of grifting so closely resembles what is the populist ethical practice of sex, and manipulation through access control.
A fourth term, “rapist,” is perhaps the most troubling of these terms. Among the gender ideologues presently dominating public narrative – like Carina Kolodny – a rapist is any man who is labeled one based on no more than the whim of a female accuser. The term once meant a sexual criminal, including women sexually abusing minors or anyone else who couldn’t reasonably consent to sex. However, “rape,” while it retains the powerful stigma and condemnation of violent sexual victimization is increasingly coming to mean any sexual activity in which a member of the disposable sex participates.
The disposable sex being you, my son.
But of course, in the practice of parenting – particularly of boys, these are just a few of the talks a responsible and loving parent will have to have. It is boys now being raised with an awareness of this culture’s need to control them through shame and coercion who will grow into men who cannot be controlled, or manipulated to their own self-destructive utility to others.
What the gender ideology of State Feminism always promised, namely a humanitarian, equalist society, is coming. But it is not coming from feminism. Even so, it’s coming with the inevitability of gravity, and it will be boys going their own way – and the men they become who bring it. These men, some of whom exist now as MGTOWs, are not men allowing themselves to be defined by their utility, or by their approval by women. They are not the tamed lap dogs that even radical feminists privately find repulsive just as they publicly demand continued male obedience.
It is not the point of this article to establish the thesis that boys are not naturally any of the evils routinely heaped onto them as if defining masculine identity. For the real parents of boys, this simple reality requires no exposition except for you to explain to them that the popular narrative lies about them and subjects them to unearned hate, to to teach them to be aware of it without accepting the hate. The talks you, the parent of a boy will have, will arm him to defend against the self-hatred they want him to absorb, and arm him to be ready to define himself by his own compass, and to armour himself against a poisonous wind which would warp him into a man of conditional identity rather than sovereign adulthood.
Your son should know that a boy taught to be a “good man” by feminist standards is one whose public personhood depends on consensus of utility and approval by dysfunctional women and their lapdogs. His identity to them is dependent, and referential. A “real man” is based on the (stated or unstated) agreement of his mother’s friends. And boys raised by mothers to be these pleasing slaves, so that they may one day be approved of by their female contemporaries, eventually becoming the cooperative beasts of burden we typically call husbands and fathers. Do your son a favour and teach him not to allow himself to become a compliant servant of men and women who would use him as a disposable utility.
Finally, teach your boy to use his own best judgement, and to seek only the counsel of those who first prove that they believe he is a sovereign adult and that women should be treated as no less and no more than that. Otherwise, teach him to beware those who would confer on him any identity he himself does not gladly accept or, better yet, craft for himself.
Teach him also of the ideologues who hate him based only on an aspect of biology, and to recognize them. And let him learn to fuck their shit up.
Source
I love how JTO fucking nailed it. He described men's liberation perfectly. My hats off to him this is the best stuff I've read in a long time and I'm glad someone else is saying it too.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Spearhead smears real activists
I was at the Spearhead reading an article entitled: Something is in the air,it started out well but then went downhill but the following is completely out of line:
Although I understand that Razz might put his job at risk if he revealed his identity, he’s doing so anyway. If he’s discovered, after all, then the effect will be the same. And because he won’t own up to his campaign, people will be under the impression that he knows he’s doing something wrong. It would be better, I think, to face the chief of police and ask whether men are any more likely to rape women than women are to lie to authorities. But to get back on subject, it does seem that there truly is a growing national interest in “MRA” or men’s issues. Maybe the work I and others have put in is starting to pay off. The activism some are engaging in might be catching people’s attention.
It's catching on because those of us who actually do activism are the ones making those in office and society in general know about our concerns and that our concerns are valid. Without us you guys would be were you were in the '90's. I couldn't believe Price has the audacity to ride on our coattails. If Price were a fellow activist I would have no problem with his article but he's not. If he were he would have published this but he didn't. If he claims it was similair to Auntie Pheminizem's comment and that is why then why did not publish it then why did Auntie Pheminizem receive some many thumbs down if he were off base? If Auntie Pheminizem were wrong then why no rebuttals? Bitching on a blog alone accomplishes nothing.
Razz,like myself,would face persecution if we revealed our true identities. Feminists have vowed to shut me up anyway they can. I'm not going to make it easy for them. Canada murdered Earl Silverman so I can imagine Razz doesn't want to be next. Also MRA's have face active persecution in Canada. Some have been jailed. Not only that but Canadian feminists are exceptionally psycho. We've seen the videos on A Voice For Men we know they are true.
In fact I even asked them what activism have they engaged in. Not only was the question not answered all I got was 14 thumbs down votes. There are talkers and there are doers and I'm a doer is getting tired of these talkers. Real tired of them.
Although I understand that Razz might put his job at risk if he revealed his identity, he’s doing so anyway. If he’s discovered, after all, then the effect will be the same. And because he won’t own up to his campaign, people will be under the impression that he knows he’s doing something wrong. It would be better, I think, to face the chief of police and ask whether men are any more likely to rape women than women are to lie to authorities. But to get back on subject, it does seem that there truly is a growing national interest in “MRA” or men’s issues. Maybe the work I and others have put in is starting to pay off. The activism some are engaging in might be catching people’s attention.
It's catching on because those of us who actually do activism are the ones making those in office and society in general know about our concerns and that our concerns are valid. Without us you guys would be were you were in the '90's. I couldn't believe Price has the audacity to ride on our coattails. If Price were a fellow activist I would have no problem with his article but he's not. If he were he would have published this but he didn't. If he claims it was similair to Auntie Pheminizem's comment and that is why then why did not publish it then why did Auntie Pheminizem receive some many thumbs down if he were off base? If Auntie Pheminizem were wrong then why no rebuttals? Bitching on a blog alone accomplishes nothing.
Razz,like myself,would face persecution if we revealed our true identities. Feminists have vowed to shut me up anyway they can. I'm not going to make it easy for them. Canada murdered Earl Silverman so I can imagine Razz doesn't want to be next. Also MRA's have face active persecution in Canada. Some have been jailed. Not only that but Canadian feminists are exceptionally psycho. We've seen the videos on A Voice For Men we know they are true.
In fact I even asked them what activism have they engaged in. Not only was the question not answered all I got was 14 thumbs down votes. There are talkers and there are doers and I'm a doer is getting tired of these talkers. Real tired of them.
Monday, July 15, 2013
Bad news on Kellett situation
Breaking news: Mary Kellett free to practice law
by Robert O'Hara
(Washington D.C. July 15th, 2013)
Justice Ellen Gorman has allowed corrupt Assistant District Attorney walk with a slap on the wrist.
Just after 10:00am today the disciplinary hearing for Mary Kellett, Assistant District Attorney for Maine’s 7th prosecutorial district, was held in Portland concerning her mishandling of the Vladek Filler case. For those new to the case, Ligia Filler falsely accused her husband Vladek Filler of domestic violence and spousal rape. Kellett in her role as Assistant District attorney withheld exculpatory evidence and made misleading statements to the jury in her closing remarks, leading to Vladek Filler’s conviction. The hearing was brief and followed a closed door meeting involving Kellett’s attorneys and representatives from the Overseers of the Bar. A plea bargain was submitted to Justice Ellen Gorman, presiding, who suspended Kellett and then promptly suspended her suspension resulting in Kellett facing no consequences for her gross misconduct during the Filler trial. She is still free to practice law and still acting as Assistant DA.
Kellett made a statement of apology before the judgment was handed down saying that she “went too far” and that it “wouldn’t happen again.” After her apology Filler was given fifteen minutes to speak. AVFM’s acting correpsondants said he was very emotional when he spoke as he told the court how Kellett’s actions have permanently damaged his life and that of his children’s. After the judgment was handed down Kellett exited through a back door leaving our correspondents and reporters from other news sources including Channel 2 News WLBZ from Bangor with no comment.
Acting AVfM Correspondents Scott Soly, Sean Campbell and Chris Caldwell conducted a video interview with Vladek Filler. This will be available later this evening along with other details.
Editorial note:
The entire staff at AVFM and many others to numerous to mention here extend their thanks to Scott Soly, Sean Campbell and Chris Caldwell who all heard the call to attend this hearing. These men did this on their own time and this was the very first time all of them had engaged in any activism of this kind. By each of them taking initiative they have sent a message that we are all watching. Please join us in thanking them in the comments below.
Source:click here
That is fucking bullshit. What a fucking whitewash. The people of the State of Maine,especially the men,are screwed. What we have here is women protecting women. The sisterhood comes first. The men of Maine? Not among the top 10 concerns of the sisterhood. This is a sad day for the men of Maine,they're lives can be reduced to shambles if rouge prosecutors like Kellett can get away and apparently they can and not have to worry about any accountability. Now Kellett is more dangerous than before because she is protected.
by Robert O'Hara
(Washington D.C. July 15th, 2013)
Justice Ellen Gorman has allowed corrupt Assistant District Attorney walk with a slap on the wrist.
Just after 10:00am today the disciplinary hearing for Mary Kellett, Assistant District Attorney for Maine’s 7th prosecutorial district, was held in Portland concerning her mishandling of the Vladek Filler case. For those new to the case, Ligia Filler falsely accused her husband Vladek Filler of domestic violence and spousal rape. Kellett in her role as Assistant District attorney withheld exculpatory evidence and made misleading statements to the jury in her closing remarks, leading to Vladek Filler’s conviction. The hearing was brief and followed a closed door meeting involving Kellett’s attorneys and representatives from the Overseers of the Bar. A plea bargain was submitted to Justice Ellen Gorman, presiding, who suspended Kellett and then promptly suspended her suspension resulting in Kellett facing no consequences for her gross misconduct during the Filler trial. She is still free to practice law and still acting as Assistant DA.
Kellett made a statement of apology before the judgment was handed down saying that she “went too far” and that it “wouldn’t happen again.” After her apology Filler was given fifteen minutes to speak. AVFM’s acting correpsondants said he was very emotional when he spoke as he told the court how Kellett’s actions have permanently damaged his life and that of his children’s. After the judgment was handed down Kellett exited through a back door leaving our correspondents and reporters from other news sources including Channel 2 News WLBZ from Bangor with no comment.
Acting AVfM Correspondents Scott Soly, Sean Campbell and Chris Caldwell conducted a video interview with Vladek Filler. This will be available later this evening along with other details.
Editorial note:
The entire staff at AVFM and many others to numerous to mention here extend their thanks to Scott Soly, Sean Campbell and Chris Caldwell who all heard the call to attend this hearing. These men did this on their own time and this was the very first time all of them had engaged in any activism of this kind. By each of them taking initiative they have sent a message that we are all watching. Please join us in thanking them in the comments below.
Source:click here
That is fucking bullshit. What a fucking whitewash. The people of the State of Maine,especially the men,are screwed. What we have here is women protecting women. The sisterhood comes first. The men of Maine? Not among the top 10 concerns of the sisterhood. This is a sad day for the men of Maine,they're lives can be reduced to shambles if rouge prosecutors like Kellett can get away and apparently they can and not have to worry about any accountability. Now Kellett is more dangerous than before because she is protected.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Tell the Camden Center to cancel Radfem 2013
From a Voice For Men:
Open Letter: Radfem 2013 at the Camden Centre by MRA London
What follows is an open letter and enquiry under the UK Freedom of Information Act to the Camden Centre Events Manager, on behalf of MRA London, concerning Radfem 2013 which is to be held at the Camden Centre in London.
The only contact information we currently have for the Camden Centre is this:
Contact the Camden Centre
We have been unable to reach them using the phone (no answer).
We will publish updates to this when we have them. Stay tuned.
May 29th, 2013.
Dear Camden Centre Events Manager,
THIS IS AN OPEN LETTER AND ENQUIRY UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000
On the 8th and 9th of June, 2013, the Camden Centre will be hosting the annual conference of Radfem, a pro-violence group whose members have a documented history of advocating harm to male infants, gendercide of half the human race, not to mention, hate toward transgender women.
The event is restricted to female attendees only.
I am writing to you on behalf of MRA London, therefore, to enquire under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the following information from you:
1. On what grounds did the Camden Centre conclude that this event, which specifically excludes people on the grounds of sex, does not breach the UK Equality Act 2010?
2. How was this decision reached, and who made it?
3. Why did the Camden Centre not require the organisers to observe the Equality Act?
With regard to the exclusionary nature of the event, the official Radfem event website states the following:
“We welcome radical feminists and those women who want to learn more about radical feminism. It is women-only because we believe that we need to organise autonomously in order to fight for our freedom from patriarchy.” [1]
Last year, the Conway Hall convention centre rejected Radfem’s 2012 booking citing the UK equality law. The London Irish Centre, the original planned venue for 2013, also rejected Radfem’s booking earlier this year. While it can be argued that certain services and events may be applicable only to one sex, the official Radfem 2013 website also states:
“We are revolutionaries, fighting for social change, and overthrowing current patriarchal systems. … Radical feminism goes to the heart of female oppression by naming male domination and violence as being responsible for women’s subordination. … Gender only exists for the benefit of men, as a class, at the expense of women, as a class.” [2]
I do not consider myself an “oppressor” and regard the implication that I am responsible for violence, domination and subordination because I was born male as egregiously offensive and a denial of my humanity. Certainly, I have never benefited at the expense of women, either as a class or individually. I, therefore, do not accept that Radfem is a legitimate female-only event because the ideology espoused by its members affects me directly and personally, along with all males, not to mention every mother of a son. These are questions for everybody, not just one sex.
I have previously attended pro-female events, such as the Women of the World Festival in 2013, which did not seek to exclude males. In fact, I found certain aspects of the experience extremely rewarding and established positive contacts with groups representing female interests. MRA London has an inclusive membership, also, and we not discriminate based on sex or gender. I put it to you, therefore, that there is no legitimate reason why Radfem should be allowed to do so. Furthermore, as a public entity that is meant to serve all members of the community, the Camden Centre should not be facilitating any agenda of ideological exclusion.
Finally, I would like to draw your attention to the “No Delegation” clause of the Public Sector Equality Duty [3], in connection with third question of my enquiry under the Freedom of Information Act. The Camden Centre, as a facility provided by Camden Council, had a duty to ensure that the event organisers complied with the law. You could have, for example, required Radfem to open the attendance criteria to all human beings. Why was the Public Sector Equality Duty not observed in this case?
I look forward to receiving your reply.
Yours faithfully
Andy Thomas
MRA LONDON
References
1. http://radfem2013.moonfruit.com/#/about/
2. http://radfem2013.moonfruit.com/#/about/
3. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85019/equality-duty.pdf
Source:click here
Contact the Camden Center:click here
This is what I like to see. Good Ole' fashion activism. I just sent an email letting the Camden Center know that I wasn't too keen on their letting Radfem use their center. I let them know that Radfem is akin to nazism and would they let racist groups use their center? I pointed out that Radfem is a hate movement and that they should cancel their booking. There's no reason why you can't do the same.
Open Letter: Radfem 2013 at the Camden Centre by MRA London
What follows is an open letter and enquiry under the UK Freedom of Information Act to the Camden Centre Events Manager, on behalf of MRA London, concerning Radfem 2013 which is to be held at the Camden Centre in London.
The only contact information we currently have for the Camden Centre is this:
Contact the Camden Centre
We have been unable to reach them using the phone (no answer).
We will publish updates to this when we have them. Stay tuned.
May 29th, 2013.
Dear Camden Centre Events Manager,
THIS IS AN OPEN LETTER AND ENQUIRY UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000
On the 8th and 9th of June, 2013, the Camden Centre will be hosting the annual conference of Radfem, a pro-violence group whose members have a documented history of advocating harm to male infants, gendercide of half the human race, not to mention, hate toward transgender women.
The event is restricted to female attendees only.
I am writing to you on behalf of MRA London, therefore, to enquire under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the following information from you:
1. On what grounds did the Camden Centre conclude that this event, which specifically excludes people on the grounds of sex, does not breach the UK Equality Act 2010?
2. How was this decision reached, and who made it?
3. Why did the Camden Centre not require the organisers to observe the Equality Act?
With regard to the exclusionary nature of the event, the official Radfem event website states the following:
“We welcome radical feminists and those women who want to learn more about radical feminism. It is women-only because we believe that we need to organise autonomously in order to fight for our freedom from patriarchy.” [1]
Last year, the Conway Hall convention centre rejected Radfem’s 2012 booking citing the UK equality law. The London Irish Centre, the original planned venue for 2013, also rejected Radfem’s booking earlier this year. While it can be argued that certain services and events may be applicable only to one sex, the official Radfem 2013 website also states:
“We are revolutionaries, fighting for social change, and overthrowing current patriarchal systems. … Radical feminism goes to the heart of female oppression by naming male domination and violence as being responsible for women’s subordination. … Gender only exists for the benefit of men, as a class, at the expense of women, as a class.” [2]
I do not consider myself an “oppressor” and regard the implication that I am responsible for violence, domination and subordination because I was born male as egregiously offensive and a denial of my humanity. Certainly, I have never benefited at the expense of women, either as a class or individually. I, therefore, do not accept that Radfem is a legitimate female-only event because the ideology espoused by its members affects me directly and personally, along with all males, not to mention every mother of a son. These are questions for everybody, not just one sex.
I have previously attended pro-female events, such as the Women of the World Festival in 2013, which did not seek to exclude males. In fact, I found certain aspects of the experience extremely rewarding and established positive contacts with groups representing female interests. MRA London has an inclusive membership, also, and we not discriminate based on sex or gender. I put it to you, therefore, that there is no legitimate reason why Radfem should be allowed to do so. Furthermore, as a public entity that is meant to serve all members of the community, the Camden Centre should not be facilitating any agenda of ideological exclusion.
Finally, I would like to draw your attention to the “No Delegation” clause of the Public Sector Equality Duty [3], in connection with third question of my enquiry under the Freedom of Information Act. The Camden Centre, as a facility provided by Camden Council, had a duty to ensure that the event organisers complied with the law. You could have, for example, required Radfem to open the attendance criteria to all human beings. Why was the Public Sector Equality Duty not observed in this case?
I look forward to receiving your reply.
Yours faithfully
Andy Thomas
MRA LONDON
References
1. http://radfem2013.moonfruit.com/#/about/
2. http://radfem2013.moonfruit.com/#/about/
3. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85019/equality-duty.pdf
Source:click here
Contact the Camden Center:click here
This is what I like to see. Good Ole' fashion activism. I just sent an email letting the Camden Center know that I wasn't too keen on their letting Radfem use their center. I let them know that Radfem is akin to nazism and would they let racist groups use their center? I pointed out that Radfem is a hate movement and that they should cancel their booking. There's no reason why you can't do the same.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
What wasn't published on the Spearhead
I wrote the following on the Spearhead but it wasn't published so I'll publish it here:
What are men doing to change their situation? Sitting in front of the TV watching sports solves nothing just like bitching on a message board does nothing. Political activism is where it's at. Political activism is what got 22 U.S. Senators to oppose VAWA. One of those who voted against VAWA used to support it (Senator Orinn Hatch R-Utah). We can either cry about our burden or do something to change it. I've seen a lot of campaigns where statists were defeated: SOPA and CISPA to name a couple. Conservative groups got Congress to investigate the IRS. There is no reason we can't do the same but we must act together. It is that simple. You critisize the white knights and manginas for being silent about female atrocities but if you are not an activist then you are no better than those you critisize. I don't want to hear "it can't be done" or "the illuminati won't allow it" that is defeatist crap. That is something your enemies will tell you so you don't oppose them. Are you going to listen to them? I'm not. It's real simple: do something about it or shut up.
Auntie Pheminizm said the same thing previously but I wasn't aware of his post when I wrote this. He is saying the same thing I am and I know political activism works. It works it you care enough to change your situation.
What are men doing to change their situation? Sitting in front of the TV watching sports solves nothing just like bitching on a message board does nothing. Political activism is where it's at. Political activism is what got 22 U.S. Senators to oppose VAWA. One of those who voted against VAWA used to support it (Senator Orinn Hatch R-Utah). We can either cry about our burden or do something to change it. I've seen a lot of campaigns where statists were defeated: SOPA and CISPA to name a couple. Conservative groups got Congress to investigate the IRS. There is no reason we can't do the same but we must act together. It is that simple. You critisize the white knights and manginas for being silent about female atrocities but if you are not an activist then you are no better than those you critisize. I don't want to hear "it can't be done" or "the illuminati won't allow it" that is defeatist crap. That is something your enemies will tell you so you don't oppose them. Are you going to listen to them? I'm not. It's real simple: do something about it or shut up.
Auntie Pheminizm said the same thing previously but I wasn't aware of his post when I wrote this. He is saying the same thing I am and I know political activism works. It works it you care enough to change your situation.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
On changes
There aren't going to be any. In fact I would love to double the activism and quarter the misandry. Those are the only changes I see worth being made. Let the questions begin.
Masc,there are women who read this blog. Shouldn't you take their sensetivities into consideration?
No,they came to my board,my area I didn't go to theirs. I'm not toning a fucking thing down for anyone. The problem is that some "MRA's?" tone it down,diluting the message and the message is dismissed. I'm not going to let that happen. Too many times guys get sweet talked by women into toning down the message until it is no longer effective. Irlandes warned us of this and he is right. I've seen the problem and I don't want to be part of it.
If changes were beneficial to the movement would you make them?
Yes,I would. I think that Register Her at A Voice For Men is a great idea and I would like it to be activated and updated. It was a very powerful tool against the feminists and they feared it. If I ran A Voice for Men it would up,running and kept up to date.
Where is the movement right now?
We're at a crossroads. We've come a long way and we need to use what works. I've always found that political activism works. If you help pass laws that benefit you and help defeat those that hurt you you live a lot better. That is what the feminists did. There is no reason we can't do the same.
what's a hinderance to men?
Rugged individualism especially the individual part. We need to work as a team or we will be defeated. That is the way it is.
Masc,there are women who read this blog. Shouldn't you take their sensetivities into consideration?
No,they came to my board,my area I didn't go to theirs. I'm not toning a fucking thing down for anyone. The problem is that some "MRA's?" tone it down,diluting the message and the message is dismissed. I'm not going to let that happen. Too many times guys get sweet talked by women into toning down the message until it is no longer effective. Irlandes warned us of this and he is right. I've seen the problem and I don't want to be part of it.
If changes were beneficial to the movement would you make them?
Yes,I would. I think that Register Her at A Voice For Men is a great idea and I would like it to be activated and updated. It was a very powerful tool against the feminists and they feared it. If I ran A Voice for Men it would up,running and kept up to date.
Where is the movement right now?
We're at a crossroads. We've come a long way and we need to use what works. I've always found that political activism works. If you help pass laws that benefit you and help defeat those that hurt you you live a lot better. That is what the feminists did. There is no reason we can't do the same.
what's a hinderance to men?
Rugged individualism especially the individual part. We need to work as a team or we will be defeated. That is the way it is.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
From and about a voice for men
OneHundredPercentCotton in reply to Kimski
You are talking to the wrong person here. As a women I felt obligated to enlist and serve my country – it was my country that betrayed me, not the other way around.
I would take up arms and serve again today to spare my sons from having to.
Source:here
How did your country betray you? I would have loved to respond to this comment but Paul Elam banned me. Why did he ban me? Because of this. I guess what I said was too much for Stacey Harvey uh em I mean Paul Elam.
Nightwing1029 in reply to justicehead
As someone else who is out near LA, I will only slightly agree that is the case.
They work together. However, in my dealings with Police/Sheriffs agencies, I do know that MOST of them do their best to get the job done right.
I ran this one past my California correspondant and he told me that the LA County Sheriff's are very corrupt and they plot revenge when they lose cases. He told me there are criminal gangs inside the Sheriff's department,that they are no better than the outlaw gangs.
justicehead
I’m hoping that the Shivers case, and the fact that a celebrity is involved, will finally force the public to see prosecutors more clearly. When it is fully known what prosecutors were getting away with under Delgadillo, Trutanich, and Cooley, there might be some progress
I heard Gil Garcetti was a lot worse for men.
Who's running A Voice For Men? I mean the place goes through changes every few days,like a woman accesorizing her outfits and they now use the word "misogynist" that left me wondering what is up and a lot of other MRA's are wondering the same thing. It used to be a place where men could vent about women but now that there are women in charge at A Voice For Men that is now verbottten. Going after Kellett and other misandrists is great but tell us the real deal. Reister Her has not been updated,Brian Banks accuser is not on it and that was a very powerful tool against feminists. The activism is dying off. What's the real deal,avfm,what's the real deal? A lot of us would like to know.
You are talking to the wrong person here. As a women I felt obligated to enlist and serve my country – it was my country that betrayed me, not the other way around.
I would take up arms and serve again today to spare my sons from having to.
Source:here
How did your country betray you? I would have loved to respond to this comment but Paul Elam banned me. Why did he ban me? Because of this. I guess what I said was too much for Stacey Harvey uh em I mean Paul Elam.
Nightwing1029 in reply to justicehead
As someone else who is out near LA, I will only slightly agree that is the case.
They work together. However, in my dealings with Police/Sheriffs agencies, I do know that MOST of them do their best to get the job done right.
I ran this one past my California correspondant and he told me that the LA County Sheriff's are very corrupt and they plot revenge when they lose cases. He told me there are criminal gangs inside the Sheriff's department,that they are no better than the outlaw gangs.
justicehead
I’m hoping that the Shivers case, and the fact that a celebrity is involved, will finally force the public to see prosecutors more clearly. When it is fully known what prosecutors were getting away with under Delgadillo, Trutanich, and Cooley, there might be some progress
I heard Gil Garcetti was a lot worse for men.
Who's running A Voice For Men? I mean the place goes through changes every few days,like a woman accesorizing her outfits and they now use the word "misogynist" that left me wondering what is up and a lot of other MRA's are wondering the same thing. It used to be a place where men could vent about women but now that there are women in charge at A Voice For Men that is now verbottten. Going after Kellett and other misandrists is great but tell us the real deal. Reister Her has not been updated,Brian Banks accuser is not on it and that was a very powerful tool against feminists. The activism is dying off. What's the real deal,avfm,what's the real deal? A lot of us would like to know.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Hooray for MRA London
From MRA London:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 20th, 2013
London Irish Centre Says No to Radfem 2013 Conference
Radfem, the radical feminist group whose members espouse a fascist, sexist and violent ideology have been ousted, yet again, from their planned convention centre. Last year, Conway Hall banned Radfem 2012 by citing that their exclusionary policy was at odds with UK legal obligations. This year, it was the London Irish Centre’s turn to reject Radfem after they were awoken to the reality of inviting the pro-violence group into their venue when MRA London, a male human rights activist group and part of “A Voice for Men”, mounted a protest on their doorstep.
MRA London is a peaceful group comprising both male and female members who stand up for the human worth of men and boys. It is also mixed race and includes gay members.
When hearing of Radfem’s rejection, the group’s co-founder, Andy Thomas said, “We don’t believe in shutting down debate. However, it is vital that there is someone speaking up on behalf of men and boys. And for the first time ever, they now have a voice.”
He adds, “This is a victory for men and boys everywhere because the message is clear—the time when their human rights can be trampled on with impunity is now over.”
The Radfem 2013 conference was to feature Cathy Brennan, a prominent radical feminist and a US attorney in Maryland. Until February, 2013, she was also the owner of the now defunct website, Radical Hub—a site which featured calls for child murder, extermination, and male eugenics.
In 2011, A Voice for Men in the United States offered a $1,000 reward for the real identity of a Radical Hub contributor “Vliet Tiptree”, who was duly identified as Pamela O’Shaughnessy from California—an author of crime novels published by Simon and Schuster. O’Shaughnessy had written a lengthy piece detailing a plan for the “extirpation” of half the human race—the male half.
Sheila Jeffreys, who was to be a keynote speaker at the event, was also regular contributor to the “male eugenics discussion group” on the Radical Hub website. Jeffreys teaches sexual politics at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and has been accused by Dr. Greg Canning of A Voice for Men in Australia, of teaching “hate” across Australian universities.
All prejudice is seen as fashionable and virtuous in its time, and we’ve had 40 years or so of anti-male sentiment in the media and wider culture, so much so that it has become normalised. However, MRA London and A Voice for Men believe that we are witnessing the start of a sea change were, for the first time, radical feminist rhetoric will become universally recognised for the toxic bigotry that it is.
Source:click here
This is fucking awesome. Just fucking awesome. Three cheers for MRA London for a job well done. For letting it be known that institutionalized misandry will no longer be tolerated. This must have come as a shock to the femisludge that attends these hatefests but the good news their time is not only short but it is running out rampantly. The days of darkness that they threw over the western cultures that resulted in pro-feminist inquistions to promote misandry and destroy men are coming to a close. This is what activism can accomplish. However we must have a high level of vigilance and avoid complacency,never to rest on our laurels. Until the enemy is vanquished we don't rest but continue to give them hell. It's starting to pay off let's keep it up.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 20th, 2013
London Irish Centre Says No to Radfem 2013 Conference
Radfem, the radical feminist group whose members espouse a fascist, sexist and violent ideology have been ousted, yet again, from their planned convention centre. Last year, Conway Hall banned Radfem 2012 by citing that their exclusionary policy was at odds with UK legal obligations. This year, it was the London Irish Centre’s turn to reject Radfem after they were awoken to the reality of inviting the pro-violence group into their venue when MRA London, a male human rights activist group and part of “A Voice for Men”, mounted a protest on their doorstep.
MRA London is a peaceful group comprising both male and female members who stand up for the human worth of men and boys. It is also mixed race and includes gay members.
When hearing of Radfem’s rejection, the group’s co-founder, Andy Thomas said, “We don’t believe in shutting down debate. However, it is vital that there is someone speaking up on behalf of men and boys. And for the first time ever, they now have a voice.”
He adds, “This is a victory for men and boys everywhere because the message is clear—the time when their human rights can be trampled on with impunity is now over.”
The Radfem 2013 conference was to feature Cathy Brennan, a prominent radical feminist and a US attorney in Maryland. Until February, 2013, she was also the owner of the now defunct website, Radical Hub—a site which featured calls for child murder, extermination, and male eugenics.
In 2011, A Voice for Men in the United States offered a $1,000 reward for the real identity of a Radical Hub contributor “Vliet Tiptree”, who was duly identified as Pamela O’Shaughnessy from California—an author of crime novels published by Simon and Schuster. O’Shaughnessy had written a lengthy piece detailing a plan for the “extirpation” of half the human race—the male half.
Sheila Jeffreys, who was to be a keynote speaker at the event, was also regular contributor to the “male eugenics discussion group” on the Radical Hub website. Jeffreys teaches sexual politics at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and has been accused by Dr. Greg Canning of A Voice for Men in Australia, of teaching “hate” across Australian universities.
All prejudice is seen as fashionable and virtuous in its time, and we’ve had 40 years or so of anti-male sentiment in the media and wider culture, so much so that it has become normalised. However, MRA London and A Voice for Men believe that we are witnessing the start of a sea change were, for the first time, radical feminist rhetoric will become universally recognised for the toxic bigotry that it is.
Source:click here
This is fucking awesome. Just fucking awesome. Three cheers for MRA London for a job well done. For letting it be known that institutionalized misandry will no longer be tolerated. This must have come as a shock to the femisludge that attends these hatefests but the good news their time is not only short but it is running out rampantly. The days of darkness that they threw over the western cultures that resulted in pro-feminist inquistions to promote misandry and destroy men are coming to a close. This is what activism can accomplish. However we must have a high level of vigilance and avoid complacency,never to rest on our laurels. Until the enemy is vanquished we don't rest but continue to give them hell. It's starting to pay off let's keep it up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)