Thursday, April 17, 2014

Yes. This is how they Operate!

I have just been called "woman-hater", for making a statement that contained no reference to women whatsoever. 

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

For the Record. . .

We are not "anti-feminist". 

Feminism is anti-US!

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Driving Feminism into Tighter Corners

We must address the incompetence of the feminists to deal with their own anti-male sexism and female supremacism. For too long, we non-feminists have been asked to self-censor and to educate our oppressor – and moderate feminist control of the cultural narrative has been chiefly responsible for this.

The so-called moderate feminists have besought us to use tone-policing and appeasement politics if we wish to be heard. That is why we are peeling the mask from the face of moderate feminism, and forcing them into a conversation that goes behind feminist micro-aggression, to what it means to uproot feminism altogether. Yes, we are talking about feminism at large.

A lot of moderate feminists ask us to understand context – always their context, mind you! This is where we fall into the trap of “humanizing” the oppressor. We are required to see the feminists as always reasonable, nuanced, innocent, and acting in good faith. At the same time, we are required to understand non-feminism as monolithic and stereotypical, even though it is impossible to impute such qualities to the mere lack of feminism.

The feminists are endlessly squeezing an apology from us for not understanding their context when in fact they falsely constructed us in the first place. We are forever confronted by the logic of “how can we understand feminism better?”, but as post-argumentalist and non-feminist, that is not how we roll.

The onus is not upon us to study feminism for the rest of time. We have studied it for years, we have reached our conclusions, and we have elected to move our project forward on the strength of those conclusions. We have not cleared this with any feminist authority, because we recognize no such authority.

We recognize that our current position is on the margin of the main cultural discourse. We further recognize that the main cultural discourse is controlled by feminism. Hence, our project is to occupy and strengthen the margin, to fortify the margin, to prepare the margin for what lies ahead.

But in the course of our efforts, we've seen that feminism has gotten in ahead of us and effectively colonized the margin. This comes home to us dramatically when we gather in the absence of feminists and discover that feminist memes and mindsets are still operating within our very own discourse. It is a shock for activated non-feminists to find that even though feminism dominates the mainstream, it seeps into our marginal spaces as well. So it is ironic that when at last we ooze into feminism and encroach on its mind space, the feminists raise a ruckus and cry foul. They should know that what goes around comes around.

Politically-awakened non-feminist people make “offensive” jibes all the time, but these are intended as social commentary. One way to get a point across, is to “play chicken” with a sexual trope or a taboo subject – rape jokes come to mind by way of example. The “don't be that girl” poster campaign also comes to mind.

But if we would take it to the next level, an alternate strategy is to chart the roots of female supremacist thinking, not simply aiming at Andrea Dworkin, the feminazis and other hackneyed fodder, but mapping the vital linkage between commonplace “feminism” and female supremacism as a whole.

When will we have these conversations on how female supremacism has enabled false-rape culture, institutional misandry, anti-male marketing strategies, divorce piracy, and so on? When will we finally touch upon those larger connections? When will we break the silence? When will we toggle the switch and make the feminist the subject of the archetype?

By the end of the day, one thing is for certain: we don't want feminists for allies. They control the power in this world, and there is no earthly reason why they would be any help to us in our goal of ending feminism.

After all, they're feminists. We are the margin and they are the center. So why on earth should they help us to encroach upon their mental space and ultimately dismantle it?

After all, that is precisely what we aim to do. In fact, we have a name for this. We call it “the battle for feminism's soul.”

My Most Hated Video Ever - It's About RAPE!!!!

In the mind of the average feminist, philosophical indifference to the fantasy that rape can be removed from the world by morally conscionable means, would qualify as "rape culture".

When you consider how very common such philosophical indifference really is, among men and women both, then it is hardly surprising that a feminist would see "rape culture" just about everywhere.

I must confess that I am guilty of such philosophical indifference myself, so in the mind of the average feminist I am undoubtedly living proof that rape culture "is a thing".

Furthermore, in the mind of the average feminist I am undoubtedly also something called a "rape apologist".

I reckon that the key to all of this lies in the phrase "morally conscionable means". You see,  in the mind of the average feminist, ANYTHING that might remove rape from the world is, ipso facto, morally conscionable.

In other words, in the mind of the average feminist it is morally unconscionable to simply entertain the conviction that rape cannot be removed from the world by morally conscionable means.

So not only do feminists suffer a terminally fatal slippage between the world as they think it is, and the world as it actually is, but they are moral idiots to boot!

Monday, April 14, 2014

Another Case of Infanticide

A Utah women has allegedly given birth seven times over ten years, and murdered the newborn infant on each occasion. Please note that this happened in the USA, not Canada, so Canadian infanticide law is not pertinent. Still, one would suppose that the story sheds light on infanticide as a phenomenon.

The main point of interest is that in Canada, the law punishes women more lightly than men for the identical crime, namely that of murdering an infant. The secondary point of interest is that women on average appear to commit this crime more than do men. As such, public morality campaigning directed toward women as a group is justified.

Friday, April 11, 2014

Wicked Satire

The following is WICKED satire. You will watch it:

The best satire burrows into the guts of its intended victim and gores from within, in a way that the victim is helpless to counteract.

Wednesday, April 09, 2014

Feminist Declaration of War Against the Non-Feminist World

The following message was posted to TyphonBlue's YouTube channel:

"+Alison Tieman  Debate is a tool of the privileged upper classes, what rich white men have used to oppress and divide the meager and poor for centuries. Yet you would use this tool yourself, having been oppressed by it since antiquity? Truly, you are lost. Perhaps I was wrong, and death would be not a cruel and deserved fate for you, but a bitter mercy to end your pain.

But if it an argument you want, then an argument you shall have! Why do you support the MRM, when its very purpose is to re-enslave women? When it is full of sexist claptrap like the quote I left from Paul Elam, the movement's godfather? How it seeks to project itself onto feminism, how it silences them so their arguments cannot be heard? Or threatens them, track feminists down, and brutally beats them for their views? Or posts lists of their names, so sexist trolls can bombard them with rape threats. Can you answer these questions without some BS excuse like "not all MRAs are like that?"

Feminism was about equality, but the time for peaceful discourse draws to a close. If it is violence the MRM wants, then we will cut out equality by force, and write a new edict of fairness in your blood! Pick a side, Alison, but choose carefully. You don't want to be on the losing side of the war."

Yesterday, as you might recall, I publicized a feminist death threat against the Men's Rights Edmonton group, and even went on AVfM radio to talk about it. But little did I suspect that something even worse would rear its head so very quickly. As the saying goes, "it never rains but it pours! "

A pattern of feminist panic is developing.  That is the ony way to describe it. The heat is on, and the heat inside their heads is getting unbearable - to the point where they must open a vent and let the steam out.
Fear and guilt is the most plausible explanation for what is happening here. A dawning realization that the rest of the world is turning against them, together with a growing sense that they have been complicit in a collective crime, is driving them to a strategy of projective backlash.

Note that many sections in the quoted statement read like a description of feminism's own collective behavior toward the world. Feminist hatred of everything non-feminist is beyond description, so much that they are unable to articulate the wild, boiling emotions now welling up within them. All the same, they MUST relieve the explosive pressure in their brains - they must find a "discharge" of one kind or another.

And so, conspicuously outspoken people such as TyphonBlue become their lightning rods. If you are a nice little non-feminist and keep your head down and your mouth shut, they will not go after you - or at least, not yet.

However, they WILL go after people like Alison Tieman, or people like the Men's Rights Edmonton Group.

They will also go after people like Warren Farrell, or people like Janice Fiamengo.

And let's not forget that many years ago, they went after Erin Pizzey.

If you are an outspoken non-feminist, they will attack you right away - openly and viciously. If you are a quiet non-feminist, they will pull the snare slowly and craftily, but in the end they've got plans for you too.

They do not plan to tolerate the existence of anybody or anything which is not feminist. In the end, "every knee shall bend, and every tongue shall confess. . ", and so on. 

This has been the feminist plan from the very beginning, and all feminists - especially the moderate ones! - are complicit.

I understand that this is all very wild and confusing, so let's make it simple. Feminism is a Big Lie, and every feminist is a participant in that lie, intentionally or not. Feminism seeks to control every aspect of human thought and feeling, everywhere, and it does so by expanding endlessly and projecting its Big Lie into every little corner it can find.

The problem is, that in so doing, the feminist Big Lie clashes with the reality of everything else in the universe - everything which is NOT the lie. Everything which is not feminism, in other words. So in the long run, the outcome can only be wreckage, and misery, and strife. That is what happens when you disregard reality for too long. 

For feminism, this presents no moral difficulty whatever. Indeed, the solution is easy - simply blame the non-feminist world for all the ugly consequences of endless feminist expansion. Feminism, you see, is never guilty of anything. It is always those nasty non-feminists (men and women both) who wreck and spoil things in order to "oppress women", as the saying goes.

Feminism does not hold itself morally accountable any more that it holds women in general morally accountable. Any time that feminism "hits" you, and you hit back, then feminism screams that you are the aggressor! This has been their game from the very start, and no, the feminist leopard cannot change its spots.

Feminism has waged a vicious war upon the rest of the world for many years, and consistently blamed the rest of the world for the predictable crisis this generates.

Well now, finally, the rest of the world is waking up, and mobilizing, and striking back in a more organized and calculated way. That is a trend which bids fair to continue. We live in interesting times, my non-feminist friends.

Incidentally, I like the part where the feminist writer call debate a tool of the oppressor. That thought occurs to me as well, and that is why I have abandoned argument or debate as method that will do us any good against our common oppressor, feminism. As the feminist Audre Lorde would say, "you can't dismantle the master's house with the master's tools."

Armageddon is approaching. I will see you on the beach, my non-feminist friends!


Alison Tieman's video about the feminist threat may be viewed HERE:

The Poison Manifesto may be viewed HERE:

Tuesday, April 08, 2014

Death Threat Posted on Men's Rights Edmonton Website

I recently published an article on the Men's Rights Edmonton blog, in connection with the cross-Canada postering campaign. That article has gotten around 20 comments, one of which was a clearly phrased threat of violence that could also be interpreted as a death threat. I did a screen capture, which I share below - click to enlarge:

As you see, this threat is directed against the pro-male partisans of the Men's Rights Edmonton group. Among other things, they are accused of "rape apology" and of being woman haters - although the commenter offered no evidence of this.  (For the record, the recent postering campaign did not concern the subject of rape in any way, so it is hard to see where the accusation of rape apology comes from.)

I would characterize this commenter as an objective feminist.

The article on which the comment appeared, is the following:

About an hour ago, I appeared on AVfM radio with Robert O'Hara and James Huff, and we had some discussion about this along with other topics of interest.

Be warned that when non-feminist voices pipe up, feminism seeks to smash them down again. The methods tend to be more refined, but as you see, they can descend to the level of street violence just as well.

Pro-Male Politics Inching Toward the Mainstream

Interesting article in the Montreal Gazette - I take it as a creeping sign of the times:

I am disappointed that this article propagates the idea that 1 in 3 women get raped in their lifetimes.

I am curious to learn more about the political leaning of the pro-male groups who marched in the parade. Do they consider themselves "feminist", or "feminist allies" in any way?

I am likewise uncertain whether they harbor any sense of pan-male solidarity across a range of issues.

But overall, I am glad to see anything in the public limelight which undermines (however slightly) the hegemonic narrative of so-called "rape cuture". Certainly, to break the silence about male-targeted rape will have such an effect.

Monday, April 07, 2014

"Rape Culture"

We are not here to dispute the existence of a so-called "rape culture" - although we certainly do consider its existence disputable, and we certainly do give our blessing to those who work vigorously to discredit it. 

We are here to make a rather different point, namely, that we will not condone the propagation of this idea, and that we will not consider this idea to have any moral or intellectual power to compel us as individuals.

In this, we take the post-argumentalist position. The point is not to "persuade" people to abandon their ideas, but to to interfere with the implementation of those ideas - or more precisely, the implementation of plans which are informed by those ideas.

So, as regards the feminist "rape culture" idea, our purpose is to dismantle, by an unlimited array of methods, the practical effect this idea might have upon our reality.

What we say regarding the "rape culture" idea, applies to many other feminist ideas as well.

Saturday, April 05, 2014

Trans-Canadian Activism Campaign

I was recently honored by the request to write an article for Men's Rights Edmonton. It was my pleasure to do this, and I have posted the finished work on that website. See below:

I have also published this article on Men's Human Rights Ontario:

The article may be described as a "spearhead statement". It is released in conjunction with a Canada-wide pro-male postering campaign that is underway even as I type. From Vancouver to Halifax, and points between, thousands of posters in the "Don't be THAT Girl" genre will be stuck on all manner of walls and posts, often in the vicinity of college campuses. This time, however,  the focal issue will not be rape lying, but infanticide. 

Men's Rights Edmonton is the initiator, but through its network of alliances it is taking the project nationwide. 

The spearhead statement serves chiefly to establish a project-centered voice, and to establish a grip on the public narrative before somebody else grabs it and runs away with it. (Because you know perfectly well that they will do this.)

To coin a phrase, this is spin control pro ante.

I expect I will be posting the article in one or two other places as well. Meanwhile, do click on both links and give those good folks some traffic.

Thursday, April 03, 2014

Feminism, Non-Feminism, and Group Accountability

I have recently posted a reader comment on an AVfM article, in regard to a "polite feminist" who recently interacted with Victor Zen and gave him the usual line about "not all feminists are like that". My comment is carefully written and addresses important matters in summary form, so I have decided to repost it here:
The trouble with her logic is that she talks about non-feminist people as if they were a group who reflect upon each other. That is like holding the majority of the human race responsible for the words or actions of every human everywhere. This is silly, since we all know perfectly well that "not all humans are like x".

Unlike "feminism", non-feminism is not a coherent subset with group accountability. But just for the sake of argument. . . if "feminism" CAN be said to lack group accountability, than the same goes triple for non-feminism, which is nothing more or less that the Entire Universe Exclusive of Feminism.
Either way, non-feminism is not a group with accountability. It will NEVER be that.

As a non-feminist, I bear no personal responsibility for every purported non-feminist who ALLEGEDLY abuses a feminist in some way. So, Amelie Mangelschots, all I've got to say is:


Is Fidelbogen, the "real" non-feminist, abusing you here? Well suck it up, fool! And while you're at it, grow up too! You cannot hold me responsible for non-feminism, or non-feminism for me. But I can certainly do all of the above in regard to you, or feminism, if I am so inclined.

So you'd best get busy and issue a group statement on behalf of you and your "nice" feminist friends, making it clear which parts of feminism you are willing to disown in order to get back into the good graces of the rest of the world - i.e. the non-feminist part of the world.

All right. Even though I, as a non-feminist, have zero obligation to do so, I have issued precisely such a statement - which I call "The Prime Convention of Coalition JS38". So as you see, I have taken upon myself the burden of defining myself as a part of a political subset, and I have anticipated future trouble that might arise from this. You may read the document in question HERE:


You may read the AVfM article, from which this is taken, here:

Wednesday, April 02, 2014

The Non-Feminist Revolution has Many Faces

The following has lately been posted at the online Al-Jazeera:

Briefly, a number of people in Germany are raising their voices against feminism. However, judging by the tenor of the article and the reader comments which follow, these people have a long way to go before they reach red pill awareness. Their opposition to feminism, thus far, looks narrow and trite, seemingly built around the singular issue of "quotas", and female pride in "making it on your own."

Oh certainly, I love seeing those young women holding up signs that read "I don't need feminism because. . .". Their politics is good so far as it goes. And yes, they do point a dagger at feminism by naming feminism in a pejorative light.

However, they are far, far, far from driving that dagger home. So I must characterize their political development as larval, at best.

The commenters, though writing in English, seem to be mostly Germans or continental Europeans of whatever kind. And two or three of them are annoying ninnies who would dutifully have us understand that we "obviously don't know what feminism is", or that we are really feminists and just don't realize it.

I want to build a new circle into Dante's hell, just for those people! We have an official, special name for such people: feminist subjectivists. Add that to your counter-feminist dictionary.

Yes, you can always tell a feminist subjectivist - but you can't tell them much!

These feminist subjectivists clearly never got the memo that the power to define feminism is no longer a feminist monopoly.

But in fairness, that memo has not yet been efficiently circulated. All right, so we're working on it. Give it time. The good news is, that more and more people are speaking out against feminism by name. Let us be glad of it.

Very well. The takeaway from all of this is, that the non-feminist revolution is a complex system of sociopolitical energy - in fact, it is a force of nature.  However, it is not something that we can usefully define as a "movement". Many people, in many places, are reacting intuitively to feminism and its varied consequences, and most of them have not come to anything like an holistic understanding of the problem. They are like the blind men in the fable declaring that the elephant is like a rope, like a snake, like a tree trunk, et cetera.  We vanguard thinkers must gradually make them aware that the feminist elephant is indeed like each of these things, because it is like ALL of these things and quite a bit more.  

Yes. Some of us can already see the elephant, and we must teach others to do so likewise.

Sunday, March 30, 2014

Full Report on the Ottawa Events

I will send you over to "A Voice for Male Students" so you can read a full report (with timeline) on the recent episode in Ottawa - where anti-male rioters disrupted a non-feminist public event:

As you will note, the feminists AGAIN resorted to their old stunt of pulling the fire alarm. You'd think that trick would be getting old by now, wouldn't you?

The event was adjourned, and moved into a different room. At that point, it became possible for campus security to exclude the protestors from the new room. Don't ask me to explain - it's just the technicality of the their rules.

Here is a picture of the protestors standing in the hallway outside room number two. One of them is raising a friendly middle finger in greeting.

Such are the people that we deal with. This is the face of the enemy.

This is what feminism looks like on campus! . . . This is what feminism looks like on campus! . . . This is what feminism looks like on campus!

Friday, March 28, 2014

Anti-Male Rioters Disrupting Janice Fiamengo

As I write, a group of feminist students (at the University of Ottawa, if I am not mistaken) are actively interfering with a pro-male speaking event.

Yes, they have reverted to their old tactics. Somehow, I just KNEW that they couldn't control themselves for long.

Dr. Fiamengo and her cohorts are standing at the front of the room, and an anti-male contingent is making noise at the back of the room in order to make the scheduled event impossible.

This time, it is not a huge crowd. Although they have not yet appeared on camera (or not to my knowledge), I would estimate their number at less than ten. However, what they lack in numbers, they make up in sheer determination. And decibels.

Scared, guilty little cockroaches! They are losing control of the narrative, and they damn well know it. If they don't believe in human rights, freedom of speech, and the free marketplace of ideas, then I wish they would have the decency to admit it right up front. I would respect them a damn sight more if they did - although that isn't saying much.

Incidentally, the University of Ottawa is Dr. Fiamengo's own school. That might be some of her own students rioting against her - you know, the ones that she will see in the classroom again?

This is very, very thick drama indeed!

Anyhow, the event is happening live right now, and we will learn more about it in due course. So, stay tuned.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

The Plot Thickens

The Halifax poster uproar continues. People are weighing in on both sides of the battle. Here is one of the latest statements, from somebody on the non-feminist/ pro-male side:

I should add that I, personally, am not morally squeamish about using those logos on the Halifax posters -- although if it had been up to me, I'd have omitted the police logo. Apart from that, I believe that anybody who has supported the "don't be THAT guy" campaign can jolly well suck up some public humiliation for doing so. They have no call to be whining about this.

You see, political context matters, and if they pretend not to understand the political context in the present affair, they need to learn a lesson for being such arrogant, and unapologetically feminist, jackasses.

In about ten days or so, a whole new twist will be added to this turbulent little drama, and I expect that fur will fly all over Canada. Stay tuned.

Monday, March 24, 2014

ARM action in Halifax Triggers Controversy

Some pro-male partisans in Halifax, Nova Scotia, have done some postering, and they have "kicked over the beehive" as we say. Somebody in the Halifax feminist community spotted one of the posters on a telephone pole and took a photo, which I share below:

An emotional shit-storm followed. Evidently, a lot of people cannot stomach the idea that women possess a moral agency which operates outside the perimeter of feminist theory. I mean, what the hell, nobody is saying that ALL women commit child abuse, only that a few of them do, but that the majority of child abuse is done by women.

Why yes, now that you mention it, child abuse appears to be . . . . "gendered".

I like this poster because it kills two birds with one stone. It references the anti-male "don't be that guy" posters and propagates the counter-message that was established in Edmonton, but it also knocks a hole in the feminist DV narrative.  As I said, two birds with one stone.

Thus far, as near as I can tell, the "Edmonton reference" is completely lost on those Halifax feminists.

Here they are squawking about it on Twitter:

A self-described "reporter" got ahold of the AVfM crew, wanting to know if they knew anything about this. Funny how some people think AVfM is the exact dead-center of all pro-male activity on planet Earth.

If you believe this poster, and others that were posted in Halifax, are "offensive", then I would tend to agree.  Nevertheless, as a JS38 signatory, I endorse the posters and stand by the posterers. The posters, you see, are no LESS offensive than the anti-male message transmitted in the original "don't be that girl" campaign. And if the original campaign is terminated, and an apology issued, then the present counter-campaign will no longer be necessary.

You see, political context matters. None of this is happening in a vacuum - it is happening for a reason, and that reason is political.

The existence of the original "don't be that girl" campaign, despite its anti-male message, was not greeted by any general outrage from society. But community reaction to the Halifax campaign was swift and vicious.

What does this tell us about the societal mainstream? It tells us that moral shaming of men as a class, is acceptable, whereas similar action toward women is not.

So finally, the message is that mainstream society is an ass and a hypocrite which oppresses men and privileges women.

Yes, that is the final message that emerges, and recent events in Halifax have underscored this yet again.

What Does Feminism Want? Power and Control

Men's Human Rights Ireland

Here's another chance for the feminists to chew their fingernails to a bloody stump, and worry. Yes, another pro-male organization has sprung to life - this time, in Ireland. You will enjoy their website:

Saturday, March 22, 2014

Men's Rights Melbourne

There is a new pro-male organization in the world, in Melbourne, Australia:

Friday, March 21, 2014

One More Time: There is a War Against Men

Pernicious anti-male bias pervades the culture at large. Feminism sits squarely at the heart of this, and could not exist without it.

For the sake of brevity, we call this a "war against men."

Thursday, March 13, 2014

Feminist Privilege and How it Works

Thursday, March 06, 2014

Radical Feminist Typescript by Ti-Grace Atkinson - From 1969

Here, take a trip in the waaaay-back machine, for a glimpse of radical feminism in its primeval, embryonic form - it's like watching a baby rattlesnake breaking out of the egg! This is fascinating, appalling stuff which deserves a place alongside the Redstockings Manifesto (likewise written in New York City in 1969):

I recommend that you archive this and share copies.

Tuesday, March 04, 2014

Barbara Kay Takes Aim at "Rape Culture" Mania

"In 1841 Scottish journalist Charles Mackay published a history of popular folly called Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, a rather sensationalistic overview of the irrationality that occasionally seizes an entire society or nation.  Most famous are his economic examples, like the 1840s “Railway Mania,” as well as the notorious South Sea Bubble (1711-20) and the Dutch “tulip mania” of the early 17thcentury.
Common to all the delusions Mackay cited was the enormous disparity between the confident enthusiasm these commodities evoked as the path to wealth and the lack of reliable evidence to support such an assumption. 
If Mackay were living today, he would doubtless add “rape culture” to his long list of popular delusions. . . ."
If that snippet intrigues you (and it should), then you will certainly want to read the entire article, published in the Canadian "National Post" online journal:

Saturday, March 01, 2014

March 1 is Stop Violence Against Men Day

The first day of every month is Stop Violence Against Men day. Today, March 1, 2014, is no exception.

Remember that men suffer the bulk of all violence on planet earth, and women are comparatively sheltered. Remember also that feminist propagandists have deliberately propagated the lie that men initiate 95% of all domestic violence, and that they do this because they wish to maintain "patriarchal power and control" over the women in their lives.

The best evidence we've now got, is that men and women both initiate domestic violence, and do so at roughly equal rates. As for the other story, that men are patriarchal "controllers". . . well, the feminists have no actual evidence to support such a claim. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.  I mean, think about it. There is no way in hell the feminists can send observers into every household in the country in order to monitor what actually happens there.  There are many reasons why a male spouse might take a smack at his female spouse, and most of these have no connection at all with so-called "patriarchy". The feminists simply pulled that story out of their ass.

So let's take a moment to remember that men are 50% of all domestic violence victims, and that women are half the problem.  Public morality campaigns directed against men, but never against women, will not only not help, but actually make the problem WORSE because it will sow the seeds of mutual animosity and recrimination between the sexes. This can lead to real violence.

So, as long as we hear so much hype about violence against women, we will need to balance the scale by throwing some weight on the other side. Furthermore, we should keep records of all persons, both past and present, who have initiated or perpetuated the vile anti-male slanders that we have been hearing for nearly a third of a century now .

I'll see you again on the next Stop Violence Against Men day -- which falls upon April Fool's day, weirdly enough!

Friday, February 28, 2014

AVfM Ecuador Opens for Business

A Voice for Men now has another international affiliate - this time in Ecuador. (Ecuador, by the way, is Lorena Bobbit's native land. Did you know that a radical feminist group in Ecuador threatened to kidnap and mutilate 40 Americans if Lorena were convicted?)

But here is the link to AVfM Ecuador:

So let's tally it up. AVfM now has an official presence in the following countries: USA, Sweden, Italy, Brazil, Australia and Ecuador. Did I miss any?

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

You'll Want to Read This, For Sure!

It is dawning upon the anti-male community that the non-feminist revolution is here for the duration. The feminists are finally beginning to take the rest of the world seriously, and I can even see them making a feeble effort at  objectivity and nuance.

The article is written by a rat which feels backed into a corner. You can see it running frantically in smaller and smaller circles. . . .

The commenters are pounding the crap out of this article. So far, NOBODY is defending it, or taking the anti-male side in any way.

Nick Reading Cancels Plans and Explains Why

Nick Reading, true son of the Alberta prairie, will not be attending the University of Alberta "Men and Feminism" conference. Here he explains the reason for his decision, and lays out a map for future policy. The video includes a cameo appearance by yours truly:

Please spread this video far and wide, via Twitter, via Facebook, or via anything at all.

I hope that the anti-male crowd doesn't try to weasel out of this by conducting secret meetings and avoiding the common marketplace of ideas. Whatever they decide to do, the non-feminist community will make note of it.

Monday, February 24, 2014

The Anti-feminist Meets the Feminist

Here is a brief encounter between the celebrated Karen Straughan, a.k.a. GirlWritesWhat, and the well-known Janus-faced feminist Naomi Wolf, at a recent libertarian conference in New Hampshire. This is an historic moment indeed! Unfortunately, Wolf's voice is barely audible:

In the Beginning, Feminism Declared War on Men

In the beginning, feminism declared war on men. And this war had consequences - not only for men, but for the entire social ecology. How can you declare war on half the human race without the fallout raining down on everybody, irrespectively? In other words, how can you poison only half of a well?

And so by reason of its consequences, feminism's war against men became a war against the world at large.

But even though feminism makes war against the world at large, the brunt of the attack still falls upon men. They are living at ground zero.

When the consequences of  feminism's war begin to show themselves, the feminist response is to lay blame at the doorstep of men and maleness.  This is central to the feminist project - to blame men wherever possible, and exonerate women. When this happens, the war goes through another cycle of escalation, leading to more consequences which, true to form, are blamed upon men and maleness. It happens every time.

Resistance to feminism, and the eventual overthrow of it, must be mapped according to the description we have given.

First: given the nature of the case, only men have the necessary understanding to take the lead against feminism. Being the primary target of feminist aggression, men are expert in the nature of that aggression and as such, uniquely qualified to direct the resistance. Women, with all due respect, cannot match the motivation and competence that men naturally possess in this realm. Accordingly, they must play an auxiliary role.

Second: we must understand that male disposability and gynocentrism, in the culture at large, will not go away any time soon. Hence, to place "men's rights" rhetoric at front and center, will gain only limited traction. So it is necessary to "talk up" the idea that feminism commits aggression against humanity at large, and that we are all in this together against feminism. As a subset to that line of talk, it is useful to emphasize that feminism "hurts women too." Overall, the gynocentric tendency in society must be "tricked" or "gamed" in some manner, so as to serve a pro-male end.

Third: we must understand that although feminism is monolithic, the resistance to it is quite otherwise. The resistance is in fact a variety of movements, co-movements, sub-movements and projects that may be slotted into a coordinating meta-template - called the counter-feminist project.  So, having understood that the resistance is not monolithic, we must train the general public to stop understanding it in monolithic terms. Accordingly, each sub-movement or project must develop an individuated "brand" that will stand out clearly in the public eye. This will force the public to see the parts individually and, by such constant exercise, develop ambient understanding of a complex reality which breaks the feminist narrative.

In the end, pro-male interest will be served by creating an inner sanctum of male leadership within the resistance as a whole, by redirecting or blind-siding gynocentrism in calculated ways, and by sabotaging the feminist power structure in ways both foreseen and yet to be conceived. When the pro-male interest is served, the feminist war against men will be blocked and feminism will be at an end. This will be for the good of all.

Thursday, February 20, 2014

An Old Classic - How Feminism Uses Essentialism and Constructivism

In the over seven years that I've been blogging, I've pretty much said everything I've got to say, and now there is nothing left but to say it again and again. Mind you, there is nothing wrong with that; sometimes you've got to pound the message home by pounding the drum.  

Normally, I try to do this in a novel way, but honestly, what difference does it make any more? So here is an article from some ways back, which I  have decided to repost. And why? Well for one thing, I am bloody tired of people on OUR side, who ought to know better, who go on using the word "gender" in the exactly the way the feminists want them to be using it. Idiots! Chumps! Patsies! Lazy nincompoops! They are playing right into feminist hands! When will they ever learn to stop saying "gender" the way feminism has programmed them to say it, and start saying "SEX" instead?? I mean, if we are serious about reclaiming the language and the discourse, then we'd best get busy and start doing just precisely that. . . . hadn't we?

But here is the article:

In the early days of second-wave feminism, otherwise known as the women's lib era of the '60s and '70s, our superfriends the feminists were keen to inform us that there were no basic differences between men and women. They were very serious about this, too. While they grudgingly admitted that male and female anatomy were different, they wanted us to understand that the difference stopped right there. Men and women were only physically different, and that was the end of it.

Their thesis was, to put it simply, that differences in male and female behavior were due to cultural training and nothing more. Such differences, you would say, were merely constructed. Therefore, this school of feminist thinking is known as "constructivism". It is the "nurture" side of the nature-nurture debate.
In opposition was the theory called essentialism, which said that men and women were different in their essence. That is, that they were spiritually or psychologically different for reasons that cultural training could not fully explain.

The feminists had their reasons for insisting on constructivism. Overtly, they wanted to open up domains of life opportunity to the female population -- the job market and the career jungle, for example. To this end, it was important to knock down any rationale for discrimination against women -- and for starters, that meant any biological rationale.

But the feminists had more covert reasons for insisting that the sexes were non-physically indistinguishable. These reasons were rooted in feminist patriarchy theory. The feminist narrative, you see, is that women are "oppressed", and that this state of affairs has persisted for a very long time -- thousands of years, by some estimations. According to the feminists, women were forced, by men, to play certain roles in society -- wife, mother, homemaker, and so on. And that is why the feminists had to adopt constructivism as their working hypothesis. For if men and women were naturally different in their psychology, they would naturally gravitate toward different functions within the body-politic. You wouldn't need to "oppress" anybody into doing this.
And so, essentialism was anathema to the feminists because it would introduce so many doubts and questions into patriarchy theory as to effectively dismantle it.

Finally, the feminists had entirely covert reasons for insisting on constructivism as a working hypothesis. They wished to instill this idea because they wanted to force-integrate men and women not only in work and institutional settings, but in every social space you can imagine. Yet with one exception: if women didn't want men around, they were free to be man-free. Men, however, were not to be permitted male-only space of any significance. Feminism is rife with such double-standards, but I digress.

Thus far the story is simple, but now it gets complicated. However, I will do my best to give you the short version. At a certain stage, the feminists and their leftist cohorts introduced a thing called "gender theory". They shanghaied the grammatical term "gender" and pressed it into the service of constructivist thinking by making it mean the constructed male or female roles in society. Meanwhile, the word "sex" continued to mean biological maleness or femaleness. But with both terms in use, a state of muddled thinking arose in the average person's mind. Gradually, "gender" came to be used interchangeably in cases where "sex" was meant. The fact that "sex" is also an abbreviated way of saying "sexual intercourse" gave a boost to this tendency. And to this day, even non-feminist men and women who ought to know better will say "gender" when they mean "sex". They have been duped into internalizing the categories of gender theory and thinking like feminists.

When men and women were forced together into the same social spaces, conflicts based on their difference naturally arose. This is what you might predict when dissimilar behavior idioms run athwart of each other. But rather than acknowledge natural difference, the feminists shifted blame for the conflict onto men, and emphasized the need to culturally reprogram men in order to make them more like women. This led to a predictable escalation of tensions, and whenever men acted ornery about the situation, the feminists would cite their attitude as male intransigence.

The weight of evidence -- folkloric, historic, sociological, anthropological, neurological and so on -- does not favor constructivism as an explanation of sexual behavior differences. Indeed, if I were gambling at the racetrack, I would not hesitate to put my money on the horse called "essentialism". Mind you, I am not disputing that men and women are trained into different cultural roles. However, I cannot buy the idea that such training is the sole point of origin for the apparent differences. I believe the differences are inborn, and that cultural training merely "improves upon nature". If you think of natural sexual difference as a landscape with bumps and hollows, then cultural training is the snowfall which obscures the detail in this landscape while leaving the main contours evident.

Certain old-school feminists, in a grasping-at-straws effort to save constructivism, will acknowledge what I have just described. They will concede that "nature" indeed might play a role in sexual identity, but quickly brush this aside by insisting that training, too, enters into the mix. And then they will build the subsequent conversation around that point alone -- as if it had any real significance. For if the "constructed" part of sexual identity is merely an add-on to what nature has originally set in place, then it is pointless and fatuous to insist that sexual identity is culturally constructed. Indeed, we must enquire why humans would have ordained sex roles at all if nature had not provided a foundation for it.

In fact, if sexual behavior differences arise from nature to any degree, then constructivism -- at least for feminist political purposes -- is done for. You might scrape away the overlay of cultural training, but the natural foundation directly below would always confront you, as if in mockery -- and what would you do about this? And patriarchy theory, which depends upon constructivism, is next up on the chopping block.
As a writer, I will declare my own position. And that is, that I don't personally care which of the two theories, essentialism or constructivism, eventually proves correct -- just so I know what is true. The truth is what matters to me. Right now, as earlier stated, I am betting on essentialism because I think the evidence weighs heavily in its favor.

But however this finally turns out, I will insist that everybody live according to the pattern of consistencies which the outcome logically generates. I will demand that such consistencies be assimilated into the culture with nary a glimmer of hypocrisy or double-standard. Chiefly, I will not allow any form of "code-switching" from constructivism to essentialism or the reverse. If paradigm A is reality, I expect we as a society shall hew to it through all viscissitudes. I do not expect that we shall capriciously adopt paradigm B whenever it is useful for women or seems to put them in a better light -- although that is clearly what feminism wants for women.

For example, if you enjoy snarking on the theme of "men can't multi-task", then you had better make up your mind to live in the essentialist camp, because essentialism is what you are supporting. Or if you avow that women are inherently "more verbal" than men, then you should put your money where your mouth is and verbally vote for essentialism. Or again, if your name is Barbara Jordan, and you declare that women have a capacity for sensitive feeling which men are just not capable of, then you had best declare yourself an essentialist or else retract that statement. Or again, if you are a great booster of the transgendered cause, then you are co-signing with the idea that there is an independent male or female essence which sometimes gets packed into the wrong kind of body. In other words, you are an essentialist and you ought to maintain that position consistently. This could go on and on.

All right. We know that constructivism gained traction early and logged a lot of miles. Partly, that is because it sounded like a cool idea. It sounded groovy and democratic -- just what the utopian zeitgeist called for! So plenty of people signed on and sopped it up.

Yet there is more to constructivism's staying power than all of that, and nature itself provides this "more". Granted the "essential" difference between male and female is difficult to dispute. However, this difference occurs as a statistical average, or if you will, a norm, from which individual men and women sometimes vary. And so we often encounter women who seem, all in all, rather "mannish", and men who seem somewhat "womanish". You will note that the essential polarity of masculine and feminine remains uncompromised. And yet the presence of such natural deviation clouds the issue and furnishes a rationale for constructivist thinking. The deviation makes it seem that constructivism might be true. There is just enough creative ambiguity or wiggle room for constructivism to shoehorn its way in, with the help of bias-confirmation from people who want it to be true anyway.

Now, we know the feminists love to rattle on about luckless folk who feel oppressed by certain behavior norms. Aye, heaven pity the sensitive chap who wants to wear pink shirts. And spare a thought for the girl who wants to take welding classes with the boys. Well so far as the present writer is concerned, they are both welcome to it. They have my blessing. But apart from that, I'll not march down the street carrying placards on their behalf. They are on their own. And if they seek anything special from me, anything "above and beyond", then they had best make a social contract with me, by proving that they are worth something to me.

Very well, the take-away point from all this, is that patriarchy theory sits on a rickety foundation. In order to be true, it needs constructivism. Without constructivism, patriarchy theory is shot to hell. And if patriarchy theory is shot to hell, then the all-important female victim card becomes worthless plastic.
And that brings me to the final subject of my talk, which is: the future.

The feminist regime has profited greatly by the constructivist theory, because that theory makes it possible to suck a lot of blood out of men in a lot of ways. And so with the passage of years, advantages for women have piled up and up. Yet the feminists are still hymning that old refrain about the oppression of women, and they are doing this despite nagging questions about the veracity of it. Well, those nagging questions are set to grow. Long story short: women are now virtually the royal sex in the western world and beyond, and this fact, if it is not yet acidly self-evident to all, is on the way to becoming so. I know a lot of people are blocking that realization, but they can hold out only just so long.

Things are objectively rotten for men. Barring dramatic political action, things will not get better. Nor will things stay the same.

No, life for men will get steadily more rotten because the course of feminist innovation (barring dramatic political action) is bound to continue unchecked. Truly, it can do none other. Feminism is not static; its very being is identical with its being-in-motion, and if motion stops, feminism stops. Full stop.

Therefore, feminism will remain in motion. It will grow and develop as always, on a trajectory that can be roughly predicted. Collateral damage from the war on men will spread into the social ecology, and true to form, the feminists will nail the guilt for their own crime upon the collective back of men. They always do that. But I digress.

At some future date, it will be obvious to everybody that men are getting a raw deal compared to women. The rhetoric of oppression, equality, redistribution and so on, simply will not work any more. And when that day arrives, feminism will need to tack to a very different wind if it wants to stay in business. It will never go out of business if there is any help for that, for if it did, the natural configuration of power between men and women would quickly reassert itself -- men would be men again, and women would be women again, and that would be that.

The development of feminism has always involved turning the screws tighter and tighter on men, and for feminism to keep existing as feminism, it would need to keep busy at this. But there must be a rationale for doing so, otherwise a growing clamor for social reform will stop feminism dead in its tracks -- and I do mean dead.

So constructivism will be shucked like an old skin, and a new essentialist snake will emerge! The only excuse to keep oppressing men would be an essentialist excuse, and so the idea will come into vogue that men and women are essentially different -- and that women are essentially better than men. Some combination of propaganda and bunk science will drill this into the culture, paving the way for anti-male "Nuremburg laws" in one form or another. The alleged inferiority of the male sex will become state doctrine, the necessary traitors will be found to enforce the system, and the third-class citizenship of men will become a legalized and normativized fact of life.

We know that a good many feminists are essentialists already, either in thought or in effect. Indeed, the most radical of the radicals are militantly essentialist -- often Y-chromosome theorists -- and talk seriously about culling the male population. Other radical feminists may still be constructivist but they are not the wave of the feminist future. That future can only be essentialist and, at the extreme, genocidalist.

But will that future ever materialize? Certainly, the logic of feminist evolution dictates such a future and will accomodate none other. However, if you want my honest opinion, I think that a social upheaval will collapse the trajectory. That is my prediction, although I can't predict the details any more than I can predict every ripple on a surging wall of floodwater. Yet I can sense that violence is on the way, and that it requires no help from us. Truly, we can sit beneath a tree and play our balalaikas and, willy-nilly, violence will happen. Knowing this, we are left with one consequential power, and that is the power to make our plans by the light of our knowledge.

The only question is, what plans?

They Must Empty Their Cup

If you don't know the old Zen parable of the overflowing tea cup, you need to learn it now:

Yes, we can all think of a group of people who need to "empty their cup" - both collectively and individually. That is why we are done arguing with them. Our only mission is to tell them things, whether they want to hear those things or not. They have been thinking and talking with their cup full, for far too long, and if they refuse to empty that cup somebody else will do it for them. I'm guessing that this will be a rude procedure, but what do you think? He who has an ear to hear, let him hear.

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

The Poison Manifesto

I have uploaded a PDF version of the Poison Manifesto to yet another file-storage location, as follows:

To download, do a right-click > save as. . .

Sunday, February 16, 2014

MR-E Will Attend Feminist Conference in Edmonton

Thursday, February 13, 2014

Barbara Kay - Speech about Contempt for Men

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

DDoS Attacks on Anita Sarkeesian, Skepchick and FTB

Anita Sarkesian, Rebecca "Skepchick" Watson and Freethought Blogs were all recently subjected to a Distributed Denial of Service Attack by persons unknown. It is a complete mystery, but that does not hinder speculation by feminists who feel threatened and need to find a scapegoat for everything.

Read about it here:

Somewhere in that article is a link to a statement by PZ Meyers, the notorious feminist-atheist twit who runs Freethought Blogs. Meyers's statement is brief, and the reader comments are what you will want to be reading.

Oh all right, here's the link to the PZ Meyers post:

See where they try to construct a threat narrative which blames it all on the non-feminists. They almost sound like they are talking about "the illuminati" or "the communists" or "the Jews".

In other words, they sound like fucking idiots!

These people make it pretty clear that they are feminists, and they make it equally clear how much they hate non-feminist people - even to the point of inventing tinfoil-asshatted conspiracy stories about them. Such feminist behavior is not a new tactic when it comes to silencing non-feminist men and women who express opinions deemed heterodox.

Monday, February 10, 2014

All Feminists are Liars, and that's ALL They Are

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then what is a six-paneled comic strip worth - six thousand?

Click to enlarge:
Let me add that this comic strip illustrates feminist aggression in action. Feminist aggression takes many forms, and what you see here is classic stuff which longtime observers (like me!) have witnessed over and over. If you are new to the counter-feminist game, you can take this as a "what to look for" pointer while you are building your own fund of observation.

If you are a feminist, you are welcome to drop in here and try to rationalize or "explain away" the kind of feminist behavior which the comic strip illustrates. Alternately, you can just deny that such behavior even happens at all, or that if it does, it  "has nothing to do with feminism", or that "no true feminist" would act this way. Fair warning: we've heard it all before and you will NOT impress us.

Are you really serious about impressing us, feminist? Well here's a suggestion: get busy and start a blog called "Responsible Feminism" or something like that, and dedicate that blog to denouncing or calling out the many, many poisonous behaviors which purportedly feminist people engage in. After all, you want to establish a set of markers that will separate your "true feminism" from the toxic, pseudo brands of "so-called" feminism which have given your noble creed a bad name. . . right? Well, good for you! Now get busy and do something pro-active to redeem the sullied reputation which people like yourself have gained over the last half-century. Sit down and brainstorm with your "true feminist" sisters and brothers, and I'm sure you'll get plenty of ideas.

All of this is pursuant to JS38 points 41 and 42:

It is also pursuant to the old folk maxim that "turnabout is fair play". In other words, I highly recommend that we activated non-feminists work the same game on feminism (and feminists) as the comic strip illustrates. I have no moral scruples about such a policy - my conscience is as clear as a pristine alpine lake.

That's right, feminist! We don't give a rip-snort who you are as an individual - we are holding you accountable to feminism as a collective. After all, collectivism was your idea, and so far as we're concerned, you ARE "feminism". Yes, you embody feminism in your concrete personhood. You personally "stand in" for it. You personally are a proxy for it.  Don't whine to us that we are being "unfair", because we already know that, idiot! Oh yes, you're a fine one to preach about "fairness", considering your track record over the last half-century. If you choose to lie in the bed which feminism has made for you, that's YOUR choice, sucker!

So feminist, if you know what's good for you, you'll get off your lazy ass and redeem yourself! Show us what you can do. I guarantee that we will be watching you like a hawk, and grading you also - so give it your "A" game! Remember that we non-feminist men and women don't owe you any answers at all, but you owe us plenty.

Have a wonderful day! :-)