Sorry still Closed.

Sorry readers. I just wanted to move some the older stuff on the front page along. I'm still not comming back to blog.

Image Hosted by

Need websites that are updated daily?

Men's Activism News

Dad's and Things Blog (Father's For

Marty Nemko web log

Unto The Breach

Men's News Daily

Male Matters

Glenn Sacks

What Men are saying about Women

Men's Organizations

National Center For Men (USA) | Nation of Men (USA) | American Union of Men

California Men's Centers | National Coalition of Free Men (USA)

Men’s Advisory Network (M.A.N.) Incorporated (AUS) | Men's Rights Agency (AUS)

Ottawa Men's Centre (CAN) | United Fathers of America | Divorced Dads (USA) Fathers' Rights (USA) | Fathers Battling Injustice (CAN)

The National Organization For Men (USA) | Men's Aid (UK)

Ask A Fem-o-nasty!!

Image Hosted by

That's right. Now is your chance to go to Yahoo! Answers and ask a fem-o-nasty anything.


Who did Olive Oyl date before she met Popeye?

What baseball team won the 1995 Wold Series?

What was the name of the pet dinosaur in the comic strip ' Alley Oop '?

Who sent the first Christmas card?

What player won the 1955 NBA all-star game MVP Award?

or these True or false questions:

There up to 249 ways to make change for a US dollar.

March the 14th is also known as "Save a Spider Day."

Napoleon was scared of cats.

The first ship to use the 'SOS' distress signal was the Titanic.


Count Dracula was a real person.

Image Hosted by

You can ask them all of these question and many more by....


(You've got questions, they've got answers!!!!)

Image Hosted by

Image Hosted by

Image Hosted by

Image Hosted by

Image Hosted by

and remember............

Image Hosted by


Note: I see that Tiny url goes down for maintance some times so I'm adding a brand spankin' new url for you guys to go through when that happens:

Back up front door!

PS: It looks like the backup front door is a little slow to open.

So here's:

Door Number Three!

PPS: You're still tyrants (link)

A little distraction

'Cause ya' can't be so serious all the time...

Watch the original here: LINK

Your one of these sites to download the video: (One) or (Two) or (Three)

Strategy Post Three

This is post three in a continuing month long series:

Giving you Strategies for surviving the Matriarchy

Image Hosted by


This one is from Mirror of the Soul (link):

Business Model for Men in the 21st Century

You won't find this business model in any textbook or business literature, but it is the best business model to follow if you plan on starting and running your own business.

1. Start small and stay small. If you get over a certain level of employees, affirmative actions laws kick in and you are going to have to hire women, which DECREASE productivity. Yes, I said it, and everybody knows it, so get over it thinking women add value to your business, they don't, they just consume resources. So stay small enough so you avoid any affirmative actions laws kicking in to dictate who you should hire.

2. Don't hire women. See point number 1.

3. Pick and choose your customer base. Make them need you, more than you need them.

4. Eliminate any debt from your company.

5. Re-invest constantly in new technology.

6. Continually improve your business in all areas.

7. Have a organization structure like a monastic order, with men working in fellowship with each other, and eliminating the back-stabbing and power struggles, by creating an environment where the men want to come to work and enjoy their time there. Link the individual goals of the men with the goals of the company and everybody wins.

(Read the original full post by clicking here.)

and it's with that I give you the links:

Need funds check these links first:

1. (link) | 2. (link) | 3. (link) | 4. (link) | 5. (link)

6. (link) | 7. (link)

next visit these links:

8. (link) | 9. (link) | 10. (link) | 11. (link) | 12. (link)

13. (link) | 14. (link) | 15. (link) | 16. (link)

now follow these links:

17. (link) | 18. (link) | 19. (link) | 20. (link)

21. (link) | 22. (link) | 23. (link) | 24. (link)

25. (link) | 26. (link) | 27. (link) | 28. (link)

29. (link) | 30. (link)

31. (link) | 32. (link) | 33. (link) | 34. (link) | 35. (link)

and finally these links:

36. (link) | 37. (link) | 38. (link) | 39. (link)

40. (link) | 41. (link) | 42. (link) | 43. (link)

44. (link) | 45. (link) | 46. (link) | 47. (link) | 48. (link)

49. (link) | 50. (link) | 51. (link) | 52. (link) | 53. (link)

54. (link) | 55. (link) | 56. (link) | 57. (link) | 58. (link)

59. (link) | 60. (link) | 61. (link) | 62. (link) | 63. (link)

64. (link) | 65. (link) | 66. (link) | 67. (link) | 68. (link)

69. (link) | 70. (link) | 71. (link) | 72. (link) | 73. (link)

74. (link)

That's it for now...

and remember......................

Image Hosted by

Related post:

Stratgey: Post One (link)

Strategy: Post Two (link)

Strategy - Post Two

Today is an unexpected post becuase of something that is going to happen at the end of this week that will more than likely have a very negative effect on the way you drive...

So with that I have post number two in this month series:

Giving you Strategies for surviving the Matriarchy

Image Hosted by

While doing some research for this post I found out that (link):

Use of old buses

Most public or private buses and coaches, once they have reached the end of their service with one or more operators, are sent to the wrecking yard for breaking up for scrap and spare parts. Some buses, while not economical to keep running as service buses, are often converted in some way for use by the operator, or another user, for purposes other than revenue earning transport. Much like old cars and trucks, buses often pass through a dealership where they can be bought for a price or at auction.

Image Hosted by

please also note that:

Many old retired buses have also been converted into mobile holiday homes and campers.

Image Hosted by

in addition in another article I found out that (link):

Vegetable oil is an alternative fuel for diesel engines and for heating oil burners. For engines designed to burn diesel fuel, the viscosity of vegetable oil must be lowered to allow for proper atomization of the fuel, otherwise incomplete combustion and carbon build up will ultimately damage the engine. Many enthusiasts refer to vegetable oil used as fuel as waste vegetable
oil (WVO) if it is oil that was discarded from a restaurant or straight vegetable oil
(SVO) or pure plant oil (PPO) to distinguish it from biodiesel.

and with that I give you these links:

1. (link) | 2. (link) | 3. (link) | 4. (link) | 5. (link)
6. (link) | 7. (link) | 8. (link)

and these links:

9. (link) | 10. (link) | 11. (link) | 12. (link) | 13. (link)

14. (link) | 15. (link) | 16. (link)

and now these:

17. (link) | 18. (link) 19. (link) | 20. (link) | 21. (link) | 22. (link) | 23. (link)
24. (link) | 25. (link) | 26. (link) | 27. (link)

and some more here:

28. (link) | 29. (link) | 30. (link) | 31. (link) | 32. (link) | 33. (link)

34. (link) | 35. (link)

and even more here:

36. (link) | 37. (link) | 38. (link) | 39. (link) | 40. (link)

these too:

41. (link) | 42. (link) | 43. (link) | 44. (link) | 45. (link)

46. (link) | 47. (link) | 48. (link) | 49. (link) | 50. (link) | 51. (link)

and here's the last set:

52. (link) | 53. (link) | 54. (link) | 55. (link)

56. (link) | 57. (link) | 58. (link) | 59. (link) | 60. (link)

and until next time, remember.........

Please Give Manginas the Respect They Deserve: NONE!

Image Hosted by

Strategy - Post One

I'm going to do something a little different for this month. Here's why:

How can we get jobs, let alone support a family, when preference is given to women in college admissions, jobs, and promotions?

How can get anywhere when we're not given a chance to be in the game?

And even if we get in the game, we're playing on a decidedly unlevel playing field-one tilted in favor of women; how can we succeed in doing what our fathers and grandfathers before us did-support a family when the OPPORTUNITY to do so has been snatched from us?

MarkyMark from his blog post titled: Another critique of Kay Hymowitz "Where Have All The Good Men Gone."

It's on THAT note I bring to you what will hopefully be the first in a series of post this month on the theme of:

Giving you Strategies for surviving the Matriarchy

Image Hosted by

Sorry to be so incognito as far as links goes but once you do a mouse over you'll see what's going on..

Please visit this link first:

(link) | (alternate)

Then please visit these links:

1. (link) | 2. (link) | 3. (link) | 4. (link) (Sorry, link is a repeat)| 5. (link)
6. (link) | 7. (link) | 8. (link) | 9. (link) | 10. (link) | 11. (link) | 12. (link)

Next please follow these links:

13. (link) | 14. (link) | 15. (link) | 16. (link) | 17. (link) | 18. (link)

19. (link) | 20. (link) | 21. (link) | 22. (link) | 23. (link) | 24. (link)

25. (link) | 26. (link) | 27. (link) | 28. (link) | 29. (link) | 30. (link)

31. (link) | 32. (link) | 33. (link) | 34. (link) | 35. (link) | 36. (link)

37. (link) | 38. (link) | 39. (link) | 40. (link)

and now please follow these links:

41. (link) | 42. (link) | 43. (link) | 44. (link) | 45. (link)

46. (link) | 47. (link) | 48. (link) | 49. (link)

this group:

50. (link) | 51. (link) | 52. (link) | 53. (link) | 54. (link)

55. (link) | 56. (link) | 57. (link)

and finally these:

58. (link) | 59. (link) | 60. (link) | 61. (link)

Update 3-13-2011

new links:

62. (link) | 63. (link) | 64. (link) | 65. (link) | 66. (link)

next these new ones

67. (link) | 68. (link)

and finally these new ones:

69. (link) | 70. (link) | 71. (link) | 72. (link)

73. (link) | 74. (link) | 75. (link) | 76. (link) | 77. (link) | 78. (link)

79. (link)

That's it for now. Until next time, remember.........

Image Hosted by

How it all fell apart

I think that this story may be from David Throop's old men's issues site (link) unfortunately, I did not make a note of the site where I got this article. (And this time it's a full article unlike the last one I posted.)

How it all fell apart

In 1992 Canadian journalist Wendy Dennis came out with a book entitled "Hot and Bothered, Sex and Love in the 90s". In her introduction she became the first woman I'd ever heard actually admit that men had a side of the story too. She promised to try to tell it fairly, and certainly did a better job of that than any woman I've heard before or since. She still showed some distinct feminist and feminine biases, particularly in some of her choices to illustrate male anger about the treatment they had been receiving from women, but, as I have included certain male biases in my writing with more forethought and intent than I'm sure she showed, I can hardly fault her too severely for that. The mere fact that she admitted that men have a right to have their point of view considered put her into not just a different category, but an entirely different species, than other women authors who have written on this subject. Please read her book. Please give copies of it to all your friends.

For, in the 5 years since its publication, things only seem to have gotten worse.

There is no other single topic that I hear discussed even half as frequently as how miserable both men and women are as a result of the lack of any sort of satisfying sexually intimate relationship in their lives.

She begins with the questions "How are women doing?" and "How are men doing?". In both cases the answer is not well. With only rare exceptions, men and women everywhere are confused, angry, alone, suspicious, often downright hostile, and, underneath it
all, terribly terribly hurt. In some states the divorce rate has reached 75%. More and more single people have simply quit dating.

For quite some time it has been very chic for women to proudly announce that they are quite happy without a relationship. Now men are beginning to take the same position. As I have talked to members of both genders, the story that I get is that this is mostly true but not quite with the spin of satisfaction that it is usually presented. A little probing will reveal that, instead of "quite happy", "less miserable" sitting on the sidelines watching the emotional brawl instead of participating is closer to the truth.

What is most surprising to me is the number of young men, in their early 20s, who have dropped out of the mating game. For a 30 year veteran in the army-of-occupation left behind by the sexual revolution with the scars to prove it, like myself, this is easy to understand. But for someone at an age when I still considered that dreaded Hawaiian disease, Lakanooki, certainly fatal if left untreated for a year and would tolerate almost any level of abasement to convince some woman to share my bed, it is amazing that a young man would make the choice to sit out. Their reasons for doing so are quite informative.

Feminism has transformed the social climate in this country as thoroughly as the Bolsheviks transformed the former Russia. Which is of course what it set out to do: thus is a rousing success as a social movement. But, like the collectivist thinking on the economic level, the collectivist thinking on the social level which drives feminism did not have quite the results promised.

After 75 years, the grand socio-economic experiment of the Bolsheviks was abandoned because it was too contrary to the nature of human beings. For those 75 years, however, citizens had to contend with economic deprivation and hardship as they struggled to change that nature to conform to a grand ideal. Not just human nature, but the natural world as well. Crops were planted according to 5 year plans, not according to weather, harvests, and needs of the population. In the same way, feminists have demanded that the factors and forces which drive attraction conform to a plan, a FEMinine plan.

Males have simply been dropped out of the picture as serious elements of consideration, except to regard them as agricultural crops which fruit love, support, and sperm. Author Dennis herself says it - "For one of the implicit, if unadmitted, tenets of feminism has been a fundamental disrespect for men." When the Bolsheviks fundamentally disrespected the fact that a crop ripens dependent on rainfall, sunshine, and a host of other factors, demanding instead that it be planted on a certain date and harvested on a certain date according to a grand idealistic plan laid down 5 years earlier, they could invest all the hours, fuel, and seed in planting and still have nothing to eat when it was all done. Not just no result, but an incredible waste of resources which were already in short supply.

And people end up hungrier as a result of wasting the seed which could have more productively been eaten than thrown away in an attempt to force nature to conform to a human ideal. Fortunately for them, in the States farmers still understood that a crop ripens according to natural laws and did not attempt to play GOD, so had surpluses which
allowed the Bolshevik plan followers to purchase grain to keep from starving to death.

Unfortunately, no one is growing a surplus of male attraction to women these days, particularly not one which meets the complex, contradictory, and completely impossible requirements of the feminist agenda, so women are emotionally starving to death.

The most repugnant statement in the entire book, repugnant both because it illustrates the fallacy which caused the whole house of cards to fall and because it highlights the fact that women are still blind to the fact that men are human beings at all and illustrates that a fundamental disrespect for men is basic not just to feminism, but to all women, is this
(quoted in lengthy entirety):

"In the end, the hard lesson women take from the apparent man shortage is this: by trying to live up to the lofty ideals of feminism, by elevating their expectations of themselves and of men, they set themselves with a collision course with loneliness. Men will punish them for their ambitions, and they will punish them in the cruelest way imaginable: by not wanting them any more." (emphasis added)

Let me express the message in this statement another way:"In the end, the hard lesson the Bolsheviks take from the apparent food shortage is this: by trying to live up to the lofty ideals of Bolshevism, by elevating their expectations of themselves and the crops which provide them food, they set themselves with a collsion course with starvation." (True so far, the penalty for that level of denial in the natural world has always been death.) "The crops will punish them for their ambitions, and they will punish them in the cruelest way possible: by dying."

I still cannot fathom the incredible self-absorbtion, self-centeredness, self-OBSESSION, that can allow anyone to overlook how intensely and determinedly women have pursued making themselves unwantable and destroying and stamping out every last bit of desire for them a man could possibly have. And the determination to be the victim to the very end. The fact
that men have quit wanting women couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that women have been viciously attacking men for being attracted to them and every instance of its expression for years. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that expressing it has been thoroughly criminalized and wanting a woman and making it known can land
a man in prison these days. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that everything a man might find attractive that doesn't fit the feminst ideal is slammed with a sledgehammer of shame. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that men have believed women who have told men how little they or their attention could possibly mean to women, and in fact they find them both highly offensive and completely irrelevant. No, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with women or their actions, it is entirely due to the universal quality of men to spend their lives thinking up nasty things to do to women.

To "PUNISH" them.

It makes me sick.

In what I call the "Holocaust of Desire", men's desire for women has been being systematically murdered for the past 30 years. By women. Now men are "punishing" women by being dead to them. The murder weapons have been maleness-bashing and the criminalization of male sexual expression through the expanded definitions of sexual harassment and rape and the
constructivist fallacy of making all men equally guilty for the acts of any individual man.

The sad truth is that I'd rather eat Drano (link) than try to love a woman, only to find that my every act and intent was viciously and maliciously twisted into a victim's melodrama which I might spend the next several years in prison paying for. The entire purpose of the criminal justice system is to control and attempt to eradicate deviance. Now that men desiring women has been declared deviant, the eradication efforts are having their effects. In the end, the hard lesson that women really need to take from the real man shortage is this: by denying and negating our needs, by making wanting you into a criminal act, by being so self-centered that you cannot see any act in the world as being motivated by anything other than intent to frustrate your needs and desires, you have proven to us that what feminists began saying 30 years ago is equally true in reverse. Not only is a woman without a man like a fish without a bicycle, a man without a woman is like a bicycle without a fish.

Free Image Hosting

Getting A Life

This is a piece I've been meaning to post for over two years now but finally have gotten the
opportunity thanks to yet another post by Mizz Kay "Men are Children" Hymowitz. (link)

(Note: Loud mouth, opinionated, obnoxious, knuckle-headed western women, are the gift that just keeps giving.)

A few notes: The original site this was posted to has long since disappeared.
Second there is a part of this post that is missing. I'm not sure what went wrong but there's maybe 1 or 2 paragraphs that aren't there.. However, that should not stop you guys from getting the point of the post.

With out further delay here's:

Getting A Life

Ron Marr


1/15/2004 9:19:00 AM Updated: 1/15/2004 9:19:37 AM

full_story&news_id=116651 (dead link)

Society's definition of the "mature" adult has changed much over the years. In the 1950's, perhaps due to the optimism for a bright future following the end of World War II, the benchmarks were a marriage, a steady job at the auto plant, a kid or two and the house with a white picket fence. And most of these things were expected by age 25.

During that period, and in the decades before, Americans were influenced by the peer pressure of their immediate community. You behaved in a certain way, followed certain rules, lived in such a manner as to fit in with your neighbors. You trusted the powers that be, knowing that if you found a job, you could likely stay there for life.

Fast forward to 2004. A recent University of Pennsylvania study claims that today's twenty-somethings are hesitant to conform to that traditional adult world. According to the study, "the ability to support and thus form a family has declined. In the industrialized economy of the first half of the 20th century, most men were able to attain such independence by age 20."

Not so any longer. The research indicates that, in our modern world, 25-year-old men in all age groups are likely to remain single and childless. The same holds true for women. Having children has been postponed, as has the thought of putting down roots in a community.

The study states that the young avoid standard societal paths - the house, job, wife and kid thing -- not because of a Peter Pan complex, but rather because of an unstable job market, and the intense competition for what decent jobs are available.

This may be a first -- most such studies strike me as nonsense -- but I find myself agreeing with this one.

Nowadays, pay is low. Most firms instantly replace anyone who fails to behave like an unquestioning drone. They downsize (aka: fire, terminate, can) with abandon. Many firms force employees to perform extra hours without pay, or to take on the tasks of two or three people, also without extra compensation. Not always, but often, America's employers treat workers as disposable soft drink cans...they buy them, drain them, toss them away, and grab another from the shelf.

You can't trust that a promised pension will be there. Hell, you can't trust that you won't be "downsized" two weeks before you are ready to start collecting that pension. You don't buy a house because you'll probably have to move - several times. You don't have kids because you can't afford them. You may have to go back to school just to compete. You never know when you will be on the street, based totally on the whims of corporate entities who squeeze the stone for a bit more profit.

The present corporate mindset leads to much more than personal frustration on the part of those who man the trenches. New ideas or novel methodologies are presented infrequently, as employees do not wish to risk their job by drawing attention.

Middle managers act as bean counters...keeping their heads low as well. Upper management simply looks at ways to cut expenses, usually by cutting the workforce. Those who get ahead are more often blessed with dandy contacts and the ability to brown-nose than they are with intelligence, talent, motivation or insight.

Which bring us back to the definition of "maturity." I hear comments th

(Note: This is the part of the post that is missing. Again I don't know exactly how much is missing but I do apologize for that, now back to the post...)

Hmmmm....lets think about this. A young man or woman doesn't get married or have kids because, in our employment climate, they know they can't manage to raise and support them properly. They instead allocate time and funds to more years of education, for a failure to do so will leave them with few options save learning to enunciate the phrase "want fries with that?"

They move from job to job, seeking a higher wage, not out of mercenary rationale but rather because they have seen first hand that loyalty to employers means less than nothing. Granted, they do purchase more toys than previous generations and spend more on entertainment.

However, I suspect that's because they know a new car or plasma TV is not going to suffer a negative impact when they suddenly have to move from LA to Omaha. Such things will not scream of hunger in the night should they suddenly find themselves without income, scanning the want ads.

Frankly, this is a very sensible route, realizing the facts for what they are proceeding accordingly. It may not be pretty, but I would call it pretty mature.

I'd call the present corporate theology that causes such a scenario something else entirely, but it's not something you can print.

(Ron Marr is the founder of The Trout Wrapper, the official magazine of Montana's Tobacco Root Mountains. The publication believes in "big guns, big dogs and big bar tabs." Founded in 1994, The Trout Wrapper says it is "dedicated to hunting down and publicly tormenting the humor impaired," and it espouses the "wholesale abuse of all things politically correct.")

Copyright 2004, Ron Marr

Other related post:

A response at Whiskey's Place to Mizz Hymowitz new article "Where Have All The Good Men Gone. (link)

Single Men in Never-Neverland? (link) (Dr. Helen)

Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech sez: "Western Civilization Left Men, Not The
Other Way Around" (link)

"Manning Up or Wimping Out" (link) (Dr. Helen)

Update: (8-6-2011) It seems as though this blog is still being found by people who search for certain term or words. I believe that someone in the "higher ups" in one of the major political parties has found this blog because it seems as though "The Right" believes that I might just be "one of them" because of a blog that I happened to link to that has a certain WORD in it's web address (link).

They even went as far as to post a pro-female video showing them how much they care about the plight of out of work Ameri-skanks (link).

To the Elites of "The Right": If you're reading this I've got a short message for you. I AM NOT a member of "The Right" (link) for the record I am registered as an INDEPENDENT.

The only reason why I even posted that link is because I have very few visitors and only get spikes in visitors when one of your female supremacist (link) gets pi$$ed off and passes the link around to her friends on the social networking sites.

And because there are SOME bloggers from "The Right" that actually have the testicular fortitude to question the fem-o-nasty movement. (Which is much more than I can say for you in the Elitist circles of "The Right")


You can STOP the damned hand-wringing and go back to shamelessly begging for the Vagina Vote(TM). (link)

To my regular visitors if you would like to see the site in question please CLICK HERE.

Stop The Backlash

Here's a classic from the Eternal Bachelor archives on the increase of anti-feminist activity (link):

25 December 2006

In both recent comments, as well as occasional articles by some women (including a few self-proclaimed ‘ex-feminists’), us men are frequently told we shouldn’t be angry at women, that we should all get along and such nonsense.

Funny how feminists have spent decades hurling abuse at men and boys and expressing hair-raising bigotry and hatred at males, yet now us men are getting sick of it and getting just a tiny tiny bit fucked off and, in some quarters, downright apocalyptic with rage, these bitches are backpedaling and demanding we all just along, that we should end the sex-war (but not repeal all the anti-male bias in system and culture) and that we should not express any dissatisfaction, let alone contempt, at women.

It apparantly never occurred to feminists who started all this shit, nor the women who followed it, that animosity has a real nasty way of boomeranging back at those who fling it at other people. Oh dear. Snigger.

Seriously though, it would be nice if the relationships between the sexes weren’t actually as fucked up as they are. Shit, I’d like to find something else to rant about than feminism and how annoying most modern Western Women are, or indeed to be able to avoid having anything to rant about at all. How nice it would be to live in a pre-feminist era, married to a nice wife, with lots of kids, and maybe running a light-hearted blog about, I dunno, frogs or something.

But, sadly, that’s not the case; feminism has fucked everything all up, ruined families, messed up children, knackered societies, not to mention – ironically – condemning plenty of women to a life of lonely childless drudgery with no guy willing or daring to marry them. Yet despite this, and despite women now being the most pampered demographic in human history, feminists still rampage around shrieking and whining and trying (and often succeeding) in getting governments to stomp men and boys further into the mud.

So, the backlash will just have to continue, until we either shout feminists into cowering submission, or just refuse to marry, have children or slave away and pay taxes until our society suffers the just (and inevitable) fate of any society that becomes geared towards the whims of feminists; namely, complete collapse and extinction.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 10:24 AM

Fred X on Being Polite Won't Get You Anywhere

Before I forget about it many moons ago I posted an article by former MRA blogger Fred X called "Further Clarification on Politeness" (link) However, that was not the article I wanted to post. There was another post he made earlier that I want to highlight now from 2007, I am posting it now in light of the fact that this blog may have been recently linked to a well-known social networking site (link) which cause a famous female politician (link) to respond in typical tyrannical fem-o-nasty fashion. (link)

Without further delay here's Fred X original post on being polite towards feminist:

"Please, could you change rape-shield laws for me?" Said Wilbur, for the fifth time that week

I've often been criticised for using profanity and being aggressive when I talk about how self-entitled most Western women are, and about how much I hate femcunts and the like.

Thing is: I don't give a shit.

Never have

Never will

I'm not here to be nice and polite.

I'm here to

a) highlight bias that exists in the media and/or in written legislation (i.e. the stuff that CAN be backed-up legitimately)

and to get you lot- yes, YOU LOT- to look at what's happening RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU

And that's about it really.

And for all you cunts out there who assume I'm just some ignorant 'sexist':

Get fucked.


If you read my articles- you will find that I highlight actual bias

Not some made-up stuff about women being 'oppressed' in the porn industry and what-not.

Not posting pictures up of my pets and harping on about Cat Friday Blogging Week, or whatever you stupid hags like to call it.

And not some bullshit about how you've gone along to some shitty protest that only you and 3 of your ugly mates attended.

I write MY way and I highlight things that DO exist.

I've slammed rape-shield laws


I've slammed get-out-clauses for women-only (better known in MRA - MGTOW circles as "The Pussy Pass") (Infanticide Act/VAWA/Battered Woman Defence)


And I've slammed services that are ONLY provided for women


Plus various other things that EXIST


If you don't like my language or think I'm simply a 'thick misogynist'- guess what?

I don't give 2 fucking pooh-plops


Because even though I vent my anger- I always make sure there's a point to everything I say.

Which is more that can be said for YOU.

So get fucked you sluts.

And make sure its with a shard of glass or some spiked pole.


And also- you do realise that being polite never got anyone anywhere don't you.

Being polite and/or complacent has done fuck all the years gone by.

You want change?

You want action?

Get striking.

Get protesting.

And get your friends together and cause a commotion about how YOU are being shortchanged.

Do you honestly think that politicians, or anyone for that matter, will give a shit about the odd letter about some policy or other?

One that is nicely written as not to offend anyone?

One that says, 'Oh pretty please, will you consider male victims of domestic violence in your next bill?'



But they will have to answer to angry mobs of men who are fed-up with being shat on all the time.

So to finish:

I'm pissed off

I'm sick of politeness

And, guess what?

So should YOU !!

Original Source: (deleted)

Feminism is Communism in drag

From the Fathers For Life blog Dad's and Things (link) :

Today I rewrote the introduction to Feminism? You want feminism? Which brand would you like? Here is the result.

The vast majority of the definitions contained in that web page illustrate the products of roughly 40 years of heavy, intensive social engineering promoted by women’s studies programs. Those study programs are being taught by lecturers that consider themselves, and even often openly declare themselves, to be Marxist in their ideology, the ideology they promote and that drives them.

Marxism is a euphemism for communism. Karl Marx co-authored with Frederic Engels in Dec. 1847 - Jan. 1848 the Manifesto of the Communist Party (a.k.a. the Communist Manifesto).

It is recommended that anyone who finds claims of the close ideological connection and ties between communism and feminism a hard pill to swallow better read the Communist Manifesto but also other writings by Marx and Engels. He will then have no problem realizing that feminism, especially radical feminism (a.k.a. socialist- or Marxist feminism) is nothing more than communism transformed, communism in drag.

Many of the terms used by feminists come straight from communist dialectics, and many of the slogans and ideas promoted by women’s studies lecturers are being quoted almost verbatim, and in many cases are exact quotes, from communist text books.

The feminist doctrine of women’s victimhood is the major cause for the overwhelming public interest in women’s issues. That imbalance in attention given to women’s issues existed for at least the last 200 years of modern history, but it received an enormous boost through the activities of the radical feminist activists that made their appearance in the mid-1960s.

Men’s rights will not be given an amount of public concerns equal to that given to women’s issues until at the very least an equal amount of concern is given to men’s studies as is given to women’s studies.

The following statistics compiled from search results using illustrate how far the feminist ideology has spread and overwhelms academic thinking, the media and all of society:

Search Returns
Date Women’s
2006 08 28 24,100,000 602,000 340,000 686
2006 09 14 11,500,000 398,000 330,000 636
2007 03 24 2,770,000 296,000 269,000 594
2007 04 11 2,570,000 275,000 261,000 1,110
2007 07 14 2,160,000 465,000 238,000 1,060

The encouraging trend reflected in the statistics shown above is that, while the interest in women’s studies is on the decline and fell by 90 percent during the 2006-2007 interval, the interest in men’s studies has not seen a comparable increase in attention given. Moreover, when one examines the search returns for men’s studies programs it appears that those programs are permeated with a strong pro-homosexual bias by new-age men (a product of ongoing feminist indoctrination). It appears hardly possible that pro-homosexual activists acting on behalf of a population sector that comprises no more than about two percent of the adult male population will either have the interest or the necessary influence to revert the systematic deconstruction of the traditional nuclear family and the vital role of the father in it.

Far more than enough resources are being used up to assist the feminists in their search for problems befitting the solutions they devised. No wonder men are being made the scapegoats for every imaginable social ill. As the statistics in the preceding table show, men don’t talk back much. After all, scapegoats don’t talk.

In spite of all evidence to the contrary, feminists found and assert that: 1.) all women are victims, and 2.) the perfect shoulders to put the blame on are those of men. Many men, affected as much by our feminist-dominated education system as women are, bought into those assertions. As a result of that, women gained many and enormously important concessions by society and politicians for which they had to give absolutely nothing in return, while men, as always, have to foot the bill for those concessions.

However, what is it that the feminists really want? Maybe someone can figure out whether the complete re-engineering of society was worth the effort just to pursue the wildly aimless chase after Paradise on Earth for feminists. Can anyone connect the dots, are there any dots to connect? Other than indulging themselves in the urge to deconstruct society and to get all of society to support them in that effort, what is it that the feminists really want? Can you figure it out from the definitions provided here?

Translate Page Into Your Language linkroll




web tracker


Site Meter

Blog Patrol Counter