No orginal articles at this site. (Just like this blog. 
) But plenty of archived web pages that make great refrence material. So if you haven't been by there check him out:
JTest 28 Anti-Feminist pages
http://www.jtest28.com/Anti-feminismpage.html
This is what Darren Blacksmith wrote about in this page on the JTest 28 Anti-Feminist Pages:
Amoral Women?
By Darren Blacksmith
I have a theory that men have a greater potential for good or evil than women. In order to be truly evil or good you have to have made a moral choice. Like in the story "A Clockwork Orange" a young boy who leads a life of bad behavior needs to choose to become good, but instead the state put him through some brutal therapy that makes him ill whenever he thinks of doing something bad. But this doesn't make him good, it forces him to not be bad. There's a difference. Without the capacity to make moral choices in our behavior we are a living thing that has become mechanized, like a clockwork orange.
Men feel these choices more than women. Men choose. Men are pre-eminently the moral creatures.
We are taught by our upbringing, education and the media that women are good, men are bad. We are told to think of Mother Theresa and Florance Nightingale. Yet these are no more representative of most women than are serial killers representative of most men. Women in general don't behave themselves because it is the RIGHT thing. In fact most women these days balk at the idea of any code of morals. Rather they behave themselves because they want to appear good, socially acceptable, attractive and they don't want to confront bad feelings. Their code is not based on platonic system of morals. It's based on feelings. In other words, they are not so much moral or immoral. They are amoral which is something even worse. They haven't made a moral decision. They haven't even acknowledged that there was one to make in the first place.
Why is this so? Men know about morals because we virtually always have to deal with the consequences of our actions. Women hardly ever have to. Chiefly because they are protected from the consequences by society that treats them more leniently than men, and by their own capacity for self-deception. They never face up to taking the blame for any actions they take that have bad effects. They make excuses.
Amoral women get away with their bad actions. They are let off more easily in court cases. This week, commenting on the case of a woman who had been falsely imprisoned for killing her two babies, British TV presenter Anne Diamond said "Even if she had 'done something' to them, I'm not sure that jail would have been the right response." This attitude shows two things to me:
1) when a woman does something evil, it's downplayed. Its given a euphemism of 'done something' rather than 'killed'. This helps perpetuate the idea that women don't do bad things.
2) Even if a woman kills, people are reluctant to punish her for it. She does not have to face the consequences of one of the most evil acts.
This sheltering from the consequences of their acts starts in an almost inadvertent way when boys and girls are told off. Because a boy's misbehavior is easier to spot - ex. hitting another boy - he is more likely to be told off, but the girl's misbehavior takes the form of psychological warfare, ostracizing a friend, spreading rumors. It can be devastating to the victim, but is rarely spotted and punished. She thus learns she can get away with her bad behavior.
And then this continues into adulthood. A woman's behavior is not bound by any moral code (and even male criminals often have some sort of moral code), but is purely bound by what she can get away with, what society will turn its back to. Thus women emotionally manipulate their husbands and drive them to the edge, they decide now, in the UK, to kill one in four babies that are due to be born (although obviously it can't be expressed in this language, it has to be abstracted and called "terminating the pregnancy"), they support and date the bad men, and leave the good men in on a Saturday night, and even if they do give a good guy dates they will sense the weak and vulnerable position that his personal morals leave him in and walk all over him.
Of course, I've simplified the world a GREAT deal in this argument, but nevertheless I believe there is a great deal of truth in this. And it's an unspoken truth.
Evil doesn't need all men to be bad, it just needs a small number of men to make a wrong moral choice, then the majority of women will support them.
Comments anyone?
This is a very long post but please bear with me as I have copied all but two replies from a thread on the Online Dating Rights Forum about dishonesty on Wikipedia by the Tahirih Center
Here's the thread from Online Dating Rights forum:
tristan
Administrator
Wikipedia fraud by Tahirih
« on: January 30, 2007, 12:25:00 PM »
Our researchers have noted in the past that a teenage boy named erald Kolasi, son of a Tahirih employee, has developed the Tahirih Justice Center entry in Wikipedia and zealously guards it against any and all changes.
Wikipedia has policies to prevent a biased person from taking control over a website with which they are connected. The main policy is that such control is absolutely forbidden and that anyone posting must do so neutrally.
But what Tahirih has done is to write the Wikipedia entry as if it is a fundraising statement for them. The entry is hardly neutral and in particular it parrots Tahirih's political position that men who go abroad to find romance are sick, disgusting rapists waiting to happen.
Several members of this website have become editors of Wikipedia as anyone can become an editor and this is the foundation for maintaining accuracy in its entries, i.e. if enough people create and constantly edit the entries they will come out neutral. Even if some editors are biased, there should in theory be enough unbiased people to catch and change biased changes to an entry.
But it doesn't work that way, at least with respect to Tahirih. For instance, when our members made any edits to make the entry neutral, the teenager immediately deleted them using his power also as an editor. Other changes were made for neutrality, and the boy changed them right back to their original bias. This went on for a while until the members of this board gave up; the teenager has more time and energy on his hands (and more at stake due to his mother's connection with Tahirih) than did our members. (Example: one change was merely to add mention that a federal judge has issued a TRO against IMBRA where the entry discusses the IMBRA litigation; the boy will not permit that information to remain on the entry.)
Now, in light of a NY Times article today about how judges are using Wikipedia to make decisions, this unethical tampering with the public record by Tahirih's supporters takes on heightened importance.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/technology/29wikipedia.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The article reads in part: "Cass R. Sunstein, currently a visiting professor at Harvard Law School. “I love Wikipedia, but I don’t think it is yet time to cite it in judicial decisions,” he said, adding that “it doesn’t have quality control” He said he feared that “if judges use Wikipedia you might introduce opportunistic editing” to create articles that could influence the outcome of cases."
Indeed.
------------------------
VeteransAbroad
Reply #1 on: January 30, 2007, 05:25:41 PM »
His name is Erald Kolasi or Erald Kalosi. The kid made me sick in early September as he psycopathically refused to compromise on anything. The saddest thing was that he entered this huge fight with me on what should have been the best days of his life: his first few days at college.
I took the memorable moments of his first days at college.
His new college roommates clearly thought he was weird and they broke into his Wikipedia account and wrote "I am a homosexual" in a lot of places. Erald then thought I had broken into his account and complained to the Wikipedia editors. Then he admitted that it was his roommates.
At that point I realized that this teen with a retarded social growth was going to eat and sleep at his computer, trying to promote feminism in the hope that he would get laid.
But Layli isn't going to sleep with him nor would Layli, the racist, ever set him up with anyone.
Male feminists are usually Beta Males who honestly think that feminist women will want to have date them and reject the anti-feminist Alpha Males.
But I have news for these demasculinized men: We anti-feminists actually do much better dating the American feminists whom we don't want to MARRY than the obsequious twirps who do their bidding and betray other guys.
Taylor and I differ on the subject of whether the men who date foreign women are the Alpha Males or Shy Males. But the Beta Males who support feminism in the hope of getting laid are the real losers in the end.
-------------------------------
Sluggo
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2007, 10:38:00 PM »
Can we talk psychology here? If I am an expert on anything it would be teenage boys, because I was one for seven years.
I was a bit geeky like Erald. And if I had the chance to pal around with my mother's co-workers at an ALL-FEMALE OFFICE, there is no doubt that I would have done so at every opportunity and I would have been very eager to please them.
A boy at that age thinks about sex every 15 seconds or less, and he has sexual fantasies about, well, many, many women. Surely this boy is entranced by all the estrogen at the Tahirih office and the women there, such as Layli Miller who wears lots of makeup and has long hair in a perm, provide him with a rich source of masturbatory fantasies. And since he is the son of an employee, the women there will always treat him nicely and be happy to see him and to know how he is doing in college. In contrast to his female classmates who, if he is geeky as Veteran suspects, probably roll their eyes when they see him coming.
There is no way that appealing to this kid's intellect can compete with his biological instincts to suck up to these women in the chance, however small it may be, that he will get laid someday.
--------------------------------
VeteransAbroad
Reply #3 on: February 01, 2007, 03:18:06 AM »
Whatever the motivation for his bizarre behaviour, the owners of Wikipedia need to understand that all of the above is no excuse for letting a 19 year old dishonestly defraud the public by preventing editors from making the Tahirih Justice Center article more objective and professional and not the outrageous marketing brochure that it is now.
Here is his blog:
http://eraldicsector.blogspot.com/
You can see a teenager wrestling with religion (wanting to be religious).
The thing is, the guy has the potential. He is "intellectual", understands Napoleon's principles of propaganda ("What is history but a fable agreed upon"). He is not that bad looking and has at least 9 years of living among real men in Albania. He just needs to get a spine and talk with one of us on the phone for a half hour. He needs to understand that the crowd of older women who are so nice to him, happen to have passed the most draconian dating law in the history of democracies and none of these women will ever be his wife. They are ultimately not on his side if he wants to meet an Albanian woman from the homeland.
When I was trying to get some fairness written at Wikipedia (when I still believed the Wikipedia editors were fair) he tried to discredit me at Wikipedia by saying "This guy says on his blog that he is against feminism. Anyone who says that automatically loses all credibility".
I am not kidding. He said that.
The incident with this young man is like the end of the movie "The Bridge on the River Kwai" when British commandoes are trying to blow up a bridge, but it is a British prisoner who built the bridge who ends up stopping them and saving "his bridge".
But as he is mortally wounded and looking at all the dead British soldiers that he, as a British soldier just got killed, he says "What have I done?!" and falls dead on the detonator which finally destroys the bridge.
When it comes to IMBRA, I keep thinking of that scene in that movie.
There are men with the power to blow this thing wide open...who don't because they are somehow scared of their own shadow (are beta males).
-------------------------------------
frank johnson
Reply #6 on: February 06, 2007, 09:26:47 AM »
How about some social intercourse with Erald and Veteran:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kirill_Lokshin/Archive_2
[edit] Alert
Well...it's sort of an alert. The Tahirih Justice Center article has been discovered by someone who is very anti-IMBRA and who made some major changes to the article recently. I have reverted these, but I may need your help in the future so I'm just letting you know. This person apparently started a whole thread in an online forum where there is even some discussion about personal matters relating to me (see here). He might need to be banned, although we'll see what happens.UberCryxic 17:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
This guy (EnglishGarden) already opened a discussion on AI about me. I've added the link about my personal information there. I have to admit he is a little bit unstable. Just wait and see I guess.....UberCryxic 18:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Umm Kirill, I'm having some more trouble. At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tahirih Justice Center edited by son of fundraiser volunteer, one person wrote,
" I would be wary of editing articles where a conflict of interests might be presented. On one hand, you're a Wikipedia editor and must maintain NPOV when editing. On the other, it is your job, or a family member's job, to promote this organization. I would steer clear of the article if you're unable to be neutral. Furthermore, it is incorrect for you to assume bad faith in the complaining editor. He may have been accused of sock puppetry in the past, but that is niether here nor there. Please remain on topic. Regards to both"
No apparent care for the personal information.
EnglishGarden has written things like,
"You are still not disclosing whether there is financial remuneration in this for yourself. A 19 year old male isn't going to work hard as the webmaster of a Wikipedia article on a women's political organization in the Washington area whom his mother is a fundraiser/volunteer for...without some kind of interest."
"Erald's mother is a fundraiser volunteer for the Tahirih Justice Center. He has written a blatant fundraiser advertisement. Please check the changes I made. Here is the proof that she is a fundraiser/volunteer Mrs. Kolasi"
Can you please drop a word in there when you have time? Thank you very much. I'm sorry if this is all too sudden. It was definitely weird for me. I came back from class and for two hours straight I've had to deal with this stuff.UberCryxic 18:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I requested that now.UberCryxic 18:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, can you at least write another message to EnglishGarden telling him to stop using personal references and to stop being disruptive....or something to that effect. His focus on my mother precludes me from responding. As I told him, I would ignore any personal remarks from now on in the talk page. He is really flying off now, and he continues to make inflammatory and incorrect statements (claiming the person who I told you about was an administrator when in fact he wasn't) in his website. Thanks.UberCryxic 18:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
EnglishGarden wrote this in reply to your message,
"Thanx Kirill. I have proven that this young man's mother is a fundraiser for the TJC. He has admitted as much on the complaint board. He has not disclosed that he is not receiving remuneration as the webmaster for this article. There is a family conflict of interest and another member has asked him to steer clear of this board as a result.
For removing POV, the words "exploit" and "marriage broker" and "mail order bride" either need to be removed or placed in quotations so it is very clear that the editors do not pass judgement on the online dating industry where there is a restraining order on the IMBRA law in question. See Restraining Order. This is the son of a fundraiser for Tahirih who is obviously the chosen webmaster. He should take a step back and ask himself what he is doing. This topic is clearly not in his personal interest otherwise."UberCryxic 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey Kirill, thanks for all your help man. This guy is really weird; he's talking crap about you now on his site. Really awkward person....UberCryxic 22:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Kirill, just a few minutes ago someone made an edit on my userpage with my username. They changed the statement "My name is Erald Kolasi and I have been a regular Wikipedia..." to "My name is Erald Kolasi and I AM A HOMOSEXUAL ... " Obviously I don't know who it is. I've changed my password but now I'm afraid to log back out because that person could change it again. I'm not really sure what to do except to not panic haha. Should I report this somewhere?UberCryxic 03:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, nevermind. Apparently it was my suitemates screwing around. Bastards...UberCryxic 04:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Kirill, the guy's back and in the past hour has made statements in the TJC talk page like...
"You state your name openly and everyone knows that your parents are on the fundraiser committee for Tahirih. You should have no responsibilities for this article."
and...
"You publish your name openly in your profile and your Mom is a fundraiser for Tahirih."
I'm wondering if any of this makes him liable for a ban now.UberCryxic 18:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
He's...still making personal statements about my family. I told him again not to but I don't think he's listening.UberCryxic 21:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, why should he not be banned at this point? He won't stop talking about it. And you did say that personal information about the families would get either him or me banned.UberCryxic
21:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah good points. I've now asked another admin to take a look at it.UberCryxic 21:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Kirill, another admin warned him about continuing incivility on his talk page, but he still continues to make not only untrue references about my parents, but just references period, despite my best efforts at requesting him to stop. Can you give him another warning when you have time please? Thank you!UberCryxic 17:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Kirill: In regard to the 2 day argument I had with Ubercryxic last week, I just discovered how this guy was actually asking you to help him keep the Tahirih Justice Center devoid of criticism. He lives online and was doing well enough alone in reverting changes that even lawyers were trying to make to no avail. I have zero time to waste on Wikipedia (with all due respect to you if you like hanging out here). But, because online searches these days favor Wikipedia articles, people have to deal with the people here now and then, if only to get a word in edgewise.
Please look at the reputable data I provided (court documents are reputable) and note that the 5th Amendment guarantees that a restraining order placed on a law like IMBRA (the supposed jewel in the Tahirih Justice Center crown) is a restraining order on all similar plaintiffs (in this case dating websites). IMBRA is dead in the water but the article calls it an accomplishment that allegedly provides "important" information to foreign women instead of "sensitive" or "private" or "too much" information, which would be just as POV laden.
There is no objective reason to call dating websites "Marriage Brokers". I provided the reputable document (the IMBRA law) that defines even social referral websites as "Marriage Brokers". It is a farce for Wikipedians to adopt the language of Tahirih and a law under restraining order when we are talking about matchmaking sites like MySpace and Match.com would be if their membership were >50% foreign. Meanwhile I've dated dozens of "mail order brides" but never married any of them. The term refers to women from a certain geographic areas and the term is racist if used in the pejorative.
The Tahirih Justice Center recently found a sympathetic judge in Ohio who said "The Supreme Court has never explicitly held that there is a fundamental liberty interest in an American meeting a foreigner for an intimate relationship". If this kind of attitude gets ignored or glossed over at Wikipedia, it won't be more than a year before you can take the words off "intimate relationship" and just have laws preventing Americans from meeting foreigners for any reason.
I happen to be an expert on the Tahirih Justice Center but who doesn't have the time to waste on Wikipedia arguing with an obdurate webmaster who thinks the article belongs to him because he got it somehow "peer reviewed". Ubercryxic, in addition, has been reverting small changes that a lawyer tried to make to make things more accurate. Ubercryxic practices complete reversion and doesn't try to work with anyone. Please end the problem by at least taking the change someone else made recently and finding a compromise so at least part of the small change can hold.84.56.10.252 12:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
---------------------------------------
VeteransAbroad
« Reply #7 on: February 06, 2007, 11:39:37 AM »
And the dishonest Wikipedia moderator called Kirill said "I don't care if he is the son of a Tahirih fundraiser, you cannot accuse him of this on Wikipedia".
Of course, Layli Miller-Muro of the Tahirih Justice Center would never do anything to prevent one-sidedness anywhere would she?
The willingness of American males to bend over backwards for "women's organizations" is being documented in this IMBRA fight.
I will have such a thick book to publish on this bad joke called "IMBRA and the Demasculinization of the American Male" that my problem will be trying to cut great material out of it.
This from the Online Dating Rights Forum:
Vatican Radio broadcasts shocking lies about men
« on: January 26, 2007, 06:38:33 PM »
UPDATE: LINK TO BROADCAST TAKEN DOWN THEN PUT BACK UP!
Susie Hodges and editor Charles Collins of Vatican Radio broadcasts shocking lies about men who romance foreign women. Their reports claims that these man subject their wives to "brutal violence", most of whom are "serial rapists".
http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=114630
scroll ahead to minute 17 to hear this feature
Hodges got all of her information from Sen. Sam Brownback, Miller of Tahirih and her sleazy lawyer Ross Goldstein of Arnold and Porter. She did no fact checking of anything. Thus, she reports that a number of lawsuits challenged IMBRA (there were two) and that one in Ohio was defeated (it was withdrawn by the plaintiff). She says that IMBRA was passed with wide bi-partisan support when the law was passed on a voice vote hidden behind another bill and no one knew about the law except for four Congressional sponsors.
She records Miller stating that many of the men who do this are serial rapists, that the law is narrowly tailored and that the women are often tortured, subjected to violent sexual fantasies and murdered.
Goldstein talks about one case where a famous Ukrainian green card shark was brutally raped and strangled (so he claims) and suggesting that this is what happens to many foreign women who marry American men.
I sent Vatican Radio a long letter detailing their horrific (Miller's favorite adjective to describe how we treat our wives) false reporting and I demanded equal time.
Vatican Radio is a propaganda machine spewing completely false facts and hate against Catholic and other men who seek foreign wives.
NEW UPDATES: Veteran spoke to reporter Suzie Hodges who hung up the phone on him after insisting that women need more protection.
Editor Charles Collins wrote Dave Root a letter stating that:
"Having taken a close look at the report causing your concern, we have to disagree it was unbalanced."
"...I can assure you that we are certainly not biased in any way."
So Charles Collins thinks that if there are two lawsuits against IMBRA, it is accurate to state that there are "a number of lawsuits". If one lawsuit was commenced by a group of mom and pop agency owners, Collins thinks it is accurate to state that "a number of lawsuits were commenced by consortiums of industry groups". Even though there has never been any arrest/conviction or admission by anyone that a single man who married a foreign woman is a serial rapist, Collins thinks it is balanced to report that many men who marry foreign women are "serial rapists".
How do guys like this get to keep their jobs? Could it be that the entire management of Vatican Radio is corrupt?
has against the family is rape. According to this post at Carnival of Reaction:
It is important to understand why rape hysteria is so powerful so that we can protect ourselves against it. Arguing against the latest made-up-on-the-spot statistics will not do the trick because the feminists have no interest in truth (or in protecting women from rape for that matter). What matters to them is power and public funding.
Rape gives them this.
Just as women are hard wired by nature to protect children, men are hard wired to protect women. In particular we are compelled to protect women against rape.
Why does rape have this special power over us, as opposed to (for example) road traffic accidents?
We never see feminists protesting that women may crash their cars and yet this is a far more realistic threat. Three thousand people die each year in the UK from traffic accidents and far more are injured.
Yet where are the feminists demanding protection from cars?
The fact is that rape is a uniquely powerful way to get men to act against their own interest. Almost every war in the history of the world was fought because men could be persuaded that some other group of men wanted to rape their women. The authorities never believed this of course- their motives were the usual mix or greed and cant. Nevertheless it is always possible to get men to fight other men by crying rape.
Why is this?
To answer this we must look to our old friend evolutionary psychology.
The most frightening thing facing any man from an evolutionary perspective is not the death of his mate or even of his children. These are terrible disasters and yet it is still possible for a man to reproduce with other women. From an evolutionary perspective he is still in with a chance.
The worst thing that could befall him is that he might spend his time raising a child that is not his own. This (from an evolutionary perspective) is worse than the death of his wife!
We sometimes hear rape called "a fate worse than death." On an individual basis this is absurd, but from the viewpoint of evolutionary psychology it makes perfect sense- but only from the husbands side!
The feminists know by some strange instinct that a man is more bothered by the idea that his woman may be raped than he is by her death. They have no idea why but recognise it as a weakness to be exploited. This is why they continue to invent fantastic tales about rape- it works better than other stories.
Rape is also a good tool for the authorities to get individual men to surrender their liberties. If men are willing to die as volunteers on the Somme to protect women from rape, then he will surely be willing to accept unfavourable laws on the same pretext.
On the individual level a man can be reduced to a sort of nodding dog for feminism. All they need to do is convince him he is part rapist, or that his fellow men are part rapists. He then becomes easy to control. He may become self hating or so distrustful of his fellow man that he will only follow women. In either event, he becomes a shadow of his former self.
Understanding the reason feminists and governments obsess about some minor threats and ignore other, much more real ones will help you to gain perspective on what is really going on.
There is very little terrorism and very little rape- yet the state runs huge scare campaigns on both subjects.
Surprise, surprise! The state wants more power to protect us from these very threats!!
Meanwhile heart disease and cancer continue to kill millions. The state says nothing because there is no power to be gained by doing so.
N.B There will always be a few real cases behind every scare- they should be treated seriously but the brain should remain switched on at all times.
Just ask yourself who is profiting from the panic.
From: Carnival of Reaction
Feminism For Male College Students - (A good primer for anybody new to anti-feminism really.)
http://www.angryharry.com/notefeminismforstudents.htm
The Benefits of Feminism
http://www.angryharry.com/nobenefitsoffeminism.htm
One of the hardest working MRM's in the business besides Angry Harry, and Christianj of What Men Are Saying About Women. He only blogs every once in a while now a days but is a regular on several forums you can check out his blog at the address below:
Khan Krum The Bulgar
http://my.opera.com/khankrumthebulgar/blog/
Is what one commenter writes about at What Men Are Saying About Women:
Curiepoint writes:
Women wouldn't wake up if you set off a cherry bomb on the night stand next to her head. Not in any statistically significant numbers, anyway.
I know lots of women through my professional life as well as personal, and I can tell you that in thirty years of freely associating with them, it amounts to a large number of women. Not one in all that time has ever shown herself to be anything other than engorged on entitlement attitude. If that attitude resulted in weight gain, they would be as round as ticks on a coon-dog, and twice as parasitic.
The blood that they fed upon would come from men, because we are the ones who pay for it.
Before anyone accuses me of being misogynist or bigoted, let me just say that I pray fervently every day that I am shown to be wrong. I would gladly eat my words while immersed in pig shit up to my nostrils if I could be convinced that I am wrong. Hell, turn it into a reality mini-series: Curiepoint In Shit.
I know that it will not happen though. The collective Chip-On-Her-Shoulder has taken permanent and debilitating root. Isolated incidents of sensibility and equity from women does happen, and for this I can say that I am grateful. But, this attitude is rare and very fragile. If it can be kept alive, it just might ripple down through the cadre of women. Personally, I think this is roughly akin to trying to grow roses in the dead of winter, but hey...anything is possible, I guess.
It won't happen in my lifetime because the entitled victim class found it's advent in my generation and is only now grown to full and furious height. Marriages are on steep decline, divorce is way up, and there are whole websites devoted to the proposition of helping wives and girlfriends cheat on their partners without a shred of guilt. You won't find a lot of sites out there that offer the same to men.
It's time to close up ranks, guys. Muffin over there may be as adorable as a baby raccoon wearing diapers, and she may be as sweet as honey on a Moonpie, but it will not endure a lifetime.
The only allies we have are ourselves, and those that earn our trust by deeds. Never base your trust upon what anyone says; base it upon what they do.
This from Women are Sexist:
White women. White women are the standard of beauty in the west. They grace most magazine covers, movies, and TV shows. But IMO, they are the most neurotic of all the races. They have a princess complex, feel exceedingly entitled to everything, believe the feminist lies, and arent giving or willing to sacrifice for their man. Personally, I think it is the romance movies and novels that ruin white women. They honestly expect everything to come to them without having to work for it. They are looking for that white Knight in Shining Armor.
In their youth they will ignore the decent men (men with manners who are actually concerned about their economic future). Instead they will go for the bad boys, fratboys, jocks, rich kids, or the tall guys (taller than say 6 ft). But lets suppose they are actually interested in you. They dont know how to send direct signals most of the time. They expect you to get it through osmosis. They will send quick glances from across the room, and then expect you to get the hint. That might be sufficient, if they werent such attention whores. A recent study in England showed that 65% of women there would rather be strippers or a magazine model rather than teacher, engineer or any other traditional job. I know what you're saying. How can you compare England to the US. Let me answer with this. Do you honestly believe that the USA is less degenerate than England? Just look at the trend of obesity rates and you will see that England is still behind us. Back on topic. There are white women specifically who will stare at you and smile from across a lecture hall for hours. There are women who will smile out of nowhere as they are walking by. There are women who will come up to you everyday and rub your arm and say "Hi, Ty!" But guess what they say when you approach them? "Oh sorry, I have a BF."
This is proof of a few things.
1. They are attention whores. They know that prolonged eye contact will prompt most men to approach them.
2. They have no consideration for how difficult it is for some men to approach women. There is some anxiety involved for most of us, and a woman jerking our stick makes it more likely for us to stop approaching women altogether. Because...how can you tell which ones are attention whores and which ones arent?
3. No consideration for the damage it does to male-female relations. As mentioned in number
2, it will make men less likely to approach, which makes it harder for strangers to meet. Studies show that 70% of people meet through friendship (I assume this also includes the proximity of work and dormitories). The other 30% probably meet while in some intoxicated state.
I want to note a difference between the German women I met and an American woman. When I was in Germany I had to return a rental car and then go back to the place where I was staying. The girl that I was currently "dating" volunteered to drive to the airport to meet me, drive me where I had to go, then drive back to her place. All this was more than 100 miles for her. All this because she felt that I needed a 'good woman in my life'. Contrast that with an American girl who LIKED me. I had missed class one day and I asked her to photocopy the notes. She said yes but she never did it. She proceeded to ignore me every class after that until right before the spring semester was about to end (I assume she wanted a summer BF), then she started paying attention to me again, but I ignored her. This girl would walk 4 miles out of her way because she felt she ate too much food. But she was only around 4'11'' and 90lbs. I could have tossed her with one arm. Why does any of this matter? Relationships are about sacrifice on some level.
Black women. I will make the most ignorant, generalized statement I can regarding black women - JUST STAY AWAY! By far, these are the most man-hating (misandrist) women on the planet. Their attitudes are definitely intolerable. Unless you are an Eminem type, you dont want to deal with the attitude that eminates from the average black woman.
(Note: That's not an ignorant statement. For more information please see Diary of A Tired Blackman and Love Prescription: Ending the War Between Black Men and Women)
Here's a test. Talk to 30 black women. I bet at least 25 of them will have horrible attitudes. They think it is their right to add their 2 cents to your conversation, although they dont know you. They will embarass you in front of your friends or the girl you are with. What recourse do you have because she's a woman? And she knows this. She knows the reason she can get away with such horrible attitude is because she's a woman, and there's nothing a man can do about it. Thats not to say that these women are polite to white or latin women.
(Note: Sadly, all of the above is true..)
If you want to live long, you must keep the amount of stress in your life to a minimum. Black women will take great pleasure in aggravating you. In comparison, white women are easy to deal with, despite being neurotic.
Personal story, and this is just one example. I was sitting in a diner with a young lady once. I had my back to a group of black women. There was some commotion behind me. The girl I was with started to giggle. So I turned around to look. (who wouldnt look?) This beautiful black girl behind me says "Turn your head around, motherf-cker!" It was that experience, along with about 20 more experiences just like it, which made me realize that the common factors were me and black women. White, latina, and Asian women never treated me that way.
Latinas. By far these are the best kind of women. I believe this is because the family is still ruled by the patriarch, who most likely came to the USA with only a few dollars in his pocket (at least isnt that how the story always goes?) They will give direct signals as to when they want you to approach. They will smile when they are interested. They will make direct eye contact without looking down or away like a shy robot. They do appreciate a man who takes charage, and, in my experience, they will offer to pay and they will pay their half of the bill. This is not to say that they cant Americanize. I find some Puerto Rican women to be very shrewd. But on average, I'd have to say that latinas are more family oriented than any other kind.
I still wouldnt marry one if she grew up in the USA though. But seriously date them? Definitely! White and black women can kiss it where the sun doesnt shine! And no, Im not latino.
I havent had extended contact with Asians because they seem to only run in cliques. The few I knew who had accents did seem wonderful. The others who were American born seemed no different from the white women, except for appearance of course. The same is true for the Indo-Pakis.
Just found the archives of 16 Volts (Hat Tip: Pete Patriarch) For those of you that have forgotten 16 Volts (orginally located here: http://sixteenvolts.blogspot.com) was the blog of Ilkka Kokkarinen who worked at a university in Canada. Unfortunately, a student complained about the blog and it was deleted under pressure from his bosses.. However someone archived the blog and most of it is still on the web.
Archives of 16 Volts
http://www.math.ucsd.edu/~7Echc007/ilkka.html
Update:
It seems as though the link above *might not work.*
Try it. If it doesn't then please use the link below:
http://tinyurl.com/2hp7wg
This courtesy of the Internet Archives it's a page from the now defunct Chauvinist Corner:
Originally posted at:
http://members.aol.com/al31415926/notfem.html
"I'm Not a Feminist. But..."
Women have written those words to me over and over again. This is probably the single most visible indication of the effectiveness of the feminist movement! Women today desire all the things the feminists started out originally to achieve, and yet mentally do a disconnect and say that they are not feminists. Many polls have shown this to be true. Women do not even remember what feminism actually is.
Feminists were burning their bras back in the 1960's to demonstrate that they were no longer going be sex objects. Now, that was an interesting start to this whole mess, since men were suddenly totally focused on the newly freed portion of the women's movement. If anything, a braless woman was more of a sex object than she was before burning the abhorred device, but feminists have never been accused of being overly logical.
As the movement got off to such a clumsy (dare I say bumpy?) start, the feminists started yelling at the top of their political voices that they wanted equality. They wanted to get the same pay for doing the same job. Today they have that. (Anytime that a woman does the exact same job as a man, she gets the exact same pay for it.) The women who claim that they are not feminists still demand that same equality in pay, but somehow have the capacity to disavow any connection with the original authors of that demand.
If a woman today can put in the same number of hours, perform the same tasks and be as dedicated to her job as the workaholic male she is competing with, she will reach the same heights that he will. The self-proclaimed non-feminist women are in support of that, and at the same time try to distance themselves from the movement which put women in that position.
Like the Cowardly Lion, these women have been dragged into the presence of the Wizard, and are now happy to be there. Yet, unlike that lion, they are disavowing any attachment to those responsible for their perceived good fortune. Hypocrisy is the only word that can rightly describe the attitude of women who love the feminist ideal of equality but claim that they are not feminists!
Here's the funniest part. Most of these women who have written to me have self-righteously lambasted both sides, and then they proceeded to promote every one of the feminist's goals. Come clean. 'Fess up. If you think that men and women are equal in role, you are a feminist and there is no use in denying it. Quit pretending to be on the fence, like you are better than the feminists and the traditionalists. You are lying to yourself and the world. Quit it already!
If you are not a feminist, then stand up against it! Support programs in schools which differentiate between the sexes. Make sure that girls graduate from high school with the homemaker skills that they need. Home economics should be a big part of most girls schooling. Support classes in school which teach boys the manly art of how to head up a household. Promote the family in a positive way by insuring that your children are not programmed into being little feminist clones as they are today. If that concept sticks in your craw, if you feel that you cannot support such a sexist effort, then you need to buff up your honesty to the point where you can clearly admit that you are a feminist and stop spreading the lie that you are not!
From Masculinisme:
The most destructive faction of the left has been the gender feminists. Harvard Professor Ruth Wisse has written: "Women's liberation, if not the most extreme then certainly the most
influential neo-Marxist movement in America, has done to the American
home what communism did to the Russian economy, and most of the ruin
is irreversible. By defining relations between men and women in terms
of power and competition instead of reciprocity and cooperation, the movement tore apart the most basic and fragile contract in human society, the unit from which all other social institutions draw their strength."
Even more link bait. This time a site from Switzerland:
Männerzeitung
http://www.maennerzeitung.ch/
As many of you who visit MRM blog's know Fred X decided to close his blog. However, the MGTOW forums has his feeds archived. So I am now about to bring you some classic Fred X on being polite:
One thing that needs to be addressed is the fact that some MRA's are worried that if we are 'crude' or outspoken, then we will only hinder ourselves.
As long time readers will know- I 100% REJECT that notion.
This is reinforced in my piece Being "Polite Won't Get You Anywhere." (link removed.)
I really hate having to labour this point on Politeness- but I feel it needs addressing (again) because some MRA's are stuck with the false belief that we must toe-the-line.
No ! I say.
No !!
We will gather momentum whether our enemies like it or not.
And we are gaining it faster since more men have become pissed off.
And, looking around the new blogs emerging from everywhere lately, I am glad to see more men are getting vocal about their rights being taken away from them.
And I am also quite pleased that more and more men are passed caring about what others think.
And that, in my view, is the best way to be.
I want to draw upon a recent comment that was given by one of my readers, Oliver.
Note- this is not an attack on you Oliver- this is my response that I feel needs to be addressed in the open- in an effort to drill out any worries you, and a few others, have had in regards to the growing Men's Movement.
Oliver:
Sure, its fine amongst us lads obviously. the problem I forsee though is that things like this will be held up as proof of our nastiness/childishness/whatever. And however deserved these insults, they will serve to legitimize to the more uninformed or weak willed readers the validity of the feminist's message.
All out attacks like this would be fine if we were as big, strong and entrenched as feminism. But we arent. Feminism is the offically accepted doctrine of western society. Anything that even vaguely verfies it, however subjective or anecdotal, is immediately percieved as rock solid proof. We on the other hand must provide at least 10 indisputable and objective facts for every 1 half baked quip of their's for our arguements to even be considered.
However unfair, we cannot use the same tactics as them; they are big, strong, and well funded. We are small, weak and right. This is just the nature of the war.
Oliver- I do see your point.
BUT
It doesn't matter about what we say- 'rude' or otherwise- because anything that is even slightly critical of feminism will be used and exaggerated upon anyway !
Also- like I said before- feminists have even called for the explicit beatings of men based on gender alone, and various other comments- some even mirroring our hated communism.
And these are all recorded and exist in various archives.
So men being pissed off is nothing compared to what they have said- and continue to say.
Also- on this very blog there are various facts scattered around- and a few swear words too.
And rather than hindering my messages- I feel they actually compliment them.
And my hits, comments and emails tell me this even !!
LOL
The more outspoken, assertive and forthright you are- the better !!
And the best thing we can all do is support each other on this.
And to never apologise for anything we say either.
And, most importantly, to never condemn a comrade for their outspokenness- for it will be that very method which will come to rule.
Also note- none of us are calling for women as a birth group to be 'beaten to a bloody pulp' like femcunts did.
Rather- we are calling feminists and self-entitled bitches out on their bullshit.
And the only thing 'radical' about this is the fact that some of us aren't polite about it.
Which is no bad thing !
No bad thing at all.
Further, there are 2 methods:
Working 'with' the system.
Or working 'against' it.
Working 'with' the system usually means conforming to their rules and achieving fuck all.
Working 'against' the system means you speak out, rally others together and demand changes to policy and law.
To finish: if we continue onwards, sparking reactions and reaching men's minds, we can only gain in power friend.
We can only gain in power.
And on that note- I want to address several pieces from other MRA's which touch on some of these themes and are ones I strongly agree with:
Angry Harry- Fathers Groups Miss the Big Picture
An Irishman Against Feminism- On Politeness
Male Rights Network- Working With/Against the System and Feminist Bloggers: I Don't Care What You Think
Men- it's important to make a stand.
And never apologise for it either.
Our freedom of speech and the right to condemn - in a crude manner or otherwise - is fundamental to activism.
by Fred X
That's just a little something for you to think about the next time some fem-o-nasty accuses you of being mean, crude or vulgar..
This is what Heretical Sex writes about in the following post I swiped from MGTOW Fourms:
Feminism operates double standards to such an extreme degree that it cannot possibly be an accident. Here are just a few of the most obvious cases:
Rape is perfectly acceptable to feminists as long as it only happens to men. The USA has the largest prison population in the world, and rape is endemic in the American prison system. (Reference) When was the last time you heard Women Against Rape condemning homosexual rape? I don't hear Rape Crisis Feminists making a sound. Feminists are not at all concerned about rape. They are only concerned about the rape of women.
Domestic violence is only a problem if men do it to women. The evidence shows that women initiate domestic violence at least as often as men do, if not more often (Reference), but it is not politically correct to point this out. If women abuse their male partners, or if same-sex couples abuse each other, it must not be admitted. Feminists are not at all concerned about domestic violence; they are only concerned about domestic violence by men against women.
The oldest profession is perfectly acceptable as long as men are doing it, whether they are serving either the male homosexual or female heterosexual communities. Feminists are not opposed to prostitution; they are only opposed to female prostitution.
Similarly, male strip-tease is not a target for feminist condemnation. It is either ignored by them, or passed off as a bit of harmless fun. I would agree, but for the fact that they vociferously condemn female strip-tease as exploitative. I don't mind women using the sex industry; it's the hypocrisy I can't stand.
Male porn stars are never represented by feminists as exploited victims, even though they do the same job, and get paid significantly less than the women. Pornography aimed at women and gay men is liberating; pornography aimed at straight men is degrading and exploitative.
Feminists concern themselves with representations of women. Look at representations of men. How positive are these? Particularly look at the way many feminists represent men. They are concerned about the so-called "objectification" of women, but look at how they objectify men. This must surely be one of the best examples of Feminist hypocrisy; their constant bleating about representations of women on the one hand, and their own scandalous representations of men on the other.
Let's consider military conflict. The Greenham Common-based women's peace movement argued that 'war is one of the bad things that men do to women'; it is an aspect of men's violent destructive nature and social irresponsibility. The solution is to 'take the toys away from the boys' (although Margaret Thatcher obviously didn't get the message). Yet at the same time, they demand that women be given access to all military jobs. In the US, DACOWITS lobbies the government to just this end.
What is the feminist analysis of war? Is war a good thing or a bad thing? Well, it seems to be a good thing when women do it, and a bad thing when men do it. How can this be explained?
The same argument applies to business. Corporate capitalism is a rapacious, exploitative practise which is destroying the world (Of course that doesn't mean you can't go shopping - support a woman's right to shoes!). But strangely enough, feminists ever bemoan the lack of women in top boardroom jobs. If capitalism is really destroying and exploiting, you would expect that feminists would want no part of it. Far from it, they demand more top-salaried corporate jobs for themselves. So is corporate capitalism a good thing or a bad thing? Well, just like war, it seems to be a bad thing when men do it, and a good thing when women do it.
Consider also:
This article comes to you by way of JJ's Garage it's about a man who was falsely accused of rape and spent 20 years in prison.
Rape conviction gone, stigma isn't
A few years ago, someone finally did. A new attorney took his case, and last month, after DNA evidence from the 1987 crime proved his innocence, Lyons' conviction was dismissed by DuPage County State's Atty. Joseph Birkett -- the same prosecutor who tried the case.
Lyons' exoneration is another illustration of the impact DNA technology has had on the criminal justice system, shedding new light on cold cases that often hinged on witness identifications.
But beyond the legal ramifications lies a deeper, more personal story of frustration and redemption, of the extreme measure one man took to vindicate his tarnished reputation and his bitter 20-year wait.
the article continues...
Lyons did his time without incident. But just two weeks after he was released early on parole, facing a future as a registered sex offender, he was frustrated. And desperate. Hoping to get the U.S. Navy to hear his plight, Lyons dressed in his reserves uniform, carried a cross on his back and tried to crucify himself outside the courthouse where he was tried and convicted.
The stunt, which cost Lyons a $100 fine for disturbing the peace and a week in an Elgin mental health facility, showed the depths to which the wrongfully convicted will go to clear their names, said Vanessa Potkin, a staff attorney at the Innocence Project, which investigates such potential cases.
After losing their freedom, Potkin said, they enter society devoid of things they once took for granted, such as relationships and possessions.
"All they have left is their word," she said.
The article is two pages long and a good one, so please go read the whole thing..
Again from JJ's Garage:
If you follow men's issues, you know that Title IX was supposed to end inequalities in academic sports programs between men and women, but over the years, it has grown more into a multi-purpose tool used to discriminate against men and their programs in unforeseen ways. Now, a male high school football coach is entering the controversy by claiming a female athletic director and school principal has violated his civil rights, and violated the Title IX act by claiming the female athletic director showed disproportionate favoritism towards the girl's basketball team over the boy's team. Some of the charges are as follows:
- The male principle claimed he was not following his "contractual agreement" and therefore, made the decision to fire him. This in spite of the coach creating a basketball program that now ranks as the best boys high school basketball team in the state of Illinois, is ranked 22nd nationally, and has compiled a record of 108-23 in his first four years as coach. - Fueling his gender favoritism claim is the fact that his he was replaced by the school's female basketball head coach. - The girl's team was allowed to ride in coach buses to games while the boys had to ride in substandard buses. - The boys were denied use of the gym facilities in favor of the girls.
- School sponsored scholarships were awarded only to female athletes. Sadly, as you read the articles, you will find that nobody seems to really care if the boys were discriminated against. Not the principal, the Chicago Public School management, nor the Chicago Teachers Union. They all are copping out on the issue. Ask yourself, if the genders were reversed, do you think all these same people would openly ignore the situation? "Boys vs. girls" "Bryant is pressing issue to court: Dismissed basketball coach files lawsuit against Marshall"
It gets even worse. I have an old article from National Review on how Title Nine is killing men's sports at historically African-American college Howard University. I will try to post it in the near future.
This is a site I've stumbled upon 2 times while doing my research and have lost it both times...
Now I bring you JJ's Garage:
http://www.jjgarage.com
Here's something from his October 2007 archives:
Oprah Winfrey produced a program about Clara Harris, the wife who killed her husband by running him over multiple times with her car while their daughter was sitting in the front seat. This video comes from her website, and is located in the After the Show section. These segments are recorded after the actual show is finished, and involves Oprah discussing the day's show with the audience. Here is what I found so disturbing:
1. While I didn't actually see the main show on Clara Harris, it is obvious that Oprah is sympathetic with her. Oprah recently gave airtime to female husband killer Mary Winkler. It appears the Oprah show has become a showcase for diminishing and excusing female-on-male violence. Don't believe me? Read on.
2. She discusses with a woman in the audience the actions she took when she found out her husband was cheating on her. The woman took a baseball bat and violently attacked his car while he was still in it. But it's the reaction of the audiences that's even more disturbing - they loudly cheer in approval!
3. The next few minutes consist of an overwhelming distinction of compassion and understanding for all women who have found themselves cheated upon, including compassion and understanding for their sudden sense of rage towards the man who did this to them. Question: When was the last time Oprah invited men on her show that were betrayed by women and these men were offered prodigious amounts of compassion and understanding even though they vented their anger towards the women in some unacceptable manner? It hasn't happened, and never will.
4. Towards the end of the video, Oprah tells her all female audience that they are excused from a domestic violence situation perpetrated upon a man, one time only, as long as it is done when they are young!
Here is a copy of the video he is talking about in the article.
Here's another article from his Nov. 2007 archives:
* 06-Nov-2007 05:16 PM --> Yesterday I wrote about how I feel women are just as guilty for their own degradation and over sexualization. I explained how women try to place shame, guilt, and blame on men for their objectification of women, but avoid accountability for their own behavior by labeling their objectifications of women as benevolent actions. I found this article today that fits the patterns I discussed previously.
A group of women in Ohio called the "Titty Committee" walked around topless to protest society's sexism and double standards against women. The group was cited for disorderly conduct, but chose to fight the charges. The case wound up in the Ohio Supreme Court. The women fought the charges on the premise of inequality, demanding the same treatment as men who are allowed to go topless in public, and the right to free speech. They lost. Again, when women objectify themselves, it is for a greater good. When men use the same behavior and tactics, it's considered degrading.
"Ruling: Woman's topless protest not protected by First Amendment" Note: After yesterday's article, I received emails reminding me about women's magazines objectifying women, and emphasizing that they are run by women, how female porn viewers on the net are growing, and how female entertainers use female over-sexualization to sell their CD's and nobody is going after them.
He has some very good post. So go check him out..
Another link. This time it's a site that deals with one false rape case in particular:
This website has been created by a concerned mother to increase awareness that women often make false rape charges, destroy the lives and reputations of innocent men, while the false accusers face no repercussions.
Falase Rape
http://www.falserape.net/index.html
Wow. They're popping up everywhere..
Dschinblog - German Anti-Feminist Blog
http://dschindschin.blogspot.com
This blog is in German only. If you look at his links (on the left hand side) you'll also see more anti-feminist links.
Another oldie but goodie that's been on the net a number of years called Critiques of Feminism run by a german anti-feminist. Please note that the site is in English so there's no need for a translation tool.
Jan Deichmohle - Critiques Of Feminism
http://www.gabnet.com/lit/demoh15e.htm
I just wanted to give those of you out there in the audience who keep up on world news a heads up on something that happend earlier last month that maybe of interest.
European leaders signed the Treaty of Lisbon on Dec 13, 2007. (Be careful when researching this one becuase there was also a Treaty of Lisbon in the late 1600s.)
You can read the full text of the treaty here at Wikisource.
You can read some more news and analysis at Brussels Journal and at the Economist.
Ps. You can also read more news about the treaty at Wikipedia.
Update:
Wikisource has changed the links on me.
Here is a pdf file they say contains the full text of the treaty.
Here is the page that hey are asking people to use when they refrence Wikisource.
This from Counter-Feminist:
This is true of almost any so-called establishment. We delude ourselves if we believe that the stakeholders in any major power structure will be talked out of their advantages by sweet reason alone. That is not how the world works. The two sides do not gather in a clean, well-lighted debating chamber and air their views in turn, until one side or the other says "yes, you have convinced me of the truth of your position, and from henceforth I will embrace your opinion as my own and rearrange my entire life according to what it requires of me." No, only simpletons believe the world works that way. The actual truth of life is a deal more tricky and treacherous.
And the feminists are like any other established group entrenched in its power. They will not come out voluntarily. They must be smoked out, or drawn out by a ruse. Whatever it takes.
This is a very interesting read. Click here to see the rest of the article.
Update:
Another reason why you WILL NOT be able to argue with a feminist is because SHE HATES YOU.
I found this nice post while browsing the Men's Rights Blogs Feeds by Male Samizdat (link):
First of all, young man (and all you other men who don't get it yet)...get this into your head....
Feminists hate men.
Log it. Memorize it. Live accordingly.
You cannot have a healthy, happy, pleasant relationship with a feminist. It simply cannot exist.
Because she hates you.
So...why do feminists hate men?
Feminism is built on the following "argument":
* All men live privileged lives at the expense of women (alternatively: all men are oppressors).
* Women are equal to men.
* Therefore, women should be allowed to live privileged lives at the expense of men.
Feminists are doomed to be frustrated because the assertion "women are equal to men" is patently false, and yet they keep pursuing it - futilely! The impossibility of their assertion, no matter how they try to live it, inspires first frustration, then hatred, because of the first premise. They believe they can never achieve the "privileges" of men because they cannot be men, no matter how hard they try - and because of premise #1, they will blame men.
(N.B.: Despite this, the feminists managed to attain their conclusion - living privileged lives at the expense of men!)
Since the feminist has, in her view, an unattainable goal, she will push for ever-increasing persecution of men.
* VAWA
* draconian child support payment enforecement without corresponding enforcement of visitation
* excessive alimony based on imputed income and anticipated future windfalls
* presumption of guilt in sexual assault cases
The list could go on and on.
So, the moral of the lesson is, do not argue with these women - do not even try. Just avoid them. Feminists are bad for you, and they are bad for society. Let them have their world - you, young man, just need to find a way to become part of the "ghost nation", in which feminists and their metrosexual enablers do not exist, and are not welcome.
Why? Because feminists hate you - and marrying someone who hates you means that you'll be handed a divorce by someone who hates you.
I'm taking a small deviation from my current posting pattern to let you know that I found an old video that was posted at YouTube. (Hat tip: Counter Feminism)
Bull Busters Video
http://www.archive.org/details/Bull.Busters.Violent.Women
This video caused a major buzz when it was orgianlly relased on YouTube several months back and got over 40,000 hits a day. It's now back up at the Internet Archives. So if you haven't seen it before you can see it now. You can also download this video to your hard drive and share it with others.
Here's an older email message from last month from Marc Rudov's No Nonsense Newsletter:
From: "Marc Rudov"
Subject: Misandry on Fox News
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 12:14:35 -0500
If you didn't see my debate yesterday with Lis Wiehl,
I've posted a link to it on my homepage. You absolutely
MUST watch it.
Also, the poll at FoxFan.com isn't functional.
Instead, please vote and convey your thoughts by
sending an e-mail to cavuto@foxnews.com.
When you hear Terry Keenan and Lis Wiehl laughing as
I made my points, they are not laughing at the TV
commercials. They are laughing at men. They think men
are a joke. They think my complaints about misandry
are a joke. Why do they think this? Because men have
done NOTHING to fight back for so long that misandry
is now socially acceptable.
If you are one who keeps his mouth shut around women,
you are at fault. You are part of the problem.
I received more e-mails, on this debate, than ever.
They came from as far away as Austria. Most of them
came from WOMEN. They are tired of seeing men take
crap from women. They want men to grow a pair of
balls.
I was amazed at how many women are angry with Lis
Wiehl and Terry Keenan for their condescension and derision.
Women are tired of watching their sons and grandsons
(yes, I heard from grandmothers, too) grow up to be
pussies. One woman told me her husband has morphed
into a pussy, and she is dying for another man to be
a real man to her.
I keep telling you that manhood, not money, arouses
women. But, some of you don't believe me. Well, the
women are praising ME for having the balls to say
what other men won't or can't. They admire ME for
standing up to man-haters.
If YOU stand up to women, you'll change your life.
It's that simple.
So, please watch the video, and please write to
Neil Cavuto at the e-mail address above.
Ciao,
Marc (Rudov)
Here's the link to his multimedia page where you can probably find the video he speaks of in the newsletter.
I'm stealing yet another post. This time the post comes from Combat Misandry who tells us that women have double standards when it comes to men and porn:
DOUBLE STANDARDS: PORN AND BACHELORETTE PARTIES
The radical feminists preach that porn hurts women.
Consider this vile hysterical reaction of a woman who said she would
consider aborting her own son if she knew he would,
heaven forbid, masturbate to porn as a teenager.
-----------------------
". . . I understand why a woman might say that if she
had known her son would use pornography, she might
have thought twice before going through with her
pregnancy . . . . Yes, I do. Because pornography hurts
women, and as women, we are under no obligation to
participate in any way in what harms us and other
women."
----------------------------
Of course, only men use and traffic in porn, isn't
that correct? That's the unmistakeable impression one
gets from reading the radical feminist blogs.
The fact is, if you want to see raunch, look at the
pictures that are strewn across the internet of
bachelorette parties thrown by young women for young
women who have, presumably, made a promise to marry
some man. These affairs often contain "penis" imagery
that is as far from the art of Michelangelo's David as
one could imagine. They serve up penis cakes, some
despicintg erect members, and some with icing that is
supposed to simulate ejaculate. They have penis party
favors. They play cards with naked men cards, and leer
at Playgirl magazines.
Of course, this is entirely different because it's in
the spirit of fun (and men looking at naked female
bodies is not fun, it's work?). And the feminists
claim that women are not "objectifying" men (no? A
woman is marrying a man, and the imagery strewn about
these parties is common to all men, but somehow that's
not objectifying?). Female porn subjugates and
oppresses women, they claim. But it's somehow OK for
women to have naked men playing cards with pictures of
erect guys; it's OK for them to whistle and scream in
daytime talk show audiences when a man takes his shirt
off. Ask any young woman what she wants in a man and
one of the things will be "good looking." All of that
is OK.
Let's be honest. It's different for men because men
get sexually aroused at the sight of a beautiful
woman. Sorry, ladies, that's a fact. It makes women
uncomfortable. Without the male sex drive they
considered so vile, there'd be few children. Too bad
feminists find us so disgusting.
 |
 |
 |
