Tuesday, 21 October 2014

Domestic violence awareness

From http://fucknointernetignorance.tumblr.com/post/100564966486/hagakura-considering-the-lack-of-resources-for


Considering the lack of resources for men and the abuse they get in even trying to use those resources, I’m all for raising awareness.

But the image text isn’t entirely accurate.

I’m assuming the 70% statistic comes from this - which says 50.3% of violence is nonreciprocal, and of that half, women are predominantly the aggressors (70.7%).

As for the actual percentage of victims, no one knows what it precisely is - only that there isn’t a significant gender gap when it comes to who’s the abuser and who’s the victim. Over 500 studies show it’s about 50/50. [1] [2] [3]
To dig a bit more into these statistics, because this is something I enjoy doing and it’s also an interesting way to examine how social expectations contrast with what actually plays out in reality, using the numbers above we can extrapolate that;

If 50.3% of domestic violence is nonreciprocal, and

70.7% of that shows women as the predominant aggressors, then

29.3% of nonreciprocal violence shows men as the predominant aggressors

49.7% of domestic violence is reciprocal.

And so the total ratio of violence is

Men are violent in 64.4379% of all domestic violence

Women are violent in 85.2621% of all domestic violence

Of course, the numbers don’t actually say anything with regards to instigation for just under half of the cases (the 49.7% reciprocal, that is), so we can’t really draw any conclusive ideas about “Who started it”. We can see, however, that in terms of domestic violence, women show slightly over 20% more likelihood of having been violent during a dispute than men. This really doesn’t add up with cultural expectations, especially ones such as those underpinning the Duluth Model.

Interestingly, the study also showed that “in relationships with reciprocal violence it was the men who were injured more often (25 percent of the time) than were women (20 percent of the time)”.


Friday, 17 October 2014

How to manufacture a 'wage gap'

From fraudulentfeminist:
Made an info graph today..


And in case you’re wondering what evidence we have that the wage gap is an inaccurate myth made up to portray “sexism” or “discrimination” in society:
Here is a comprehensive look at the falsehood of the wage gap, prepared for the government specifically, 95 pages. Enjoy


Here are some by women



US Department of Labor



The Gender Pay Gap is a Complete Myth


Gender pay gap is not what activists claim


Equal pay statistics are bogus because they don’t compare like with like


Fair Pay Isn’t Always Equal Pay


The Wage Gap Myth


Don’t Blame Discrimination for Gender Wage Gap


The pay inequality myth: Women are more equal than you think


Women Now a Majority in American Workplaces


Labor force participation rate for men has never been lower.


Share of Men in Labor Force at All-Time Low


Women In Tech Make More Money And Land Better Jobs Than Men


Female U.S. corporate directors out-earn men: study


Female CEOs outearned men in 2009.


Women between ages 21 and 30 working full-time made 117% of men’s wages.


According to the U.S. Census Bureau, single women between 22 and 30 years old earn an average of $27,000 a year. That’s 8% more than comparable men.


Workplace Salaries: At Last, Women on Top


Young Women’s Pay Exceeds Male Peers


The 15 Jobs Where Women Earn More Than Men


women aged between 22 and 29 earn over £10 per hour on average, compared to men their same age who earn just under this amount.


Young women now earn more than men in UK


Tuesday, 14 October 2014

ABC Radio National and Gamergate

Was listening to the ABC Radio National. Waleed Aly started off with the SJW stuff, promoting Sarkeesian and claiming that the people critical of her were the hated white men, , the so-called ‘gamers’,who must be swept away for the birth of the Utopia.

He called her a journalist, and I felt like vomiting.

Good grief! When did Anita Sarkeesian, a known thief and liar, become promoted to ‘journalist’? The piece on #GamerGate was purest propaganda.

1) The way they figured women were the majority of gamers was by including any sort of game, played for any duration. This is absurd. You don’t refer to someone who walked up a hill as a mountain climber. Playing facebook games doesn’t count as ‘gaming’.

2) This is the sort of report a genuine journalist does. http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2014/10/13/what-is-gamergate-and-how-did-it-blow-up-into-such-a-giant-conspiracy/ http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/gamergate

I think it is terribly sad that the ABC has become just a propaganda site for the Social Justice Warriors. The LNP claims it is hopelessly biased… and I’d have to say I absolutely agree.

Sydney University board blocks men’s society

People ask why MRAs don't DO more. The answer is because Feminism blocks us at every turn, using whatever gov't apparatus they can find to stifle our voice.

BROSoc’s constitution states that the society’s main aim is to provide a safe space for men on campus and address mental health issues specific to men, through the establishment of a Men’s Shed.

The Men’s Shed is a not for profit mental health program for men and boys that has been broadly successful since it was founded in 2007.

At the monthly Board meeting, Queer Portfolio holder and USU Board Director Liam Carrigan argued that allowing the formation of BROSoc could cause “significant damage” to the queer community, especially amongst trans and genderqueer members.
Yes, simply letting us speak would harm those people. Feminists are certain.

No, they don't need trans or gay people to speak up; they'll do it for them.

No, it doesn't matter that some of our members ARE  trans or gay - they are wrong, and Feminists will stop them from saying anything because it knows what is best for them.

Only Feminists can be allowed free speech - it's the only way to keep it pure.

Saturday, 4 October 2014

Is Zoe Quinn a murderer? Or just a pathological liar?

Alright, story time. I've been basically silent on this issue, I am not sure my contributions are relevant, and I have feared being ostracized and ridiculed. I can accept the latter, but I really hate to waste people's time.

In 2007 I lived in New Hampshire, and was working as a photographer with a number of soft core "alt" erotica / porn sites. I traveled frequently to work with models affiliated with the websites I was affiliated with. A model working under the name Locke Valentine - this is the woman currently known as Zoe Quinn - modeled for two websites I was affiliated with - she as a model, I as a photographer. One of those websites is still in business, the other - unfortunately the one we communicated via - is no more.

Locke / Zoe was living in Albany, NY at the time. We expressed a desire to collaborate, and set a date for three photoshoots.

In fall of 2007 (according to my EXIF data 10/25/2007) I packed up my equipment and drove the 220 miles to Albany, for a weekend of work with Zoe.

By time I arrived in Albany, Zoe had cancelled one of the three shoots we had planned. She lived in a tiny apartment with her boyfriend / spouse / lover (I did not ask personal questions) and her roommate. I had been assured I could over night with them, and that they had room to accommodate a guest, and room to shoot in. They had neither. We ended up doing an impromptu shoot in the extremely crowded apartment, in the middle of the night, to try to save the shoot. I was not proud of it, but I knew with a bit of editing, it had potential.

While we tried to plan a shoot for the next day Zoe, and Co. chatted with me. She claimed to have stabbed a man - attempted rapist - in the face, who had grabbed her.

She relayed to me no less than three other accounts of alleged violent assault. I will not share the details here, I feel that would be fundamentally indecent. I was alarmed at this, and I admit, by the time she made the claim that she stabbed a man in the face with a knife* and ran away, I was skeptical as well.

Two claims involved alleged workplace incidents, and were her prime explanation for why she could not hold a job. I was mildly disconcerted, because true or false, these stories have good cause to make one uneasy. She also claimed to have reported nothing to police, or management at her work.

That was not all we discussed, we talked about modeling, the websites, and erotica/porn in general. It was what we both did for a living, and candid conversation on the subject was not unusual.

The next day I had to drive everyone to the location of our shoot, which was her roommate's place of employment. An arcade. This is the location where the photo shown here was taken. I was irritated that after driving 220 miles, and having to carry all my equipment to a shoot, I was also deliberately given the false impression that Zoe, and Co. would have their own transport. I was also irritated that Zoe could provide neither her own wardrobe for the shoot - it is normal for the model to use her personal items in these sorts of shoots - nor her own food while on site.

Keep in mind, we both are paid by a site, once the photos are sold, everything I spent came out of my own pocket. Otherwise the shoot was unremarkable, it went far better than the one the night before, and we all had a basically good time.

We tried for some more photos that afternoon in a forested area Zoe directed me to, but we had neither enough light, or privacy to shoot anything substantial or of value.

I returned home, spent countless hours editing hundreds of photos. It was a terrible experience, but so be it.

When I was ready to send the photos off to Deviant Nation - the site we worked for - I wrote to her to let her know. It was only a few days, a week at most, since I had left Albany, but I ALWAYS get a model's final approval before I send photos off. As far as I know I am the only photographer working in that specific industry who had that strict policy.

Zoe informed me that her roommate, who had been involved in the shoots, either by being in the apartment, or smuggling us in to her place of work turned out to be a, " mentally unbalanced cunt," (her words not mine) among other things, and that it was unacceptable to use ANY of the photos we had taken that weekend.

I was pretty upset about this, and sent her several messages asking if perhaps I could talk to the roommate, have her sign a waiver, or something, despite the fact that neither Zoe, nor I, had any legal obligation to ask the roommate's permission for ANYTHING. Zoe insisted that she was a crazy, evil bitch, and refused to provide me with any sort of contact information.

Finally, weeks later, a handful of other models I had worked with on the site messaged me to inform me that Zoe had written them and told them that I forced her to look at, "mutilated vagina," pictures, which she said, had horrified her, and she had basically sent me away then and there. The models she told this to knew me, and thankfully came to me with these nonsense claims.

We had in fact discussed cosmetic surgery, while talking about modeling, and she had looked up Before/After Breast Implant images. The conversation moved on to Labiaplasty, and we looked at a few of those images as well. So, there is an inch of truth, in the really awful lie she told about me. There was never any force involved, and she was the one controlling the computer the whole time. This took place in her home, on her computer, with her boyfriend and roommate both in the room.

I decided it wasn't worth the fight. I was eventually contacted by the roommate, who told me a very different story to the one Zoe had, and I let the issue drop.

I was never paid for the images, because I respected her wishes and never published them. I still have the images in archive on my computer, because I archive everything. I was never reimbursed for the gas, wardrobe, or food I purchased on the trip. To someone starting their career, that was quite a dig to my wallet.

7 years later, Zoe is still BY FAR the worst client I have ever had.

What does this story have to do with GamerGate? When I realized Locke was Zoe, I was disgusted to see she was still playing the same games. Stealing, cheating, lying and claiming to be victimized by anyone and everyone.

Maybe she did stab some guy in the face, and maybe in the first week at every new job she had, some guy tried to extort sex from her. Maybe that doesn't establish an MO on her part. But I know, I did nothing wrong to that woman, and I did not deserve to be lied about.

I did not deserve to have my time and my money wasted, and even now, I wonder if opening my mouth about this means she will think of some new horse shit to spread about me to try to ruin my career. And that does seem to be her modus operandi.

If this were a courtroom, I would call myself some sort of character witness, and I'll let you all make of this what you will. Share it if you feel like it, I couldn't keep my mouth shut and watch her try to stomp out all the fires she has started by shitting on any more people's careers.

#gamergate #zoequinn

Upon reading though archived emails, I discovered I can confirm and prove that she claimed to have killed the man she stabbed.

Friday, 3 October 2014

NOW seeks total domination of the Whitehouse


It's interesting to see how much control Feminist organisations have over the reins of power. No wonder H. Clinton looks to be taking the next Presidency. It's a done deal.

This is the same organisation which fights against men having access to their own children.


The same one that fought to imprison men who couldn't pay child support due to losing their job.


Once imprisoned, they could be punished until they could earn enough to support their ex-partner in the lifestyle to which she had become accustomed. Because prison is a great place for increasing one's earning power, doncha know?

They also endorsed http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billanalysis/house/htm/2011-HLA-5328-3.HTM , a bill that meant that any man who was a parent through a crime would lose paternity, but any woman would retain it.

Compare this to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer case, which confirmed that women can rape anyone; even a child; and still be considered a fit and proper parent - to the point where they can claim damages FROM THEIR VICTIM.

Whenever Feminists tell you how much they are doing for men, ask them what they are doing against men. I have never found anything.

Then balance the harm they do against all the pretty words.

Feminism harms men, and seeks total control in order to reshape the world in it's image.

We must resist.

We will resist.

Wednesday, 1 October 2014

Reply to a Feminist promoting HeForShe

Xena Rubacha
7:27 AM
Yes, because during Gloria's time just about all women were abused by their husbands.

Feminism does do things for men, just not as much as it does for women. I don't see why in order for you to care about a cause it has to hurt you not to.

Women don't have equal rights to men. Not social, economic, or political. Only legal.

Men's rights women don't have (in the west):
-To not shave
-To not be sexually objectified (which leads to eating disorders, depression, and self-objectification which has a direct correlation to the fact that less women are in STEM fields)
-To not be slut-shamed
-To not be victim-blamed
-To get drunk in public without a high chance of getting raped
-To go topless (Some places it's not even legal)
-To not be catcalled or street harassed
-To not be called bossy for something a woman would be called bossy for
-To not be taught to value their appearance over everything else including intelligence
-Not to be told they need plastic surgery if they aren't "perfect"
-To not wear makeup and not be considered lazy or ugly
-Not having bills proposed to regulate your body
-Not getting paid only 77% of people of the opposite sex IN YOUR SAME POSITION
-Not to be encouraged not to do science or be smart so that you don't seem unattractive or intimidating
-Not being told to go make a sandwich as if that's all you're good for
-Not having your gender regulate that you are always overly emotional according to society
-Having your opinions validated by other men
-Not having someone repeat exactly what you just said and getting credit
-Not having your genitals be a symbol of weakness in society
-Having men validate you when you say it's not your job to do household chores
-Not have people assume you're a bad driver because of your sex
-Not being compared to a dictator who killed like 6 000 000 people when saying you want gender equalilty
-To not have it be assumed that youre a lesbian (like you did to me) or ugly (as if these makes your argument less valid) for wanting gender equality
-To not have a 1 in 4 chance of being raped

Is that one enough for you?

Feminists don't want those inequalities against men you stated.

"this is carried over into the media treatment of female pedophiles, who are routinely described having 'affairs' with their victims. When a woman commits crimes, people speculate on how some man must have made her do it. Women have successfully argued, for example, that domestic abuse *in a prior relationship justified the murder of a current partner - ad gotten away with it." I do not think that this is ok and neither do the rest of feminists. Also there shouldn't be any shame in being a pedophile. There should be shame in sexually abusing children, which not all pedophiles do.

Men rape more than women do, and women are raped more than men are. You are totally wrong.

No, feminists don't like to think that children are always safe in the hands of women. That enforces the idea that women are the caretakers and men are naturally violent which feminists very strongly protest. Maybe you could watch at least one of the videos I posted above.

By definition, misandrist feminist is an oxymoron.

The people you call feminists dont want equality, so by definition they are not feminists. I am a feminist.

"Yes, because during Gloria's time just about all women were abused by their husbands. "

Where's your evidence for that extraordinary claim? How do you know men weren't abused in turn?

"Feminism does do things for men, just not as much as it does for women."

There's no evidence of it helping, and plenty of it harming - evidence you ignore.

 "I don't see why in order for you to care about a cause it has to hurt you not to."

 I care about a cause that is positive, rather than negative. A few nice words doesn't erase a single bad deed - and oh, Feminism has so many.

"Women don't have equal rights to men. Not social, economic, or political. Only legal."


"a set of moral and legal guidelines that promote and protect a recognition of our values, our identity and ability to ensure an adequate standard of living"

"Men's rights women don't have (in the west):
-To not shave"

Women can choose not to shave. Just as men can. Women do choose not to shave, just as men do.

There's no moral police force that arrests a woman for not shaving her legs.

You don't seem to understand what a "right" is. It's not a preference, it's not something you do to make yourself more attractive, or be more likely to get a job.  None of the things you talk about here are rights.. you are completely delusional and just want to change the subject. So I'll answer you and block you, because I can't say i respect you at all now.

"-To not be sexually objectified "

You don't understand the meaning of the word 'object'. A dildo is a sex object. I can break it and face a small fine or maybe a short stint in prison if I'm really lucky. A woman just has to allege sexual assault and get a crowd ready to kill the accused. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa5kQbUl5_o

Women have never been sex objects, unless you count the times when we had slaves - and then men were treated the same.

You don't appoint an object to rulership of a kingdom, like Elizabeth 1. You don't give them TWO NOBEL PRIZES, like Marie Curie.

You feminists are so lost in ideology that you are blind to reality. You don't care about the facts; you love lies so much you think they are better than truth.

"-To not be slut-shamed"

Oh, so shaming people because of their sexual behaviour is bad, is it? So feminists don't call men 'creeps' for asking them if they want a coffee? Bullshit!

"-To not be victim-blamed"

Hmm. And feminists don't do that to men? What happens when men are raped in jail? They are told they deserved it. When they are beaten by women in public? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cywQhs_6iC4

Huh. Not only are they blamed - but others join in.

"-To get drunk in public without a high chance of getting raped"

'high" chance - bullshit! Women get drunk in public all the time. The rape cases are trending down - and the number of men and women raped is approximately the same. But then thanks to Feminist rape apologist Mary P. Koss, they can't be charged with it in the US, sso I'm pretty clear you Femin ists have no problem with that.

"-To go topless (Some places it's not even legal)"

Gasp! You mean.. nature has given us different bodies! You mean.. women have sex organs on their chest and men don't? Shocking! How dare nature give women additional areas for stimulation and even orgasm! How .. oppressive! Yep, that's one right women have that men don't. But quite a few men would have boobs if they could.

"-To not be catcalled or street harassed"

Cat calling is a bullshit feminist term that means anything from "you have nice eyes" to "suck my filthy c**k", so excuse me if i can't take it seriously - but HARASSMENT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. Women can, and do, have men arrested if they are harassed. Yet despite the fact street cameras are practically everywhere and almost everyone has recording devices with them at all times, there's no evidence of the 'wave' of cases.

Feminists never provide evidence for their bullshit. They have only slurs instead - blood libel against the hated men. "The Jews are poisoning the wells", they whisper, "we must kill them all".

"-To not be called bossy for something a woman would be called bossy for"

Ok, that's idiotic. Again, you have no bloody evidence that females are called bossy differently than males are. Leaders lead, bosses boss. Bosses should be called out, because they are bad leaders.

"-To not be taught to value their appearance over everything else including intelligence"

And who is teaching them that? I don't remember that in the curriculum. Oh you mean in women's magazines.. written.. by women.. by feminists, in fact.

It's certainly not men saying it. Men hate fakes. Men see the 'geek girls' and will test them out to see if they are just a pretty face or if they genuinely know their stuff. If they are smart, they're in, no question. They might not get laid as much - but if you think that doesn't apply to men, you have another thing coming. It's not Albert Einstein who creeps into the fantasies of young ladies.

"-Not to be told they need plastic surgery if they aren't "perfect""

You don't have a RIGHT to be appealing to others. NO-ONE HAS A 'RIGHT' TO GET LAID. Even in a barrage of idiotic misunderstandings of the word 'right', this one stands out.

Who the fuck is going around to women telling them they need plastic surgery? Plastic surgeons? Do they knock on doors? No, that's crap. Women's magazines, run by women, set the beauty standards for women, and advise women on how to compete with other women.


Because sexual attractiveness is *power*. And women get off on it in a big way; or do you think John Merrick was lusted over? It didn't matter that he had a bright mind and a gentle nature; his appearance was what women valued. http://www.halloween-mask.com/Lubatti/09/john_merrick_3_lub.jpg

Gosh. Maybe women and men are equally lustful and visually stimulated? "No, never!!" cries the Feminist, outraged at being knocked off her pedestal.

"-To not wear makeup and not be considered lazy or ugly"


"-Not having bills proposed to regulate your body"

Hahaha, oh god, you're serious?

If a man and a woman have sex, she can decide if she wants to keep the child unless there are particular circumstances. He has no say. She can choose to force the father to pay for a child he will have no rights over, and have him imprisoned if he can not pay. Even if he was raped by her. Even if he was raped by her AS A CHILD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer

And Feminists make damn sure that no-one regulates a woman's body like they do a man's. Every time there's a war, men are told they must fight or be imprisoned, they must kill or be killed. Women are not.

Strangely, non-Feminist countries have no problem with female conscription.

It's almost as if Feminists saw men as disposable money objects, expendable bullets in the military machinery. As things. Why do Feminist love objectification so very, very much? Why are they incapable of seeing men as people?

"-Not getting paid only 77% of people of the opposite sex IN YOUR SAME POSITION"

That's horrible! Ok you got me on that one. If only someone had passed a law making that illegal.

Oh right, they did. Before you were born.

You are complaining of lacking a right that you have never experienced the absence of.

Did you want to complain you are not allowed to vote while you are at it?

"-Not to be encouraged not to do science or be smart so that you don't seem unattractive or intimidating"

Lots of women are encouraged; if anything, they are encouraged to the point where males are being washed out of education. The amount of free scholarships etc for women is astounding. No-one encourages males. We just do it.

So maybe the reason you aren't doing science and repeat the wimminz studeez propaganda is.. you just aren't good enough for a science degree?


"-Not being told to go make a sandwich as if that's all you're good for"

I wouldn't trust you to hold anything sharper than a rubber ball.

"-Not having your gender regulate that you are always overly emotional according to society"

You really have to get your story straight on that one. Guess who uses their periods as a legal defense in murder trials? I don't see any Feminists protesting that!

"-Having your opinions validated by other men"


(*swaps in a new keyboard as the old one lies in smoking ruins*)

"-Not having someone repeat exactly what you just said and getting credit"


Nope, I didn't think it was possible but you topped your former peaks of stupidity with that one.

Hey everyone! Feminists really think that that doesn't happen to men! Hey, get a load of that! (*click*)

"-Not having your genitals be a symbol of weakness in society"
I really don't want to have anything to do with *your* genitals. I think even lysol would run screaming from that abomination. Trust me, there's nothing weak about the odour seeping out from below.

But other women, non-Feminist women? They're STRONG.

Margaret Thatcher didn't give a shit about what 'society' thought about her pussy. She just did it. She had more power in her pinkie than you Feminists have in your entire harpy horde.

And the non-Feminist women who, with their men, fight, and kill, and die ... I'd say they don't give a used tampon what you think about. Any one of them is worth a hundred of you.

"-Having men validate you when you say it's not your job to do household chores"

It's not the 1950s. You haven't actually been in a relationship, have you? Unless the man comes from a traditionalist culture, it's a non-issue - and if the problem is you don't like the culture THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RIGHTS.

In some cultures men have to be tough, can't show weakness, must always be ready to fight - and in those the women get to be defended, to do the inside work, the safe work, the work that doesn't get them killed.

Both sexes benefit. But here's the thing; if you don't like that culture, you can leave it. IT'S NOT OPPRESSION WHEN YOU HAVE A CHOICE.

"-Not have people assume you're a bad driver because of your sex"

HAHAHAHA, no you're serious again. You are claiming that a stereotype is the same thing as an oppression; that the right to vote is in the same league as the right to be considered a good driver? You do know people will happily classify Asian males as bad drivers? The truth is young males and females ARE bad drivers, and that's why the insurance rates are higher.

That's called REALITY. If you think reality is oppressing you, YOU NEED THERAPY.

Which applies to most of the feminist complaints. If you substitute "I need therapy" for "I need Feminism", it works really well.

"-Not being compared to a dictator who killed like 6 000 000 people when saying you want gender equalilty"

Hitler didn't kill 6 million people, a political movement did. One that classed people as inferior based on a genetic difference.

What was it Germaine Greer said? Ah yes. Men are "genetic defectives".

And what do Feminists do that the Nazis never did?

The Nazis didn't build the Holocaust in a day. They build up to it, stirring up hate, day after day, using lies and half-truth and appealing to people's fear, making them feel that they were victims, that the enemy was attacking them, that if they were violent it was just self defense.

The Nazis never wrote books or made speeches about reducing or exterminating the jews.

Feminist DO.


The Nazis kept their genocide a shameful secret.


"both feminism and Nazism have

  •     discriminated against individuals on the basis of their genetic code
  •     promoted the view that the targeted group was inferior genetically and behaviourally
  •     promoted propaganda that led to the targeted group being labelled as ‘parasites’
  •     promoted propaganda that led to the targeted group being constantly ridiculed
  •     promoted propaganda that led to the targeted group being laughed at even when mutilated
  •     demonised the target group by labelling them as perverts and sexual criminals
  •     sought to break the target group away from their families
  •     promoted the view that the targeted group was responsible for most of the major ills in society
  •     disseminated lies and disinformation about the targeted group in order to further promote their own ideology
  •     disseminated lies and disinformation about historical matters
  •     used intimidation, threats and coercion to prevent their opponents from speaking out
  •     promoted the lie that the privileged group consisted of innocent ‘victims’ of the targeted group
  •     demanded special privileges in the workplace for members of the privileged group e.g. preferential job placements for women
  •     discriminated against the targeted group in educational matters and in the workplace
  •     perverted the justice system so that members of the targeted group were easily discriminated against in the law e.g. in family courts
  •     arranged matters so that accusers from the privileged group could be shielded by anonymity in the courtroom e.g. in sex-assault cases.
  •     arranged matters so that defendants from the targeted group had to ‘prove’ their innocence e.g. in sex-assault and domestic violence cases
  •     arranged matters so that members of the privileged group could capriciously define what, legally, was to be deemed ‘a crime’, e.g. where nowadays the ‘feelings’ of women rather than the behaviours of men are the determinants of what constitutes ‘a crime’
  •     arranged matters so that members of the privileged group could capriciously define how the law was to view certain matters e.g. a fetus inside a woman can now be deemed by her - at her whim - to be a worthless piece of tissue or a prospective baby - with all the ramifications of this - regardless of how the father might feel about it all (also sexual harassment, etc.)
  •     arranged matters so that the law punished members of the targeted group more severely than members of the privileged group for the very same crime e.g. in domestic violence and murder cases.
  •     arranged matters so that members of the targeted group were made responsible for the choices and behaviours of members of the privileged group e.g. in paternity fraud cases where duped fathers still have to pay child support
  •     arranged matters so that members of the privileged group who harmed, or even murdered, members of the targeted group were shown undue leniency - and were often actually applauded for their actions
  •     arranged matters so that the law punished members of the targeted group severely for even trivial offences, e.g. domestic violence, sexual harassment
  •     arranged matters so that members of the privileged group earned a right to the property of members of the targeted group for no other reason than that they were members of the privileged group e.g. alimony, child custody.
  •     arranged matters so that certain speech or attitudes directed against the privileged group were criminalised e.g. biased ‘hate speech’ laws.
  •     punished those who protested against the prevailing ideology; e.g. for being politically-incorrect.
  •     effectively controlled the mainstream media and the academic institutions and arranged for them to present a dishonest and dishonourable point of view in support of their ideology
  •     consistently highlighted and exaggerated the achievements and the suffering of the privileged group while downplaying the achievements and the suffering of the targeted group
  •     ran government-funded educational courses in universities (e.g. Women’s Studies, Title IX) and in schools to promote the privileged group at the expense of the targeted group.
  •     persisted in a long term campaign of hatred toward the targeted group, e.g. “A women needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” “Men think about sex every 15 seconds.”
From http://oratorasaurus.tumblr.com/post/60912346989/mr-cappadocia-can-often-get-overboard-with-his

Bar the heavy violence and the gas chambers - which came towards the end of the Nazis hold on power - feminism and early Nazism are rather similar."

"I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." — Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.

"To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo."
— Valerie Solanas, Authoress of the SCUM Manifesto

"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex."
— Valerie Solana, SCUM founder (Society for Cutting Up Men.)

"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness…can be trained to do most things."
— Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas)

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." — Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." — Andrea Dworkin

"-To not have it be assumed that youre a lesbian (like you did to me) or ugly (as if these makes your argument less valid) for wanting gender equality"

"Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice." — Ti-Grace Atkinson

Hmm. It looks like it's Feminists who say you should be a lesbian. Me, I don't think you should inflict your body on anyone.

"-To not have a 1 in 4 chance of being raped"

According to a bullshit survey that feminists did where they classed women as rape victims even if they didn't see themselves as that and were happy being with their 'rapists'.

"Is that one enough for you?"

No, something valid would have been nice.

"Feminists don't want those inequalities against men you stated."

You might want to tell THEM that. They don't seem to have got the memo. http://oratorasaurus.tumblr.com/post/50147759527/correct-for-every-one-innocent-man-in-jail-there

"Men rape more than women do, and women are raped more than men are. You are totally wrong."

Am I? http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/

"No, feminists don't like to think that children are always safe in the hands of women."

(*cough*) Tender Years Doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tender_years_doctrine

Oh right, the Patriarchy did that, it's just really cunning the way it made Caroline Norton alienate fathers from parenthood. Gosh!

"That enforces the idea that women are the caretakers and men are naturally violent which feminists very strongly protest."

Where and when do Feminists protest even feebly that women are the caretakers? Because the Father's Rights movement would have loved to have had some support from them. But no, as i linked before, they fight against it all the bloody time.



As for men being naturally violent, fuck yeah, feminist believe that and say that constantly.

"By definition, misandrist feminist is an oxymoron."

Definitions don't work that way. A Nazi can't define Nazism as "a political movement for the promotion of harmony of all races" and be credible. I look at all the man-hating Feminists who your movement celebrates, and has built FAN-CLUBS for, and I think they are more real than your tepid variety.

Your lot gave them awards; your lot cheered them on. You don't get to hide them when the police come around, and claim innocence when the hounds sniff out the bodies of their victims.

"The people you call feminists dont want equality, so by definition they are not feminists."

You don't get to decide retrospectively who is in and who is out. And since none of your mob are protesting the ones who are active now - the ones running political parties like THE FEMINIST INITIATIVE - you'll excuse me if I yawn every time you say that. You are a liar, and repeating the lie doesn't make the lie more true, it makes it boring, and you have bored me long enough.

 "I am a feminist.?"

One who has no knowledge of history, who erases every part of your movement you find inconvenient, who ignores the terrible things your group does and invents atrocities to portray yourself as the underdog even as you dictate the laws of the countries and control the bloody UN.

And what do you, as a Feminist, regard as the terrible injustices of this time?

The Suffragists fought for the right to vote.

The original Feminists fought for equal pay.

You fight.. for the 'right' to be found attractive, regardless of whether you ARE attractive. You imagine the only reason people don't feel lust for you is that they are oppressing you.

That's called sexual selection, sweet-ums. It's a bloody law of nature. You are looking at reality and saying "I don't like it; this has all got to go".

Well, why don't you try running at a brick wall, and see who gets out of the way first? Reality isn't going anywhere sunshine. It'll beat *you* anytime.

Bored now. We're done.

So how do Feminists really feel about joint custody?

Retrieved https://web.archive.org/web/19970712035610/http://www.now.org/nnt/03-97/father.html on 1/10/2014 , archive found in 1997.

"Father's Rights" Groups:
Beware Their Real Agenda

by Gloria Woods,

President, Michigan NOW

"Shared Parental Responsibility." In our work as women's advocates, how often have we heard custodial moms wish that their children's father would share the parental responsibility? Unfortunately, "shared parental responsibility" is the new doublespeak for joint physical custody by so-called "father's rights" groups.

For example, in Michigan proposed legislation supported by these groups would impose joint custody on parents who are in conflict over custody. Most studies report that joint custody works best when both parents want it and agree to work together.

The Michigan legislation states that in a custody dispute the judge must presume that joint custody is in the "best interests of the child" and "should be ordered." To make any other decision, a judge must make findings why joint custody is not in the children's "best interest." This is a high legal standard that makes it very difficult for judges to award any other custody arrangement. It is also a departure from the generally accepted standards determining what's in the best interest of the child.

Michigan NOW opposes forced joint custody for many reasons: it is unworkable for uncooperative parents; it is dangerous for women and their children who are trying to leave or have left violent husbands/fathers; it ignores the diverse, complicated needs of divorced families; and it is likely to have serious, unintended consequences on child support.

Forced joint custody is also a top legislative priority of fringe fathers' rights groups nationwide. These groups argue that courts are biased and sole custody awards to mothers deny fathers their right to parent. They allege that, in most cases, mothers are awarded sole custody, with fathers granted visitation rights. The men cite this as proof of bias against fathers.

The truth is that in 90 percent of custody decisions it is mutually agreed that the mother would be sole custodian. According to several studies, when there is a custody dispute, fathers win custody in the majority of disputed cases.

The legislature's determination to impose joint custody on parents in conflict is a frightening proposition for many women and places them and their children in harm's way.

There is documented proof that forced joint custody hurts children. "In the majority of cases in which there's no desire to cooperate, joint custody creates a battleground on which to carry on the fight," one researcher reported in the legal magazine, The Los Angeles Daily Journal (December 1988).

In "Ongoing Postdivorce Conflict: Effects on Children of Joint Custody and Frequent Access," Janet Johnson and her colleagues compared children in court-ordered joint custody with children in sole-custody homes. In both situations, the parents were in "entrenched conflict." This study showed that under these circumstances frequent shuttling between both parents in joint custody "is linked to more troubled emotional problems" in children than the sole-custody arrangement.

Imposed joint custody is particularly dangerous to battered women and their children. As the director of the Michigan Domestic Violence and Treatment Board said in her testimony opposing this bill, "...the exchange of children during visitation can be the most dangerous time for the [domestic violence survivor] and her children."

"My experience with presumptive joint custody as a domestic relations lawyer in Louisiana was almost uniformly negative," said NOW Executive Vice President Kim Gandy. "It creates an unparalleled opportunity for belligerent former spouses to carry on their personal agendas or vendettas through the children -- and with the blessing of the courts.

"Attorneys often referred to it jokingly as the `lawyer protection act' because repeated trips to court over minor issues kept the fees rolling in, and the mothers were more likely to suffer," Gandy said.

Joining Michigan NOW in opposing this legislation are: antiviolence/ women's shelter groups, the bar association, child psychologists, social workers, family law experts, judges, lawyers, and even the Family Forum (a right-wing, "traditional family values" group).

You can check out the supporters of this bill and become familiar with the groups' real agenda by logging on to the Internet using any search engine such as Yahoo to search for "fathers' rights," or connect to: http://www.speakeasy.org/fathersrights/ or http://web2.airmail.net/fathers4 to learn more about their activities.

Further information on forced joint custody, including a list of studies and reports on its dangers, is available from the NOW Foundation at 202-331-0066.

Return to March 1997 newspaper / Return to NOW Home Page / Search NOW site / Send mail to NOW / Join NOW