Archives for the month of: February, 2013

AgentOrange and the Screencaps of Feminazi Doom.

Frankly, it’s a fucking mess. Now, in retrospect, this is to be expected: it’s Manboobz we’re talking about here. However, even by their….well, what we think passes for standards over there this is just weak.
Now, their first claim is simple: “Agent Orange revealed the personal information of some of the worst of the lot, and that’s just wrong.” This is basically without merit. It’s true that the identities of some of the more virulent (read: homicidal) commentators were revealed. However, what was posted was not what most of us would consider “personal information”. Typically when someone is “doxxed”, this involves revealing information like private phone numbers, addresses and so on. In this case, to our knowledge, the only information that was revealed was the actual name of the poster, general location (i.e. country), and in some cases their occupation. In many cases, this was information freely available on the forum.
It’s certainly true that this information was identifying, but it was not sufficient to promote stalking, plain and simple. What it was enough for was promoting awareness of the actions of these people, something I think most of us understand is rather a good thing. Would you want your children in the care of a person who regularly entertains (and chats with to her friends) fantasies of castrating them? Similarly, many of the people involved are public officials, people accountable to their constituencies. I would certainly hope that the next time election season comes around they find their words plastered every place within reach….unlike the usual marital infidelity, this actually says something about how they’ll do their job.
One way or another, when you post something, you’re accountable for it. It’s not “stalking” to attach a name to the bigotry.
The entire rest of the post basically amounts to a complaint that the files did not come with a user manual. The writer has leafed through a couple pages (let’s note that the entire point of the files were to give an accurate picture, and thus include most of the contents of the forum in question rather than simply a set of cherry-picked anecdotes, just like someone being responsible would do) and found that if he squints the right way and ignores the things that aren’t convenient, not all of it is bad. He isolates three threads (out of an entire forum) that don’t happen to contain any bigotry. Incidentally, two out of the three also don’t have anything to do with feminism: the one that does is itself….almost coherent.
Specifically, it has to do with a woman who has two complaints. One, some older people living in her building chat with each other about things, which on occasion includes their consternation with the (controlling) behaviors of some women in their lives. (Horror of horrors, it’s not like we’ve ever heard women chatting about their significant others.) Second, as she was sitting in the hall, someone waiting for their friends struck up a conversation with her and asked her if she had a boyfriend. (Le GASP!) Apparently (according to Futrelle), this was “being creepy”. I mean, it’s not like striking up a conversation with someone isn’t the normal way to meet people or anything, and it’s clearly not the case that someone would ask about someone’s partner status before considering any form of overture to avoid potential discomfort on their part. Nope. Not at all. Of course, despite Futrelle’s claim that the thread is simply “women complaining about creepy guys”, it’s really most of them justifying their assumptions about and assholeish behavior towards men who have the gall to talk to them.
The second involves a computer virus. This is the kind of thread you could find on most forums, with the addition of the occasional comment about castrating men. Not worth further comment.
The first one he dissects the most, but it’s really a pretty simple matter. A male midwife (a professor in the UK, actually) commented on the rising rates of epidural use. He suggested that for a number of reasons, epidurals should be avoided: epidural use has been linked to weakened maternal bonding in animal studies and increased rates of prolonged labor, epidurals do not in any way decrease the risks associated with childbirth, and there are a number of other methods that can be substituted to one degree or another that do not involve injecting a cocktail of powerful drugs into someone’s spine. It should be noted that Prof. Walsh was not in any way recommending limiting the availability of epidurals, simply suggesting that women should be encouraged to have them only when genuinely necessary and that increased one-on-one maternal care and resources should be provided to increase the availability of other methods. It’s actually an issue that many of experts of various genders have raised a number of times in many places.
The problem the radfems had, of course, was that he had a penis and dared to speak on the field of childbirth that he’s a tenured expert in. The various comments ranged from calling him a “closeted religious nut” and “misogynist and sadist” to advocating kicking him in the testicles and shoving an umbrella up his ass then opening it.
What a surprise that this behavior is seen as objectionable.
Of course, the core claim being defended here is that the files just aren’t as bad as people say they are, since a quick and selective look didn’t uncover the massive bigotry mentioned. Even though they could have easily found AVFM’s three separate articles and a podcast highlighting some of the objectionable bits. But I guess AVFM is just too full of penis to consider anything they have to say.


Apparently there is a magazine which dedicated an entire article to insulting men. Manflue, “a debilitating disease which strikes at the heart of masculinity and renders men less than useless.” Apparently the magazine thinks they can sell their products by basically calling men lazy shits who regularly make up diseases just to excuse their laziness.

The writer of this article which shames men for daring to complain about lack of health, has had the audacity to also demand cash for supposed efforts to help men with prostate cancer.

Right now in Canadian universities, and likely universities across the west, student governments are defining free speech in ways that either agree or disagree with them. Speech that agrees with them is a welcome alternative view. Speech that disagrees with them is deemed hatefull and repressive. And this attitude is firmly entrenched in these student governments. The thing is, these over grown babies calling themselves college students won’t be student forever and will soon be entering the workforce. What happens when they enter the government and carry with them the idea that everything that disagrees with them should be censored on the grounds that it’s hateful? I find it so odd that people welcome totalitarian rule so long as it comes in the form of free stuff.

Men’s rights groups are hate groups; I mean really if this proves the feminists of the west are afraid and enjoy down playing men’s issues is more than enough turn men into Misogynists; not that all the hate literature written by feminists, didn’t start that in the first place. Now many feminist view this AVfM website as misogynistic but the reality is it’s only making men the focus of social issues and like any other group of SJ activists they are angry and pissed off but why do they have so many women writing articles if they loathe women? The reality is they don’t its just a few jerks making mean comments. I do feel that Marc Lepine is a feminist hero; he is the stereotypical violent man that feminists label all men as unless they sit down shut up and do as they are told. I mean literally feminist have said and I quote “men can be feminist to so long as their voices don’t hold equal or greater value than that of women feminists” I mean yes they are angry at women and feminist but lets take a look at the women and feminists they hate, I don’t see any reason not to hate them, men are corn, male only spaces need to be destroyed, its just one unending circle jerk of misandry. 

Also note that these women admittedly are paying and holding fund raisers for the SPLC! I find it very sad that people use blogs as their sources of work, I’d also like to not that when Radfem hub covered false rape accusations they failed to read the part of the reports, that said,


<i>In the city of Denver 41% of the rape case reported were dismissed as false within an 8-10 hour period. According to the FBI, about 95,000 forcible rapes were reported in 2004. Based on the statements and studies cited above, some 47,000 American men are falsely accused of rape each year. These men are disproportionately African-American.</i>


So basically that number means that false rapes nationally are about for 2004, was about 49% Now does this mean I want rapes to be treated any differently? Not really I’d love it if the media kept its nose out of this stuff and ruining the case and the people involved. I hate saying this but I think many feminist just view disagreement or the fact that women are not the focus of attention tends to throw temper tantrums. Are all feminists “bigot man hating dykes” nope they may be wrong at times or misguided but this not likely a whole movement and as an MRA I view the rights of women as an equal issue. In fact I know several lesbians that would like their issues separated from feminism, because of the hetero-phobic, and misandric rhetoric of modern feminism why wouldn’t they?

I honestly feel that feminism is either to conservative in its views, or hasn’t had a good leader or goal in a very long. There is no reason to destroy it but there is plenty of reason for it to destroy the validity of its own members. In other words self police itself, before it casts judgement on MRAs.

I grew up w/ no mother and a father who let me form my own opinions about everything, including women. He never trashed my mother for leaving us when I was 4, but he did point out when women were acting in selfish or silly ways. Dad also pointed out women who had achieved a lot, like Amelia Earhart or Mother Theresa.

My dad also taught me how to think and to listen to my instinct when something didn’t sound right. When I heard the word ‘feminism’ my first reaction was, ‘why do they need a name if what they want is equality?’ That question has never been properly answered. The other thing that struck me about feminism was how angry these women were and how nothing was ever good enough for them–there’s an old expression, ‘give them an inch and they’ll take a mile’, and that very well applies to many women and many feminists.

What does this behavior remind me of? Children. Small children will repeated test the waters to find out how much they can get away with, and they will use every available scheme to succeed, from seduction (emotion) to threats and lashing out. This describes feminism very well–is this a coincidence? I don’t think so. Just like most parents will give into whiny children–at least every so often–men will give into women’s demands, because like the parent they want the ‘child’ to just shut up.

When whiny children succeed in getting what they want, they push even harder to get more, and that’s what’s happened with women as a result of feminism. Women will now use the lies and deception taught to them by feminism to con men and organizations into giving them more and more unearned and undeserved stuff. Further still, women have been taught that feelings are more important than ‘male facts’, so it doesn’t matter if feminists simply make up ‘facts’ to support their ’cause’. It is untrue, for instance, that women get paid less for doing the same job if they have been on that job the same amount of time and work the same number of hours per week as men–the US Government Bureau of Labor Statistics shows this. But if you compare school teachers to coal miners, yes these men do get well deserved greater pay–their job is dangerous, puts their health at risk, is back breaking, and is anything but clean and nice. Women also desperately want to believe that they deserve to get all men’s property and wealth if a marriage doesn’t work out–partly because a bogus study in the 70s–refuted the very next year–claimed women suffer greatly from divorce while men prosper. This is simply NOT TRUE but the courts nevertheless side with women because they are simply afraid of angry women. Well, I say f*k them! This is simply and only a case of women being angry that they have lost face with other women and in society when they are disgraced through a divorce. It hardly occurs to these women that they contributed greatly to the demise of the marriage–but then again according to feminism, women can never be blamed for anything, so why start here? If a man is abusive then take him to the cleaners, but then again feminism labels anything that makes women feel uncomfortable as ‘abuse’–convenient, isn’t it?

Now there are all sorts of ‘women only’ entities in the US, from gyms in cities to clubs on university campuses–when no men-only facilities or clubs are allowed because that’s ‘sexist’. Are women such little children that they can’t stand for men to have ANYTHING just for men? Men need to experience ‘brotherhood’ everyday, just like women need to ‘bond’, but that doesn’t matter to feminism because Gloria Steinem–a women w/ NO degrees in psychology or medicine–pronounced men and women to be ‘the same’–we’re all ‘female’ according to that idiot–again, how convenient…

Instead of making women look powerful, all of this makes them look like pathetic and helpless victims–I doubt that’s what the ‘founding mothers’ of feminism had in mind, but unfortunately the modern mothers are just fine with this because it means that women get all sorts of things ‘for free’, and that women ‘win’.

Finally, the most capable women I have ever known never whined about ‘female inequality’ or played the ‘victim card’, they just worked hard and used their intelligence and skills to achieve success in their personal and professional lives. If they could do this, then all women can do this–period.

I had a recent discussion with a woman who is against feminism no its not Girlwriteswhat I am not a fan of her what so ever. The conversation involved my past child abuse and the twisted connection it had with feminism.