Feminist Reactions To Men’s Rights Milestones

Click to Enlarge

Remember that Anti-Feminist Conference post I did? Well,it seems the news has reached our “darling” sisters in the feminist movement. The reactions are typical:


Hatred of men



If you’d like to see them getting their panties in a bunch over this, the great hissy fit is on display for the whole world to see here. Do be sure to take screenshots and archive these douchebags for future giggles, as I have.

All in all, this looks good for us. I don’t know about you, but I love watching feminist idiots froth.

Thanks once again to Fidelbogen for the tip-off.

BIG,BIG,BIG thanks to “loser anda user” for saying out loud that feminists are fine with hating men. Not like it was necessary, because I can pull up thousands of admissions of feminist anti-male bigotry,but just in case someone were to say this Anti-Feminist Conference were unnecessary or “misogynist”, (yeah,right) your remarks might just change their mind.

Subversive Action

Lately, there have been many pleasant and surprising developments in Men’s Rights, from an International Anti-Feminist conference at feminism’s Ground Zero to this thorough and humorous fisking of an apologist for female supremacists. We are coming out,guns blazing, and we are a figurative “cunt’s hair” away from pulling the plug on the anti-male gendercidal Juggernaut known as feminism.

In the next ten years, I expect the “ladies” associated with said movement to give up their anti-male crusade and make an unconditional surrender to our side, mostly because there aren’t that many more real concerns or even fake ones they can pretend that women actually have. If they do not surrender, they will start having to lay more and more ridiculous engineered “oppression” at the feet of their ever-present mythical boogeyman, Patriarchy,until people are simply unable to take them seriously anymore. Indeed, this is happening already. As one feminist has claimed that in a land ravaged by tribal war,where 75% of the males have been completely wiped out,that women were “disproportionately affected” by said war.

Makes sense, if you don’t consider males as human beings, then everything disproportionately affects women.

Yes, this indeed appears to be the turning point of the war against feminism. However, this is not a time to rest on our laurels, gents,for feminists assert their fanciful “Patriarchy” saturates every aspect of society.Their solution was to saturate every aspect of our society with misandry and female chauvinism. At this, they have been largely successful because we, the dreaded “Patriarchalists”,handed them the golden key to society in the interests of proving WE weren’t like “all those other bad,bad men who hate women”.

It is because of this that we must fight them on a plurality of fronts, using a multitude of strategies and weapons. Many in the MRM believe that logic will win the day, that truth will set the standard for both sides and that feminism will ultimately bow out when their arguments are defeated.

Others believe a show of force on our part is necessary, that feminism will back down when met by a stronger,more organized opponent,like the wandering swordsmen of Japanese myths, whose fortunes waxed or waned by the legends of their honor and prowess.

Still others believe that feminism is a permanent part of life from now on until society crumbles,and await the day when they will help to rebuild society from the rubble.

I believe that a combination of these strategies must be employed, and that it is likely what will win the day will be good old-fashioned weariness on the part of the female supremacy movement. Victory by attrition.

Whatever you personally believe, now is a time for honing our skills and our organization. We must learn to maneuver more efficiently or we will be quickly outflanked if we ever get a soapbox to declare our message from. We must learn to put a stop to charges of misogyny,homophobia,racism,and whatever other ism before such a charge is made, and to coordinate our efforts with our brothers when their statements may be obscured or camouflaged in the PC double-talk of our opponents.

We must mindfuck the feminists wherever we find them, so that they are too busy defending themselves to put forward any effective argument on their own behalf,because if they cannot even justify themselves, it’s difficult for them to craft effective anti-male legislation or propaganda. Thus,feminists must be marginalized within society, or be given the impression that they are marginalized. Now, this is difficult. Our school of fighting is akin to the guerilla warfare of the Vietnamese insurgent, the Afghani Freedom Fighter, or the Mexican narcotraficante,whereas they are well-honed in socialist revolutionary-style warfare which seeks to utterly control the enemy as well as militarily decimate him or mold the enemy into a socialist revolutionary himself,until he believes it is pointless to continue fighting “himself”.

Let me tell you, they have learned these lessons well. Link is to a feminist website called “The F Word”, specifically to an article where feminists discuss the desperation they feel fighting a patriarchy that doesn’t exist. Not necessarily pertinent is the clearly visible jealousy of male artistic talent on display.

Have your say

In order to keep this blog as a feminist and friendly space, comments will be subject to some rules. We do not seek to censor debate: the beauty of the internet is that anyone can set up their own blog or website to express their views.
1.This blog is a safe and friendly space for feminists and feminist allies. Debate and critique are welcome where it is constructive and deepens analysis or understanding. Anti-feminist comments will not be approved. We get to decide what’s anti-feminist.
2.All comments must be approved by one of the bloggers. For this reason, there may be a delay before your comment appears.
3.No sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ablist comments, comments which make personal attacks on any blogger or commenter, or comments that are otherwise deemed offensive by us will be posted.
4.Trolls will be banned from commenting. We get to decide who is a troll.
5.No anonymous comments – please feel free to use your real name or make one up, though.
6.Be nice.

Looks like it came right out of The Communist Manifesto,doesn’t it?

But here is a lesson I have learned, and that you can learn. Rarely does a group fighting with such complex techniques succeed in a real world battle against a smaller group using guerilla tactics and united by a common zeal, whether it be religious or political faith that inspires the guerilla group.Especially if that guerilla unit doesn’t have anything to lose and only stands to gain by winning.

So, as a thought experiment, how could you or I advance a pro-male agenda against feminists using the Orwellian censoring methods described above?

Well, firstly, we couldn’t debate them. They would find grounds to dismiss the most sensible pro-male comments under rules #1,3,4,& 6. In fact,out of all the rules they have for posting, only two of them have nothing to do with cracking down on any possibly contrarian information entering their hermetically-sealed “safe and friendly space”. This is another tactic common to Communist regimes, and is regularly employed in China today.

The only things we could do would be to temporarily derail their conversations or spook them by making a covert show of force. In fact, one need not attempt to debate them. All that is necessary is to say “I am an MRA, and as such I do not support what you are saying. I know what you are doing and I do not approve.”. Obviously, we can’t even say THAT in their “safe and friendly” Socialist corner.

What we can do is show up in numbers on their blogs, or in the letters to the editor section of newspapers,and so forth with a word,any word, which provokes confusion and disarray over the intended meaning of its utterance (and especially when uttered by so many different people), derails the topic, and says to any other MRA present, “I am on YOUR side”.

A rough outline of how it could work is in order. Let us say the chosen word for today is “muskrat” and the feminist topic is the “pay gap”:

Feminist says:”I think the pay gap is unfair,it demeans women. Women should get equal pay for equal work!Anyone who says otherwise is a MISOGYNIST!”

MRA 1 chimes in: “I wouldn’t say ‘misogynist’,per se, but I’d definitely call them a ‘muskrat’ for not giving women what they deserve.” (Notice there is nothing that would put this statement on the feminist radar, it passes all the Socialist qualifications listed above and even sounds supportive)

Feminist 2: “Huh? What do you mean “muskrat”? Why would you call them that? Anyways,blah,blah,blah,etc.”

MRA 2: “I agree with the guy above,and if I saw someone perpetuating female oppression, I’d call them a ‘muskrat’ to their face!”

Feminist 3: “What IS a muskrat,anyway?”

Etc. And you see how the discussion goes from being about women, to being about THIS


in very short order. A large,coordinated attack, with savvy MRAs playing off each other,playing parts such as veterinarians who discuss the feeding habits of muskrats or “animal rights activists” who think we should “just leave the muskrats alone” could inflate such a silly topic into epic proportions, drawing the feminists themselves into the same snares they set for us when they cause us to debate irrelevant peripheral topics,which are unrelated to the topic at hand.

Thus, the feminists have been hindered,if only ever so slightly, in perpetuating their lies, and no debating actually occurred. Most importantly, it was done under their nose,with their feminist stamp of approval on every comment….and that is what will REALLY piss them off, when they discover what actually happened.

World’s First International Anti-Feminist Meeting

Courtesy of Fidelbogen,The Counter-Feminist,not “Counter Feminist”, although I’m sure he could find a feminist manufacturer of counters if you’re interested, he did receive a comment about some quality counters once. 😉 I kid, but in all seriousness, this is one savvy guy, check out his site if you have not done so.

—–Original Message—–

To: fidelbogen @ earthling . net
Sent: Sat, Oct 23, 2010 10:37 am
Subject: Fwd: ENG_The World´s First International Anti-Feminist Meeting

(World’s First International Antifeminist Meeting)
Varldens forsta internationella antifeministiska sammankomst

The World´s First International Anti-Feminist Meeting, October 30th, 2010
Organized by The Anti-Feminist Interest Group
(IGAF, Interessengemeinschaft Antifeminismus)

« It´s a historical moment »
(Interview with Ulf Andersson from PappaRättsGruppen)

The Anti-feminists are Charging!

Written contribution by Ulf Andersson:
ENG_My Experiences of Feminism [PDF]

Comment by Ulf:
Switzerland was neutral in World War II (1939 – 1945).
Now, the Swiss are leading the worldwide resistance against Feminism.
Very admirable!

Slowly but surely, we are pushing our way into the popular consciousness. Christmas came early this year for Men’s Rights Activists,when a panel is being formed to openly discuss combating feminism, we know we are on the right track. Now this may not accomplish much in and of itself, but it is a step in the right direction and says two things:

Feminists have long overstayed their welcome,and they are about to get the boot.

Yes feminists, the chickens are about to come home to roost, so my advice is to get rid of all your penis dartboards and burn your “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them” t-shirts, because you’re about to get bent over and rammed deep and hard, and not in the pleasurable way.

I have been warning you, and I will continue warning you as this thing progresses that female chauvinism will bite you in the ass eventually.

You had a pretty good ride, taking for granted that you could do whatever you wanted to men and we would not defend ourselves, but those old notions of letting the women go with a slap on the wrist are dying with the last few men who were raised before your reign of terror. Now we live in the age of equality and those old notions of masculinity have been reformed (thanks, girls), and I can assure you that you will be hung out to dry on the same line as your male cohorts in feminist academics and the politicians who have helped you destroy countless men’s lives with your family courts and false rape accusations.

Men have begun firing the opening volley in the gender war,and we are poised to decimate your lying feminist minions. Dismantle your entire feminist legal and political machinery and remove your propaganda from the major news outlets or you will be paying us reparations for some time to come,because believe me, you have a lot to answer for and you WILL answer for it. Do not think that you can fight us any longer, the people know that your anti-male propaganda is made up of bogus or inflated research, lies, and projections. The people have seen you promise them equality and deliver them anti-male sexism, they know you are snake oil “salespersons”,selling them a magic “panacea” that ruins people’s lives, creates intergender conflict and decimates entire populations.

It is our time now and you will receive total equality, which means no more stimulus bills for your jobs when it’s men who are losing theirs,no more alimony, appropriate prison sentences,arrests for dv,and you get to go to jail for 10 years when you molest 5 year olds and be registered on the sex offender list,too.

I could get used to this equality thing,but I doubt you will.

If you want a picture of feminism’s future, imagine this

stamping on this face


*Jeez, looks like it already happened, doesn’t it?

Hilarious Development

As I frequently do, I have taken a hiatus from writing for a while to hone my debate skills in the Manosphere. While I was gone, some feminist idiot came to my blog, misinterpreted what I said and then regurgitated it on her own site to jack up ratings for her pathetic anti-male hate site. She attacked me in not one, but 2 posts.

I have been checking in from time to time, but been relatively quiet until this little opportunity for giggles jumped up and, what the hell, it’s about 4:00 a.m. here and I’ve got nothing better to do, you know? At first I was gonna let it go, because it really is just a pathetic ploy for attention and hardly even merits my attention, but my readers deserve a good laugh, I’ve bogged them down with dry political talk for long enough.

Now normally, I would link to these pieces, but the authoress has already graciously done so for me on my piece “The Philosophy of Balance”which is something like an ethos or mission statement.

Here it is, in all its hilarious glory. This is her introduction:

“Below is the response by someone who is a regular contributor to Woman to Woman blog. The person manages his own website that more or less publishes articles in overt resistance to women’s independence, liberation, and development, all in the name of modern day patriarchalism.”

Right OFF THE BAT she fucks it up spectacularly. I am not a “regular contributor” to her blog. When she showed up the first time talking about wanting to use some of my material,I went to her blog to see what was up. It is ostensibly a feminist blog, but there are maybe a few sentences on there that acknowledge women’s complicity in the inequality they claim to fight against so I said to myself “Might as well give them a chance” and posted a comment or two, I think two comments exactly, if I remember correctly. The next sentence gets it half right,in that I do publish articles that have something to do with women. As far as “publishing them in overt resistance,blah,blah,blah, in the name of modern day patriarchalism” she is either deliberately misrepresenting me or just fucking stupid. I publish articles in overt resistance to feminism,not women’s independence,liberation or development. They are not the same thing.

“No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”

I didn’t say that, a feminist did. I am against feminism. All I said was that Patriarchy is a valid political system. Under Patriarchy,men gave women the vibrator, washing machines, telephones, “the pill”,legislation that protects them from rape and assault, in addition to all the mink stoles,diamond rings and such that were par for the course in courtship. Since it has been overturned, if you can name one thing that women have done SPECIFICALLY for men, I’ll close this blog down permanently.

Patriarchy= Men and women win, absence of patriarchy= women win at men’s expense. Now that might sound good to anyone with a chip on their shoulder and a pussy between their legs but here at Balance of Power, we call that sexism.

Feminist, do you believe sexism is a good thing? Of course you do, or we wouldn’t be having this discussion because women would have already solved all of men’s problems like we did for you when we enacted your feminist legislation that allows YOU and ONLY YOU reproductive rights, protection from sexual harassment,and a host of other things.

This is my response to one of their articles, sensible, is it not?

He Writes….

“This article [The Independent Woman Backlash] hits pretty close to the mark. I commend you for being big enough to admit the situation was your fault.”

You’re still wrong on several areas, though.

“It caused men to think that it is okay for them to forgo their responsibilities because the woman boasts herself as “Miss Independent,” can pay my own bills, buy my own car, own my own home. You name it, I can do it. I can even have my babies ‘without you.’ (even though the sperm donor is obviously a man).”

Men don’t have any responsibilities toward women naturally. They are a cultural luxury extended to women dependant on women’s difficulty or inability to do these things for themselves. Think about it. If you’re struggling to lift a heavy package or being assaulted near me, there isn’t a single law on the books that says I have to use my time or energy or risk my safety to help you-none. If I do so, it is an expression of my goodwill toward one who is less able than myself.

So you see the problem. When you said “We can do it all. We don’t NEED a man. We’re equal to men.” you dissolved these “responsibilities” of men. Men no longer have any responsibilities toward you, you’re just like the other guys now. That makes you our rivals, or at best, a possible obstacle or neutral agent by default.

You can’t be equal and more than equal at the same time. The laws of mathematics, physics and common sense forbid it. If you want men to honor their “responsibilities” you need to drop the tough girl act and go back home to honor YOUR responsibilities caring for children and keeping homes. If you want equality, quit whining about men not being chivalrous, we aren’t chivalrous to each other.

“An irritating practice that raised its ugly head is this: Guys now expect us to pay for their cab, air fare to come and visit us, provide and or pay for their accommodation, pay for their gas, put credit on their phone, pay for dinner. When they visit our home they help themselves to everything there, no shame in their face. Because we wear the cap of “Independent Woman,” they come around assuming we don’t need anything, so they don’t bring anything to the table. Instead, they come to take from the much we claim to have. What a backlash! Then we curse them out and call them ‘low-life.’”

Didn’t see that one coming, did you? If you’re equal, you get to pay equally. Welcome to the man’s world, honey.

There is no code, written or unwritten, that states that men are born into a servile class two rungs removed from women and must pour golden ducats, wine, and roses at their feet for the “honor” of their company. What you are losing is not “old-fashioned courtship”, but men’s respect for keeping up this sexist charade, this farcical, transparent, double-standard that women get to have men’s cake and eat their own too.

I don’t think you’ll have to worry about men taking advantage of you financially if you keep doing what you are doing, we will eschew your company altogether. While you may not be able to live in the 21st century without men’s contributions we can live just fine without you and are already developing artificial wombs to gestate babies in.

This “backlash” is more severe than you are aware. We could be looking at the collapse of the civilization women have taken for granted in 50 years or less.

Nonetheless, they are INCENSED that a man would have the NERVE to say something like what they have been saying for FIFTY fucking years unchallenged, proving once again, all this feminist double-talk and bullshit can be boiled down to this statement. “Girls rule, boys drool”. Juvenile, superficial and seriously delusional if you think anyone with a dick should have to sign off on women insulting them. Here’s my response to that, it’s even shorter than their brain-dead and completely baseless claim:”Fuck you,honey.”

If women want to be independent, I’m not going to stand in their way, in fact, I’m 100% behind them…shoving them out the door.

Oh, and she also penned this turd: It’s called “How Men See Female Privileges as Male Disprivilege”

Apparently this broad is illiterate as well as retarded.

The part she quoted states explicitly that it is a response to a feminist “male privilege checklist” so in order to be a little more accurate her title would have to be “How women see male privileges as female disprivileges and write checklists about it which men respond to with their own checklist seeing female privileges as male disprivileges”, but that one’s not so catchy, I guess. Not surprisingly, she draws the completely wrong conclusion from the checklist, because it has nothing to do with men being envious of females’ privileges, it is a response to women envious of men’s so-called “privileges”,like being the recipients of 80% of all violent crime. Here is her introduction to her reposting of my original post on the “female privilege checklist” page.

This is an interesting checklist and we have to say, the men are indeed putting up a resistance! They are peeved that they have to share the same kind of rights and privileges with females, something that was practically non-existent in earlier times.


Goddamn,you are a moron,woman. No one gets pissed off about having to SHARE anything, they get pissed off when they are asked to share and then the other party grabs up 90% of what’s on the table saying, “Some people are more equal than others”.

Let’s talk about rights and privileges that are non-existent now. Let’s not live in the past. Is there ANYTHING that women want to do, that they are barred from doing now? NO.

Now let’s look at men.

Men cannot:

Decide what another person does with the man’s sperm.

Tell jokes of any kind in the workplace for fear of being fired.

Opt out of military service.

Wear what they want to wear.

If a woman exposes her breasts in public, she is about 100 times less likely to go to jail than a man exposing his penis because he needs to urinate somewhere other than in his pants.

Decide when he becomes a father.

Be certain that he will be able to be involved in his child(ren)’s life/lives when he DOES decide to become a father.

Keep the products of his labor after a divorce.

Now these are all pretty personal issues,wouldn’t you say? Women take these things for granted to the point that they are now elevating petty shit like a lesbian wanting to wear a tux to the prom to issues of national importance. A man cannot even say what someone else does WITH HIS GODDAMNED SPERM, for god’s sake.

Men don’t even have ONE reproductive right. Not a fucking one. And you want to demonize ME for saying they should have a little of what women have? Fuck you.

Listen,honey, if you want to debate my points,fine. But you will frame them correctly or you will stay the fuck off my blog.

You didn’t even bother talking with me about my positions before you began attacking them, this is why more and more people are leaning anti-feminist these days, because of dishonest feminist fear-mongering.

Crazy Bitch Harasses Famous Butt Pirate With Her Crazy Wife/Pregnancy-Based Delusions

In what has got to be the most hilarious example of female insanity I have ever seen, a crazy cat lady is now convinced homosexual actor Leonardo DiCaprio is her husband and the father of her baby.

Isn’t this cunt behind the times? Aren’t all the girls hung up on that guy who looks like a combination between a nutsack and a hairy lesbian neanderthal who played in Twilight? Oh well, maybe this bitch has been schizophrenic since the 90’s and the voices in her head haven’t updated her on it yet.

Article here.

LOS ANGELES – Leonardo DiCaprio has been granted a temporary restraining against a woman he said claims to be his wife and carrying his baby.

When I was a kid, all the girls were under the delusion that this homo would marry them and father their children someday if they just obsessed over him long enough (fat chance,I told them. Even if he wasn’t gayer than greek wrestling,he’s rich, he could BUY better pussy in Asia or South America). I guess this woman just took it to the next logical step and created the entire creepy scenario in her mind.

“Given this obsessive and harassing behavior, I am frightened of Ms. Bistriceanu and feel that my personal safety, and the personal safety of those around me, is in jeopardy,” DiCaprio wrote in a sworn declaration.

Shit man, I don’t blame you. This is the kind of broad who would give herself AIDS and rape you in your sleep just to exact revenge on you for her being scorned in her imagination. If I were you,I’d tread carefully,man. Get a doberman or two and sick the fucking dogs on the bitch the next time she shows up. You can’t let these pigs get away with this kind of stuff here. This is America,goddamnit.

DiCaprio’s request included statements from the actor and his security team claiming Bistriceanu had traveled from Chicago to Los Angeles at least twice to try to meet DiCaprio at his home and business office. She refused to leave the properties and acted aggressively, the court filings state.

My theory is she was taking a concentrated mixture of cocaine and benzedrine and had been upset,possibly contemplating an imaginary abortion,and just popped over for a chat to try to smooth things out in their imaginary marriage.

That’s when things went horribly wrong. When she confronted him,Leonardo became upset . This woman had depended on her imaginary husband for years to support her in the lifestyle to which she had become accustomed, and she couldn’t afford an imaginary divorce at this time as her imaginary divorce lawyer wanted a significant deposit up front for tackling this high-profile target. Lacking an easy way out,the woman attempted to bribe Leo’s bodyguards in order to get access to him to no avail and harsh words were exchanged.

One letter included the greeting, “Dear husband Leo,” and contained statements that Bistriceanu believed DiCaprio was the father of baby Jesus

Holy fuck,man, the last time we heard something like that Charles Manson was being investigated.

The Fundamental Difference Between the Sexes

This post has been a long time coming, partly because I wasn’t sure exactly how to do it justice. Feminism asserts that,if not for social conditioning, men and women would behave exactly the same. In short, they believe that there are no inherent differences between the sexes. As members of the MRM and the Game community know, this is complete bullshit. There are many differences in the psychology,constitution, and group behaviors of men and women that simply cannot be explained by social conditioning, but that doesn’t stop the fembots from trying.

In a recent study I read, they determined that several week old baby boys paid more attention to mobiles and things with moving parts,while baby girls paid more attention to people’s faces. What was the conclusion that the study came to? That these differences are innate to the sexes? No, they postulated that perhaps social conditioning just works very quickly. Somehow, baby girls just drank in all those “oppressive gender roles” through facial expressions and gestures that somehow indicated to their newly formed brains that they were supposed to be more interested in social interaction than the mechanics of nature.


But there is one fundamental difference I would like to discuss,because it is important to those interested in Men’s rights. That is the tendency among females to support the beliefs,choices, or actions of other females in order to legitimize their own beliefs,tendencies,or choices. The herding instinct. The reason I believe this is important is because it is a roadblock to our achievements. You saw it in play when the female MP’s stonewalled anonymity for men accused of rape. One woman suggests, “rape victims won’t be believed” and then EVERY woman jumps on the issue like a fat kid on a cupcake. Why? Most of these women will never have to file a police report for rape, will never know someone who has been raped, or be raped themselves. So why did they do it?

The herding instinct.

They supported the women who falsely claim rape so that they themselves could falsely claim rape later, if need be.When a woman looks at another woman, she sees not an individual who she does not know, but a mirror. She doesn’t see a stranger, but an image of herself. Where men cluster around common interests or goals, women cluster around common genitalia. The reason for this is simple: Most women have more in common with each other than most men. Anyone who has spent much time in this sphere, reading the available materials, quickly learns that women all group towards a median IQ range, where you will find 99% of all women. There are extreme examples at either end of the scale, of mental retardation and genius respectively,but those are exceptions. Men are mostly grouped into the genius or retard camps, with less men being in the middle.

Similarly, when facets of female personality are tested,such as sexual orientation, you will find most women in the middle, as bisexuals. Men however, were almost exclusively either straight or gay. This information explains a whole host of things. Why women are more sensitive to social ostracization and peer pressure, for instance. If a woman displays a unique personality, she is deemed abnormal by other women, as there is essentially only one model of woman.

Men treat each other as individuals because we ARE. Women treat each other as a group because THEY are. Think of the behavior exhibited by twins,they are so similar physically and mentally that when one of them gets hurt, the other one cries. It’s feasible that the crying twin reacts mentally as if itself was the one who suffered the injury. This is how we explain the behavior of women in cases like this,bold mine.

But having three women on the court may not change the outcome of any cases. The justices, after all, regularly divide 5-4 along ideological lines in high-profile cases. Sotomayor’s votes in her first year were very similar to Justice David Souter’s, the man she replaced. Kagan is expected to vote much like Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired in June.

“Having this seat occupied by a woman does not in and of itself change the way this justice votes,” said Vanderbilt University law professor Tracey George.

Academic studies have so far found just one area, sex discrimination lawsuits, in which the presence of a woman on a panel of federal appeals court judges appears to make a difference. A three-judge panel that includes a woman “is significantly more likely to rule in favor of” a person claiming sex discrimination, Christina Boyd, Lee Epstein and Andrew Martin concluded in a 2008 paper.

Adding another woman might not change the outcome of cases, but it could have an effect on how the court goes about its business, George said. She cited social science research that suggests the presence of a woman in a decision-making group influences the behavior of others in the group.

Ginsburg put a similar thought plainly. “We do bring to the table the experience of growing up as girls and women,” she said.

No man would make it a point to explain about his “experience of growing up as a boy and a man”,as men consider those details irrelevant. What has one’s experience as a MAN got to do with his knowledge of law or principles of justice? Nor would a man speak in quite the terms used by Ginsburg, that word “we”. A man might say “I” bring “my” experience of [example] to the table, but unless he was part of a sports team, rock band,or committee of some kind, he does not say “we”.

So this illustrates our problem, we are fighting a group that has a natural herding instinct, sees itself as a homogenous collective and actively attempts to give to every member the power to legally enslave us,independently of the group itself. It experiences failure both collectively and individually, and has evolved to manipulate others socially. On the surface, it would appear an impossible task then, to challenge this enemy without taking every woman down, removing every woman’s rights so that they neither individually nor collectively possess the strength to abuse the powers men have granted them. But this is not necessarily the case, and I will explain why.

Sometimes, women themselves slip up and let out a little too much information about their own psyches and when this information is overheard by an intelligent man, someone with the ability to reason through from said admission to every possible logical conclusion that can be drawn from it, that information can be dangerous to the goals of anti-male women. Women themselves are aware of this fact, and if you look for it, you will see women attempting to hide this information and admitting the reasons for their doing so,in their own way.

Here is one example of such a “slip”.

If having a couple of partners before marriage is okay, when exactly does one cross the line into sluthood? And who gets to decide? These questions are exactly why I support my more sexually adventurous female friends. Their freedom to sleep around without social ostracism protects me and other women from arbitrary social disapproval.

This is valuable information to a man with the knowledge to interpret it,and the will to use it to his advantage.Just like the dog’s natural instinct to hunt and chase prey was used by man to hunt for food, or to herd livestock, so the natural female instinct to group together can be used by man in a multitude of ways. For instance, in the classic method of “death by a thousand cuts”, one could strike back at feminists without targeting them directly through a kind of spooky social voodoo. By excluding any one woman from legally oppressing any individual man, you are striking back directly at “the sisterhood”. Think back to the example of the twins I gave.

This is Men’s Rights Activism that YOU can personally accomplish. All by your lonesome,if you wish.

Does this mean that I advocate punishing innocent women for the sins of the guilty? No. Does THAT mean that we can’t use these principles in a non-violent way on women who are not affiliated with NOW,but nevertheless support their goals? Most emphatically no.

Another way of applying these principles practically to achieve our goals is by using the implicit social message that a woman who does not “follow the herd” is abnormal to teach that a woman who supports feminism is abnormal.

When our grandmothers were growing up, women actively shamed other women for such routine activities as wearing pants instead of dresses, or going to work instead of keeping a home, the exact opposite of what they shame women for today. In less than 100 years, what was abnormal became normal, and what was normal, is now seen as abnormal among women. This changeability, this social fluidity,of women is a great tool in our arsenal. If we were able to achieve a critical mass of women supporting our goals, the implicit desire to be seen as a “normal woman” would kick in among the herd and save us years of aggressive agitation.

Perhaps instead of focusing our efforts solely on getting men to work together, we should be exploiting women’s natural desire to work together.

New Look

I decided to scrap the old look of my blog. While I enjoy the dark and foreboding pure black background,I realize it may hurt some people’s eyes ,which is why I’ve made this move to a more reader-friendly theme. I keep most of what I enjoyed about the other one, trading in some of the other features for a nice off-white/grayish white background for the text. I’m not sure if I’ll stick with this theme permanently. If you like it, rate this post up or comment,I will choose a theme based on reader input.

When you lie down with dogs……

Hey guys, remember when Obama proudly called himself a feminist? And then diverted the stimulus package to females whose jobs weren’t in danger because the Nashunul Organeyeszaishun 4 Wimminz called the original stimulus package “macho” and “burly”?

Well, guess what? It turns out the wimminz only care about other wimminz,and will bite the hand that feeds them if that hand is connected to a body which also sports a penis. Can you believe it?

Take heed manginas,white knights,and feminist men. This is your reward for your years of ardent support of female interests, to be slandered with a charge of sexism. After all, if they’ll do it to the most powerful man in the United States,possibly the world, what makes you think you’re so special?

But while Obama administration officials, liberal Democrats and some Republicans are in near-universal agreement that Warren is well-qualified to run the agency, Obama, though praising Warren last week, has thus far declined to nominate her for the Senate-confirmed role. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has expressed opposition to her nomination, according to a source with knowledge of Geithner’s views, the Huffington Post reported July 15. Treasury Department and White House officials, while effusive in their praise of Warren, have not denied the report, despite repeated opportunities.

Now, the nation’s leading women’s organization alleges sexism may be at play.

“If confirmed, Warren would protect consumers from further economic meltdowns caused by shady loans and credit,” NOW wrote in its e-mail to supporters. “She would also demand accountability and consumer-friendly practices from Wall Street banks. But she’s not part of the old boys club, so NOW asks: Could sexism be at work in denying her this position?”

Old boys’ club? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Are you fucking shitting me? This from a group of people that calls itself “The National Organization For Women? If that isn’t an old girls’ club,I don’t know what is. I mean that literally, those cunts are fucking old. That isn’t a slur against women by the way, just feminists. If the shoe fits,and all that.

It looks to me like they rode Obama about as far as they could, and now they’re planning to eat him. I don’t pity him, after all, he started the fire, seasoned himself up and said “Here I am,ladies!”. I am intensely curious to see whether he will cave to this group once more or whether he will finally find his balls and say “Fuck you bitches, who is the leader of the free world here?”.

They obviously consider Obama a pansy, and they despise him for his lack of balls. As soon as he stops being useful to them, they will publicly denounce him. You saw it here first. NOW has been heaping praise on Obama up to this point,buttering him up,in actuality,but as soon as he does anything for men or doesn’t give the entitlement queens exactly what they want they will come down on him harder than they do on their lesbian life-partner’s fake plastic dick. I hope that happens sooner, rather than later, as I believe Obama has the potential to be the first feminist Manchurian candidate.

On a related note, the girls we love to hate have been flinging the sexism card at anything with a penis lately, and some things without a penis *cough* Jon Stewart *cough*. This is actually good news for us. It may be an act of desperation on their part, or it could be muscle-flexing, but either way, the more people they throw the S-word at the more likely they will be caught playing victim politics.

I sincerely hope they keep it up.

The manginas,male feminists,and white-knights will be the ones thrown on the fire, and then the feminists themselves will be thrown on the fire they started,hopefully by us.

Anti-feminist poster,by me!

Feel free to post this anywhere you choose,then watch as hilarity unfolds.

Filtering in

We’ve come a long way,baby!

Take a look at the comments on this article, and weigh in, if you have the time. That’s a WHOLE LOTTA MRA SYMPATHY there. If I were a feminist viewing this, or even just a woman, I would be treading very carefully in order to try to minimize the negative impact of my actions on the men around me.

Let’s tell the OTHER side of the story,and tell it publicly. Leave a polite,carefully-worded comment about your experiences with divorce,or why you do not want to get married in the first place. Remember, we’re engaging in winning of hearts and minds here, not search and destroy. Save that for annihilating feminists in debate.

Here we are asserting our position,not justifying it.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank my readers for their encouragement,suggestions,and support. If you have any links to interesting blogging material or would like to see a particular MRA issue covered here, please feel free to share. I have several posts in the works, and look forward to presenting them to you when I have finished them.

  • Calendar

    • August 2020
      M T W T F S S
  • Search