Sunday, December 31, 2006

More to be Pitied than Scolded

Dear Jenny,
I read your article, There's still plenty left for women to fight for.

Like you, I scarcely know how to begin.

You seem to be shocked and angry about the fact that other people do not automatically agree with you. I suggest that in a democracy, you should get used to the fact, even welcome it. Why should they agree with you? I suggest that people disagree with you because the claims you make are nonsense, gross misrepresentations of the facts, based upon fabricated and distorted evidence.

The atrocities against women that you mention are largely illusory.

"Women are treated as objects". This is absurd. Of course they are not. Objects can be bought, sold and discarded at will. They have no civil rights. Objects cannot run for speaker of the house. If you are concerned about representations of women in advertising, let me ask you this: are representations of men any better? I put it to you that they are not. However, you are not concerned about that, because men are the enemy.

Eating disorders. The scientific evidence shows that a child is more likely to grow up to have an eating disorder if :
(i) it was not breast-fed
(ii) it was forced to 'clean its plate', i.e. unable to control its own food intake in childhood.
(iii) it had a domineering mother, or difficult relationship with its mother.

What about the 'thin models in the media' theory? There are eating disorder 'hotspots' in Western Europe and North America, but these, it must be noted, are rich consumer societies in which women enjoy the greatest personal freedom, and this consumer culture is designed specifically to pander to the desires of women. What solutions do you advocate? An end to Western consumerism? No more shopping for shoes then. In addition, how can you explain the fact that some eating disorder sufferers are men? You’re not concerned about them, though, are you? They are the enemy.

Eating disorders are a medical issue, not a political issue, and so cannot be effectively addressed by a political pressure group such as the feminist movement. This conclusion is borne out by the observation that forty years of highly successful feminist campaigning has done nothing whatsoever to reduce the incidence of eating disorders.

Like many feminists, you enjoy the benefits of a consumer paradise, but still fail to understand how it works. You have no notion of free market economics, although you still demand the right to shop whenever you want. You think that consumer products (including the mass media) are a sinister conspiracy by the Patriarchy to oppress women. In reality, products which no one wants simply do not sell, and disappear forever. Those which do sell, sell because people want them. As a consumer, you are not a victim; you are in fact the one with the power.

The reason why companies inform you how to slim your thighs is because women want to know. They are prepared to spend money on finding out. The reason they want to know is largely because other women tell them they are fat.

Poor self-esteem? What exactly do you expect the government to do about poor self esteem?

The reason some women seem to suffer a perpetual self-esteem crisis is because of the way that women treat each other within small female social groups. Women spend their time tearing each down over their appearance and dress sense. Feminists try to blame men for these problems.

What would you do about the 'images of perfection' that you claim to see around you? Shall we pass a law so that only ugly people can appear in advertising? Who would buy the products? Would it eliminate eating disorders? No.

How do you explain the fact that men are largely unconcerned about the images of perfect men they see in advertising?

If you want to speculate about sinister conspiracies in the media, try reading Spin Sisters: How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness - and Liberalism - to the Women of America, by Myrna Blyth.

As for sexual harassment, Daphne Patai demonstrated in her book Heterophobia, that the issue has been grossly exaggerated and distorted by feminists in order to demonise men and destroy heterosexual relations.

Violence: Men are much more likely than women to be victims of violence. Women are in fact the most protected group in society, not the least protected. Try reading The Myth of Male Power by Warren Farrell, even if only in the interests of getting a balanced view of the issues. Surely, you owe yourself that much?

Abuse: By abuse, I take it you mean rape and domestic violence? It is the same story again. The facts about rape and domestic violence have been grossly distorted and misrepresented for decades by the feminist movement in order to promote an anti-male agenda, and to attract funding. Rape has been declining steadily since the 1970s, and the evidence shows that most accusations of rape are false and malicious. It is the same story with domestic violence. The scientific evidence shows that:-
(i) Women initiate violence at least as often, if not more often, than men.
(ii) Domestic violence is just as common among homosexuals as heterosexuals.
(iii) Domestic violence collocates very strongly with alcohol and drug abuse.
(iv) However, women do sustain more injuries because they are physically weaker; they get drunk and start fights they cannot win.
Pornography is something that most women are aware of the existence of, but never actually view themselves, although I personally know women who do enjoy pornography. It is a type of product mainly used by men, and that in itself makes it intolerable for feminists. As most women never see pornography, it cannot have much of an effect on their self-image. Even if it does, surely the problem lies with them rather than the pornography; we cannot eliminate everything which might potentially upset anyone, because it is impossible to predict what might upset someone. If we eliminate pornography, I believe that people like yourself, habitual martyrs, will simply move on to something else. We will end up living in a Taliban-style cultural desert. In a democracy, we have a duty to tolerate other people’s different tastes and interests. This rank intolerance of others is one of the reasons that feminism must be opposed.

Do you really think you can eliminate pornography? You should ask yourself why pornography is so popular. Until you can begin to answer that question in a reasonable way, you cannot begin to understand the issue. If you do not understand the issue, then you have no right to make demands about it.

I put it to you that pornography is one of the public, commercial manifestations of women's preoccupation with using their sexuality to extort money from men. Try reading "Sex-ploytation" by Matthew Fitzgerald. A case could be made for saying that pornography exploits men, not women. The models get paid handsomely for appearing in these magazines; the publishers make money from selling them. The only ones losing money are the men who buy them. But that does not concern you, does it, because men are the enemy. Male porn stars are apparently not being exploited either, even though they do the same job, and get paid less than the women.

Which brings us to the pay gap. "Women still make 74 cents for every $1 a man makes, according to news reports". I have a simple question for you. If women are cheaper to employ than men, and they are just as good if not better, as feminists such as yourself are always claiming, then why do employers ever hire men at all? Surely it makes more sense for them just to hire women. Until you can answer that, I will not take you seriously. Try reading "Why Men Earn More" by Warren Farrell.

The so-called ‘pay gap’ is one of the most widespread feminist lies. Once you take overtime, part-time work and the demands of children into account – in other words, the choices that men and women make freely – you will find that there is no pay-gap at all. You are simply mistaken, and the feminist movement has been systematically lying about this issue for decades, just as it continues to lie about domestic violence, rape and child abuse.

You then go on to speculate about the motivations of your tormentors: "The question then becomes: Why? Why did the young people in my classroom speak so glibly regarding feminism?"

George Orwell said "The Catholic and the Communist are alike in assuming that an opponent cannot be both honest and intelligent". He could have added 'feminist'. You cannot believe that any sane person of good will could possibly question feminism. That says a lot about you.

"The answer lies in the way the term "feminism" is treated. Much like the term "liberal," it has been vulgarized, turned into a dirty word"

Your conclusion is that there is an evil media conspiracy to discredit feminism. It can’t be because there is anything wrong with feminism. Perish the thought.

You seem particularly upset that it was young men who took issue with you. "I was ashamed that I let a 20-something man say America needed a "men's movement" without saying anything in response".

Would it have been better or worse had it been a fifty year old woman who said this? Are you trying to dictate what people are allowed to talk about based upon their biology? That’s what it sounds like. That very authoritarian tendency is one of the main problems with feminism. That refusal to tolerate free enquiry or dissent is one of the reasons that feminism must be opposed. It is the Western world’s last surviving bastion of Twentieth Century totalitarianism, encapsulating many of the worst aspects of the Fascist and Socialist mind-sets. Have you ever wondered how so many ordinary Germans found fascism so emotionally seductive? Take a look at yourself. The Nazis regarded themselves as victims too.

"The women's movement will always be needed because ignorance does not disappear". The 'women’s movement' is one of the most intellectually dishonest organisations in the Western world. It has systematically lied, distorted and misrepresented the facts for decades. It fabricates evidence to support its case, it suppresses inconvenient evidence, and it expresses open contempt for science and evidence-based discourse. To represent it as some kind of bulwark against ignorance is risible; it has done more than anyone else to actively promote ignorance, not to mention fear and hatred.

The fact that you become emotionally upset whenever anyone disagrees with you shows that you are intellectually immature. If you are not able to participate in an intellectual discussion without crying, then you probably should not be at university. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what a university is. It is a place of learning and intellectual enquiry. It is not a theatre in which to wage political war.

I have another very simple question for you. What exactly is it that you feel you are prevented from doing? Western middle-class women are the most privileged human beings in history. You want for nothing, and you are still miserable. You need to start examining your own motivations.

Christina Hoff Sommers commented "I think gender feminism is a sort of melancholy philosophy. I think it attracts a certain type of person, who’s hyper-sensitive, chronically offended. It seems to be that Women’s Studies has a disproportionate, there are a lot of people that are hypersensitive and chronically offended, but Women’s Studies is a magnet for them."

It is a melancholy philosophy, and also a paranoid conspiracy theory. The world is simply not the way that feminists say it is, and what's more, it just never has been. I think a case could be made for saying that gender feminists are suffering from a psychotic persecution complex.

Read these books and wake up. The fact is, you are a victim. You are a victim of the feminist movement. It has been systematically lying to you all your life.

Friday, December 29, 2006

It’s rape if the woman is drunk.

A new proposal, contained in a Home Office report, is being considered by ministers in a bid to boost conviction rates for sex offences and bring more “date rapists” to justice.

The new law would mean a woman judged to be drunk at the time of having sex would be deemed incapable of giving her consent. That would potentially open the way for the prosecution of thousands of men for having sex with drunk women — regardless of whether agreement had been given at the time.


This is a very bad law, for two reasons.
(1) It is a blatant double standard. Being drunk relieves a woman of responsibility for her actions, but it does not relieve a man of responsibility for his. The fact is, in most cases the couple will have been drinking together, and the man will be as drunk as the woman. Why is he responsible if sex takes place, but she isn’t?

(2) It means that a drunk woman is legally incapable of giving consent, so she is, legally, an imbecile. Do women really want to be legally classed alongside children and the insane, every time they have a drink? I wouldn't have thought so. It is deeply patronising towards women.

If a drunk woman is not capable of making adult decisions, then this has wider implications. Surely she should not be allowed out without a responsible guardian, and she should not be allowed access to her own bank account until she sobers up. Surely she cannot be held criminally responsible for anything she does. If she gets into a car while drunk, and kills someone, then she cannot be held responsible. If she murders or steals, or commits any other crime, then the same logic applies. A drunk woman has no responsibility.

What is going through the minds of the civil servants who come up with these ideas? The article tells us:

At present only one rape accusation in 20 ends in a conviction and ministers are convinced that means rapists are getting away with it.

The stated intention of this law is to increase the conviction rate for rape. This is the real reason that this law is a travesty. It has nothing at all to do with promoting justice, or protecting women. It is designed to contrive an excuse to lock men up.

Feminist lobbyists have been agitating the government for a long time to take steps to increase the rape conviction rate at all costs.

Yet no mention is ever made of false accusations. Shannon Taylor, the serial false accuser responsible for sending Warren Blackwell to prison, is still walking the streets. She has accused a string of men of assaulting her, and all of her accusations were lies. Mr Blackwell was the only one to be convicted as far as I know. It doesn’t take many Shannon Taylors to produce a low conviction rate.

Feminists believe that the low conviction rate means that the current law is not working. Yet evidence shows that over 50% of rape accusations are false. I believe that the current law is actually working pretty well most of the time. This new law is a false accusers’ charter.

The actual incidence of rape has been falling steadily since the 1970s, but it does not suit certain interest groups to tell us that. Instead, we are bombarded with constant scare stories about date rape, acquaintance rape, date-rape drugs, rape in marriage, and a host of other lies and distortions.

This constant scare-mongering about rape is part of an on-going, feminist-led cultural war against men, marriage, the family and heterosexuality. The intention is to stir up fear and hatred of men in the minds of women, to destroy heterosexual relations, and, ultimately, bring an end to marriage and the family.

Click here to email your MP. We must oppose this now.

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Well Done You

Following on from my recent article, The Wonders of Technology, I want to draw your attention to Associated Content, which bills iteself as 'The People's Media Company'. It is a free self-publishing site, on which you can publish your work in text, audio, video or still graphic (e.g. photo) formats.

I noticed it because George Rolph's excellent series of articles 'The War Against Men' is published there. Well worth reading if you haven't already.

This is exactly the kind of site we should be exploiting to the full for several reasons.
(1) We are not all web designers who can produce our own sites, and here we have ready-made 'user-friendly' internet publishing facilities requiring no real expertise.
(2) They have a ready-made body of readers who will come across your material.
(3) Sites like this and YouTube are part of the internet 'mainstream', rather than being dedicated men's activist sites. We are always complaining about how we cannot penetrate the mainstream; this is it. Go forth and penetrate.
(4) 'User generated content' is the 'latest thing' in the media, the new buzzword. 'You' (i.e. all of us) are Time magazine's Person of the Year, in an effort to draw attention to this.
(5) Content from these sites is often picked up by the conventional media.

In short, I think that user generated content sites such as these are our lever into the mainstream media. We should be ferocious in our efforts to colonise this new medium, starting right now. The internet is our Virago.

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Thursday, December 21, 2006

How much is your house worth?

I'm in the process of trying to buy a flat in London. I'm effectively a first time buyer again due to the fact that I separated last year. But that's another story.

The London property market is a nightmare if you are a first-time buyer. I am earning nearly three times the salary I was making ten years ago. Back in those days, I could afford to buy a flat, because I wasn't living in London. These days, even on a good salary, I am struggling to find anything bigger than one room.

I read in the newspapers that there are two reasons property prices are so high here. One is that a few hundred City traders who earn over a million a year put all their money into property, thus driving prices up. Another is that the Russian mafia have decided to come here and buy houses, driving prices up even more. What the hell are those guys doing here? There just seems to be something wrong about that.

I was coming home from the supermarket this evening, and I was in the car park waiting for the lift. A young homeless man had made his bed on the floor outside the door of the lift. You see them everywhere. Almost always men. There he was, stretched out in his sleeping bag as I stood there waiting. It was oddly embarassing. Shoppers were going past with their bags of Christmas presents. Our eyes met, but we didn't speak. He had a vacant look in his eyes, maybe drug-induced, as he stared out from the top of his sleeping bag. It was fucking cold today in London. At least he was inside. He must have been in his twenties. What a life. Still. At least he's not paying for sex. That's the main thing.

A couple of months ago, I went to a charity concert in aid of the homeless. During the interval, I spoke to the Director of the charity. I asked him what proportion of the homeless in London were men, and what proportion women. He thought for a minute. "Over 90% are men" he said. I asked him why he thought that was. A sharp intake of breath. "Oh, difficult to say. Never really thought about it". You're the Director of a homeless charity, and you've never really thought about it? He looked nervous, like he didn't want to talk about it. "Women tend to get looked after", he said finally. He seemed keen to change the subject. There is a man in deep denial.

There is another reason property prices are so high here, that there are so many homeless, that there is such a housing shortage. Divorce. Social breakdown. The first person to draw my attention to it was Angry Harry. A couple are married. They have a house and a car. They get divorced. They need two houses and two cars. Divorce puts additional pressure on the housing market, and on the environment. Very large numbers of people now live alone. They all need a house. Previously they would have lived in families. But the family is an instrument of the Patriarchy, so it is being forcibly abolished. People are encouraged to divorce and live alone, demand for housing increases, prices go up, the poorest people, those who don't get tend to get looked after, fall off the bottom of the ladder, and end up sleeping in car parks.

Feminists have been waging war against marriage and the family for nearly forty years now. Who is it that has to sleep rough through a British winter? It's not the feminists.

Paying For Sex

Some male friends of mine were having a conversation a while back.

One of them asked "Would you ever consider paying for sex?"

Another replied "Men always pay for sex. One way or the other. You always pay for it".

"And women always charge for it. One way or another" added a third.

Somebody needs to tell Nanny Harman, who is proposing to create a new criminal offence of 'Paying for Sex'. I wonder how she plans to define that.

What if I fall in love with a girl, I woo her, charm her and shower her with gifts (In feminist terms, I'm 'grooming' her for sex). Eventually she succumbs to my manly charms. I sweep her off her feet and carry her, triumphantly, to my bed, where we make passionate love. Is that going to be a criminal offence? Do those gifts that I gave her constitute payment for sex? If I get down on one knee and present her with a big diamond-studded ring, can that later be construed as 'payment' for sex?

Maybe it is only one night stands that will be subject to the law.

If I buy a girl dinner and a few drinks and then we have sex, will that be a criminal offence? If not, why not? Is that not paying for sex?

Maybe the law will be drafted so that only cash counts as 'payment'.

How about if my girlfriend loses her job, and I give her fifty pounds to pay her bills, and then later we have sex? Will that be a criminal offence? After all, the only reason I'm prepared to show her such generosity is because she's my girlfriend; in other words, because I'm having sex with her. If I wasn't having sex with her, I probably wouldn't be so ready to give her money. Looks like I'm a criminal. Probably a sex offender.

Maybe it needs to be a one night stand and a cash payment to constitute a criminal offence. So. I go out on a date with a girl. We have dinner and a few drinks. We split the bill like the modern adults we are. We go back to my place and have sex. I'm in love. I think I want to marry her. She needs to go home. She doesn't have enough money for a taxi. I give her twenty pounds and she goes, saying she'll call me in the morning. She calls me the next day and breaks it off. She never wants to see me again. As events turned out, it was a one night stand, and I gave her cash. Have I just paid her for sex? Was she in fact, just a cheap prostitute? We need to know.

If Nanny Harman's law becomes reality, we will probably find that prostitutes simply change their behaviour. Some will become con artists. Not revealing that they are in fact prostitutes, they will convince their clients to give them cash on some pretext like the taxi story above, or their mother's operation, and then they will disappear.

Or payment will be done using a joke euphemism. "Can you give me my" - nudge, nudge, wink, wink - "taxi fare? It's a very long way home, so it's rather expensive".

Some prostitutes will start accepting gifts in kind instead of money. High class call girls will probably only accept jewellery, which they will then sell.

What about the crack-whores who accept drugs in exchange for sex? In future, will that count as payment for sex, or merely supplying a controlled substance?

Some women will use intimidation against innocent men to blackmail them. "Give me some money or I'm going to say that you offered to pay me for sex".

That's only half the story; if it's nearly impossible to define 'payment', how much more difficult is it to define 'sex'?

Harman is stupid if she really thinks she can stamp out 'paying for sex'. I haven't thought this through completely, but in five minutes I managed to think further than Harman, with all her teams of advisors.

I know there are stupid people in the world. We just shouldn't let them into positions of power. Harman should probably be teaching kindergarten. That seems to be the level her mind works on, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's a perfectly respectable job.

No Mention of Rent 'Boys'

In the current orgy of breast-beating over prostitution, one unspoken message emerges. Prostitution is perfectly acceptable as long as men do it. I did a quick internet search for male escorts in London and got the usual wealth of results. This is a typical example: "This year has seen explosive growth in the Male Escort industry. Demand driven mainly by career oriented women who do not have the time for relationships but have the money and desire for Male Escorts!"

I wonder if Nanny Harman is keen to prosecute these women. Somehow I doubt it.

I suspect the escorts listed here are rather expensive and high class. However, there are also males working at the other, undeniably sordid, end of the market, just as the five victims in Suffolk were. Most of these will be catering to the gay community rather than straight women, but as Dennis Nilsen demonstrated, they are no less vulnerable for being male, or being gay. A quick perusal of this list of his victims shows that most were either male prostitutes or were homeless.

The same logic applies to male prostitutes as female ones, although you would never know that by reading the newspapers. The trouble is that the debate is controlled by feminist ideas. Paying for sex is one of the bad things that men do to women. Violence is something that men do to women.

These feminist ideas are gross misrepresentations of the facts. Until we, as a nation, wake up and start telling the truth about prostitution, these deaths are going to continue.

However, as long as Harman and her feminist friends remain in power, that is not likely to happen.

The Observer's Guide to Kerb-Crawling

The reason I've been inspired to blog so much about prostitution lately is because I have just received a comment on my article, Legalise Prostitution from the Observer journalist Anushka Asthana asking about kerb-crawling.

Here is the text of Ms. Asthana's query:

"I don't suppose anyone on this blog could help me. I am a reporter for the Observer and we are tring (sic) to find someone who has been a kerb crawler to talk to us completely anonymously about why they do it, what the risks are etc. Nothing on this blog suggests any of you are kerb crawlers but I am just trying everyone I can. If you can help I would really appreciate it.
I can be contacted on anushka.asthana@observer.co.uk or (+44)02077134238.
Best wishes,
Anushka"


Here is my response:

Dear Anushka,
Thank you for your query. You say "Nothing on this blog suggests any of you are kerb crawlers". Thank you for noticing. I specifically said in my article that I am completely opposed to kerb-crawling. I didn't say I was opposed to prostitution though. If Belle de Jour decides to give up her boring job in the city and become a thousand-pound-a-night call girl, good luck to her, I say. There is prostitution, and then there is prostitution.

You say you are trying everyone. Have you tried the Lehman Brothers Centre for Women in Business? I understand that male escort services are exploding this year due to "Demand driven mainly by career oriented women who do not have the time for relationships but have the money and desire for Male Escorts!".

Perhaps they might be able to help you.

Best Wishes,
Heretic

Labour Failure to Grasp the Ipswich Nettle

In view of the recent events in Ipswich, the arguments put forward in my article, Legalise Prostitution are more urgent than ever. Even before Ipswich, the murder of street prostitutes was the largest group of unsolved murders in this country.

Evidence and logic are screaming at us that legalising prostitution is the only way to make the situation any better. Yet the Labour government continues to show its cowardice and lack of imagination over the issue.

The Observer published an article in last week's edition describing how a move by David Blunkett to liberalise prostitution law was blocked by Downing Street.

Blunkett's aide, Katherine Raymond, "worked closely with ministers in drawing up a consultation paper called 'Paying the Price', which she said was designed to trigger a 'serious debate' about legalised brothels and red-light zones managed by local councils. She said the consultation paper she helped to write - which proposed, among other options, managed zones patrolled by police, where sex workers could safely take their clients and a register of licensed prostitutes - ran into trouble almost immediately: 'In Whitehall, only a handful of politicians and officials wanted 'Paying the Price' to see the light of day. Raymond says there was 'opposition from Number 10, which was terrified of a hostile media response'. The paper eventually surfaced only because Blunkett wanted what he called a 'grown-up debate'. However, a few months later he resigned and the issue passed to his successor, Charles Clarke. The result, says Raymond, was a 'watered-down series of proposals' that has still not been implemented."

Five working-class women in Suffolk have died so that a few senior civil servants and ministers can continue to claim their fat salaries. I hope they feel it was worth it.

Later in the week, we were treated to the spectacle of Harriet Harman, the (guffaw) Justice Minister, calling for a change in the law to make 'paying for sex' a criminal offence. Matron is wagging her finger in the hope that the whole nasty problem will go away. She must think she is in charge of a room full of naughty toddlers. It's a bit like a politician in Prohibition America saying that if prosecuting the bootleggers is no longer acceptable then let's prosecute the drinkers instead. My message to Matron is: Your disapproval, your moralising, your desire to prosecute, is itself the very source of the problem. Casual sex, like drinking alcohol, just isn't going to stop, no matter how much you might want it to. But New Labour can't afford to offend the feminists, and ironic as it might seem, women will continue to die.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

Judge in RobeRage Outrage

Fathers 4 Justice activist Jolly Stanesby recently spent two days on the roof of judge David Tyzack's mansion, dressed in a Santa Claus costume, to protest about his court-enforced separation from his children. The noble Lord apparently threatened Santa with a shotgun. His Lordship has a talent for doing things likely to upset children it would seem. Perhaps Judge Tyzack should attend anger management classes.

Perhaps his name should be added to RobeProbe, which bills itself as the 'World's Most Trusted Judge Rating Site'. This website names judges as the best or the worst, depending on their track record for things like racial and gender bias, intelligence, and ability to control 'RobeRage'.

This is a potentially useful site for naming and shaming the most anti-male judges in the family court, and for crediting those who apparently act without bias. Ideally, we should have an on-going court-watch program, in which we identify all family court judges, log their decisions, and give them feedback on line. This would enable F4J and others to target their campaigns more effectively. Except in this case, naughty boys and girls are the ones who do get a visit from Santa.

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

The Lessons of Ipswich

What can we learn about British society from the recent events in Ipswich?

That all men hate all women (as Germaine Greer said in the Female Eunuch)? That women are the cowering victims of a vicious Patriarchy? If you think so, then let me ask you this:

Why do all those male police officers even bother to do anything at all? On learning that a male serial killer is murdering females, why doesn’t the Patriarchy’s Police just shrug its collective shoulders, go home and watch the football? Or beat their wives up, or whatever it is that heterosexual men are supposed to do. Why doesn’t the police commander order his men to ignore this trivial issue, and instead concentrate on pursuing women who haven’t paid their parking tickets? Why doesn’t the government offer to give the guy a knighthood for services rendered to the Patriarchy? Why don’t working class men stand in the pub, beer in hand, and talk about what a great guy he is? Once he is caught and imprisoned, the other prisoners will attack him on a daily basis. How do you explain that? Surely, they will all want to walk up and shake his hand in the lunch queue, congratulate him for being such a cool guy, maybe even ask for his autograph?

When it comes down to it, if this country is such a misogynist Patriarchy, as we are constantly being told, why is it even illegal to kill women? Surely, if all men hate all women, as the Demented Antipodean maintains, and if men run society for their own benefit, as feminists are always saying, then surely most of us would see killing a woman as a bit like killing a rat. Not even worthy of police attention.

That’s what the feminist model would tend to predict. Instead, we have the entire nation, men and women alike, expressing their outrage, with no discernible gender difference.

One of the things we can learn from the case of the Ipswich Strangler is that the UK is not really all that much of a Patriarchy after all. Bad luck, feminists. Let me tell you this, girls: If you think this is a Patriarchy, you’ve got no imagination. It could be Oh-so-much worse.

But that is really incidental. I’m just taking the opportunity to satirise feminism.

The real lessons to be learned in Ipswich are these:
(1) The War on Drugs is not working.
(2) Our prostitution laws do not work.

The fact that so many of our young people become addicted to drugs is an aspect of the widespread social breakdown we are experiencing in this country. All the academic evidence shows that growing up in a broken home with out a father is the single biggest indicator of delinquency, even more than poverty or ethnic group. By implementing their policy of ‘Divorce-As-Revolution’ for the last forty years, feminists have done a great deal to contribute to this youth delinquency and social breakdown. Feminism is, in fact, probably the single biggest factor.

So, we have a lot of young people from poor homes with heroin addictions. Treatment for young addicts is pathetically inadequate. The State is not going to do much to help them, except maybe criminalise them, so they tend to avoid the police. They need to make money to fund their expensive habits, so they turn to crime. In the case of boys, that may be mugging, theft and burglary. In the case of some girls, prostitution is the easiest option.

Prostitution is illegal in this country, and so young women cannot work in safe, regulated brothels. They are harassed by the police and the local community, apparently in the belief that if the job becomes sufficiently difficult, they will give it up and do something else. It doesn’t work that way. They are simply driven to the worst parts of town, and taught not to trust the authorities. In other words, they are painfully vulnerable.

Approximately one percent of the population suffers from a psychopathic personality disorder. Reference. Or more usually, everyone else suffers from it. Psychopaths have no ability to empathise with others. They often regard themselves as superior to everyone else. They are not immoral. They have no sense of morality at all. They are amoral. They regard other people in the same way as objects. You can meet white collar psychopaths at work. They inhabit all walks of life. A lot of psychopaths are not physically violent. The Ipswich Strangler is almost certainly a psychopath. People like him are, thankfully, very rare.

We have put these young women into harm’s way as a result of our ridiculous social policies. Why does this man kill them? Simple. Just because he can.

I have no doubt that this person will be caught before long. However, if we want to make sure this doesn't happen again, we need to learn some hard lessons.

Hysterical screaming isn't going to help. I'm sure that the feminist movement has already begun to make misandrist hay with this case. Demonising all men as monsters, and trying to marginalise them to the fringes of society is going to make matters worse. If you remove men from their families, isolate them, strip them of their rights, possessions and dignity, you will create more women-killers. If they find themselves constantly characterised as women-hating monsters, some men will eventually say, 'So be it'.

The lessons we need to learn from this case are several. The only way to make life safer for prostitutes is to legalise and regulate the trade. We need to fundamentally re-think the 'War on Drugs' fiasco. We should learn from the US Prohibition experience, and consider how it applies to our own situation. Most of all, we need to reverse the process of massive social breakdown which contributes to all of these problems. Stop the war against heterosexuality, marriage, the family, men and fatherhood, which the feminist movement and the academic Left have been waging for forty years. We need to leave both Karl Marx and Victorian morality back in the Nineteenth Century where they belong.

Tuesday, December 12, 2006

New Move to Name and Shame the Deadbeats - Shame They are Mostly Women

"Ministers are planning to publish on the internet the names of absent parents who refuse to pay maintenance for their children. Work and Pensions Secretary John Hutton said he aimed to "come down like a ton of bricks" on absent parents. New enforcement powers to be outlined in a White Paper this week include the removal of passports, curfews and electronic tagging." Reference

What few realise is that women refuse to pay child support more often than men.

The popular image of feckless fathers who leave the marital home and refuse to pay any money towards the upkeep of their former wife and children has been much exaggerated, according to new figures from the Child Support Agency. Latest returns from the government agency show that a marginally higher proportion of women than men persistently refuse to pay child maintenance. Reference

The situation is the same in the US.

The percentage of "deadbeat" moms is actually higher than that of dads who won't pay, even though mothers are more consistently awarded custody of children by the courts. Census figures show only 57 percent of moms required to pay child support -- 385,000 women out of a total of 674,000 -- give up some or all of the money they owe. That leaves some 289,000 "deadbeat" mothers out there, a fact that has barely been reported in the media. That compares with 68 percent of dads who pay up, according to the figures. Reference

Do you think for a second that the British government's new 'name and shame' website will be posting pictures of these selfish, irresponsible deadbeat mothers? Don't hold your breath. The feminists in the Civil Service will never stand for that. This is not really about providing for children; it is about politics. It is just another salvo in the on-going cultural war against men and fathers. The facts don't come into it.

Sunday, December 10, 2006

New, Improved Fascism Lite. Now Available in Lesbian Flavour.

Someone drew my attention to this gem today.

Poorly written, hysterical, inconsistently referenced, full of anecdotal evidence, as a piece of academic writing it is juvenile in the extreme. It is as though a freshman Women’s Studies assignment has somehow found its way on to the internet, and in fact we should be grateful for the opportunity to capture one alive.

However, let's not get involved in ad hominem attacks. Let us instead begin to unpack some of the unsubstantiated assertions, spurious statistics, myths and distortions it contains. Unfortunately, I simply don’t have the space to give this essay the treatment it deserves. It is indeed a fascinating specimen of contemporary feminist scholarship.

Ms. Bold clearly states, “Women, who outnumber men, are the single largest group of oppressed humans on the planet. Men have oppressed women nonstop for the longest length of time of any oppressed group, more than 5,000 years”

In order to understand why anyone, particularly a privileged middle-class girl in the world’s most powerful nation, would choose to view her own life as analogous to slavery (apart from her own tendency towards self-pitying narcissism), let me provide some basic intellectual context.

Karl Marx described society in terms of economic classes, and the political relations between these classes. The most significant political relation was the relation between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and this relation was characterized as being essentially antagonistic in nature.

Radical feminists have cherry-picked some aspects of this theory. In feminist theory, society is again described in terms of classes, but these are defined sexually (i.e. biologically), rather than economically. The political relation between men and women is, again, characterized as essentially antagonistic. Feminism has moved the political Left from ‘class war’ to ‘gender war’.

In both cases, the favoured political relation is given almost metaphysical significance. Just as Marx claimed that ‘All history is the history of class struggle’, radical feminists claim that male violence against women, and rape in particular, is the single defining feature of human social life almost from the earliest times. We are informed:

“Even when men rape males, contempt for women is the underlying issue” It's all about Me. Me. Me.

Any such analysis of society in terms of class struggle tacitly assumes that classes are monolithic; the classes are easy to define, all members of a class share the same political interests, and members of different classes always have divergent or conflicting political interests.

That, approximately, is the conceptual framework underpinning this article.

M Bold takes as her subject matter violence committed by men against women. It is clear from the beginning that violence committed by women, and violence committed against men, are simply not going to be considered. Given the simple-minded quasi-Marxist structure of the theory, combined with her own over-riding self-regard, it should be easy enough to see why these issues don't matter to her.

The author begins by asserting that all men are responsible for violence against women, even men who have never committed violence against women - which is almost all of us. This is purely a political decision of hers, which she obviously thinks is some kind of fundamental truth. We are all to be held collectively responsible for crime, simply because we happen to belong to a biologically-defined group selected by the author herself.

This is like saying, following a news story about a black criminal, that all black people are collectively responsible for all crime. In fact, this is exactly the kind of tactic used by the British National Party and other extreme Right groups in order to stir up racial hatred. Radical feminists are doing exactly the same thing with regard to sex. Articles such as this one serve no function other than to promote fear and hatred of men by women. The entire text is an exercise in neo-fascist propaganda, and a poorly written one at that.

There is the curious feminist obsession with the notion of ‘breaking the silence’. The claim is that women have been ‘silenced’ and need to speak out. Recent scientific evidence has shown that women speak, on average, three times as much as men.

She quotes someone called Sonia Johnson: “If women steadfastly and courageously began to tell the truth and would not stop, would not be co-opted, would not become afraid, the truth of our enslavement would be undeniable”. There is a whole universe of complexity to unpack just from this one statement. I find it risible that someone could write an entire book full of lies, distortion and misrepresentation, and call it ‘Telling the Truth’.

Ms Bold seems to believe that merely by repeating something often enough, it will eventually become accepted as the truth. This was also the view of Adolf Hitler: “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”

The next section of the article is designed to enumerate possible responses to her bizarre claims. She is attempting to forestall any criticism. It is ironic that she talks about 'breaking the silence', when most of her article is designed to suppress debate and create silence.

When making her case that men are evil and women are good, she condemns war as one of the evils that men do. She then goes on to stress the importance of confronting one’s enemies directly, and cites as an example Allied action in WWII, without which the Nazis 'would now run the world'. Is she against war or not? The poor girl is confused.

She goes on to put forward a model of human history which I believe is often known as ‘ecofeminism’. Its most celebrated proponent is the man-hating genocidal psychotic, Mary Daly, whom in fact Ms Bold quotes in obvious fawning admiration. It is roughly the following. At the beginning of human history, society was an Eden-like paradise free from conflict. The reason for this is that women were in control, and everyone worshipped goddesses. Then, the Fall from Grace occurred. Men gained control, and everyone began to worship male gods instead. Men subjugated women, and violence, war and mayhem followed. The solution to this is to revert to the Old Religion. We must all go back to worshipping the goddess, and everything will be as it should be. This absurd and childish theory is completely unsupported by any evidence, archaeological, historical or scientific. That does not stop feminists such as Ms Bold from citing spurious pseudo-scientific evidence in support of her case. Ms Bold offers us as supposed scientific evidence, quotations from the kind of book one would find in the New Age section of one’s local bookshop. I find it surprising that goddess worshippers should even feel it necessary to attempt to justify their beliefs in terms of the hated phallocentric science. Feminists have shown time and time again that they are prepared to steal the clothes of science when it suits them, and condemn science as evil when that suits them better.

Deconstructing this mythology would require an entire paper in itself. However, it can basically be seen as a lesbians-only resurgence of the Romantic Movement. For more information on this particular outer reach of lesbian feminism – which, incidentally, seems to have become mainstream in many Women’s Studies departments in the USA – refer to “The New Victorians” by Rene Denfeld, and “Higher Superstition”, by Gross and Levitt.

Perhaps Utopia Bold believes that she has discovered the key to unlock the universe. In fact, she is simply a devotee of a strange, new and deeply unsavoury religious cult. I hope that she will grow out of it.

This essay is valuable evidence of the appalling state of contemporary academic culture in the Western world. Students in China, India and the Far East get on with the serious business of learning science, mathematics, engineering, economics, music and art, and building a brighter future for themselves. This essay, on the other hand, a product of the Womynz Studeez industry, is what passes for higher education or journalism in the Anglosphere. This situation, this undeniable decline in intellectual culture in the West, is a direct result of Feminism and the legacy of the 1960s Left.

Like broken families, the anti-intellectual, pseudo-academic culture prevailing in our universities, and our media, is another symptom of the social and cultural breakdown afflicting the Western world. We need to learn to take back the campus. We need to re-impose the values of traditional Liberal education on to academic life before any more harm is done to it. We are staring into the abyss.

New, Improved Fascism Lite. Now Available in Lesbian Flavour. Because You're Worth It. Reaches the Parts that Other Fascisms Don’t Reach. Doesn’t Do What it Says On the Tin. Reassuringly Nonsensical.

Sunday, November 26, 2006

Scary Stories Round the Feminist Campfire.

After reading this excellent article by Carey Roberts recently on the subject of feminist scare-mongering, I was reminded of a chain email that my ex-girlfriend received from one of her female friends a few years back. I was so fascinated by it that I kept a copy:

THIS IS TRUE!!! So read carefully and bear it in mind

Have you been to Bluewater recently?

This is a true story...please pass it on to others, so that they know, this stuff really happens!!

About a month ago there was a woman standing by the entrance to the shopping centre, passing out flyers to all the women going in. The woman had written the flyer herself to tell about an experience she had so that she might warn other women. The previous day, this woman had finished shopping and went out to her car and discovered that she had a flat tyre. She got the jack out of the trunk and began to change the flat. A nice man dressed in a business suit and carrying a briefcase walked up to her and said, "I noticed you're changing a flat tyre. Would you like me to take care of it for you?" The woman was grateful for his offer and accepted his help. They chatted amiably while the man changed the flat, and then put the flat tyre and the jack in the trunk, shut it and dusted his hands off. The woman thanked him profusely, and as she was about to get in her car, the man told her that he left his car around on the other side of the shopping centre, and asked if she would mind giving him a lift to his car. She was a little surprised and she asked him why his car was on the other side. He explained that he had seen an old friend in the centre whom he hadn't seen for some time and they had a bite to eat and looked round the shops for a while. He got turned around in the mall and left through the wrong exit, and now he was running late and his car was clear around on the other side of the centre. The woman hated to tell him "no" because he had just rescued her from having to change her flat tyre all by herself, but she felt uneasy. Then she remembered seeing the man put his briefcase in her trunk before shutting it and before he asked her for a ride to his car. She told him that she'd be happy to drive him around to his car, but she just remembered one last thing she needed to buy. She said she would only be a few minutes; he could sit down in her car and wait for her; she would be as quick as she could be. She hurried into the shopping centre, and told a security guard what had happened; the guard came out to her car with her, but the man had left. They opened the trunk, took out his locked briefcase and took it down to the police station. The police opened it (ostensibly to look for ID so they could return it to the man). What they found was rope, duct tape and knives. When the police checked the "flat" tyre, there was nothing wrong with it; the air had simply been let out. It was obvious what the man's intention was, and obvious that he had carefully thought it out in advance. The woman was blessed to have escaped harm. How much worse it would have been if she had children with her and got them to wait in the car while the man fixed the tyre, or if she had a baby strapped into a car seat. This woman told this experience on the flyer she was passing out so that other women could be warned.

Please remember this, and if you ever need roadside or parking lot help, wait on the outside of the car and make sure the children wait outside with you, or maybe wait in side with the doors locked, or call AA, or something. I'd like you to forward this to all the women you know. It may save a life.


This is another scare story of the sort that Roberts discusses. It is a good example of viral marketing in action, and it perfectly illustrates the fact that feminist ideas appeal most to the extremely gullible. The purpose of it is to spread misandry; to demonise men, to sabotage normal healthy relations between men and women by breaking down trust, and at the same time, to build feminist solidarity. It is one bullet in an ongoing, widespread and determined cultural and political war against men. The 'gender war', in which feminists are the only ones doing the fighting.

Notice that for a 'true' story, it is totally devoid of any facts that can be checked. Where was it? When was it? Who was the woman involved? Who were the police officers involved? What did their report say? Were there any witnesses? Is there a better description of the suspect? Nothing. As the great thriller director Alfred Hitchcock knew, there is nothing you can show on screen which is as scary as the monster inside the viewer's head. Hint at the horror, and let them make up the details for themselves.

The gushing, gossipy, slightly hysterical tone, the too-many exclamation marks, all identify it as having been written by a woman, just in case we were in any doubt. I'm not saying all women write that way, but I am saying that most of those who write that way are women.

The main character is an 'ordinary' woman going about her everyday business, with whom the reader is no doubt supposed to identify herself. She is confronted with a minor crisis - a flat tyre. This is the kind of problem which is traditionally outside the remit of female competence, but clearly within the remit of male competence, thus setting the scene for the gallant rescuer to appear. However, our heroine is such a liberated feminist stalwart that she gamely tackles the problem herself.

Enter the villain, stage left. Notice how he is dressed. He doesn't look like a stereotypical 'pervert', which, while we are on the subject, just means a low-status man who is poor and socially excluded. No. This one shows all the signs of being a pillar of respectable society. Business suit. Briefcase. You can't trust any of them! It's the normal-looking ones you have to watch out for!! They're the worst!!! His rescue provides him with the lever he needs to emotionally blackmail a ride out of her, a narrative feature which all female readers will understand immediately.

As all fans of crime fiction know, the villain always makes one fatal mistake. He put his briefcase in the trunk. Why on earth would he do that? It is full of incriminating evidence, and it is now impossible to retrieve. She might have refused him a ride, and he would have lost it forever. In fact, when he realises that she is on to him, he makes his escape, and actually does lose it forever, thus leaving the proof for us to examine at our leisure. If only all criminals were that stupid, the world would be a safer place.

The briefcase is the cheap plot device on which the whole narrative depends. She saw it and assumed him to be respectable. She saw him put it in the trunk and began to get suspicious. The police find it is full of torture equipment.

It is interesting that other characters are never identified by sex - the security guard, the police. We may assume they are male, but we are not told. They are faceless worker ants. The only person who is actually identified as a male is, we are led to believe, a serial killer. In the world of the narrative, all women are innocent victims, and all men are violent misogynist criminals. The simple-minded formula of feminist dogma.

We are then informed of 'how much worse it could have been' - men are not only a danger to women, but to children as well.

Finally, we see the brave heroine doing what a woman's gotta do. Handing out leaflets - not to men, interestingly, only to women. This tells us two things. Firstly, that you cannot rely on men to support you. Women can only rely on other women for support. The entire male population are, presumably, all serial killers, or at least, they all condone serial killers. Our heroine simply ignores them as irrelevant. Secondly, she cannot rely on the police to do anything about it. Instead, she is obliged to mount a lonely heroic vigil. Her only hope is to sensitise other women to the danger that men pose. Our duty, as female readers, is to help her. We must warn other women. We must all pull together to fight this evil menace.

And I thought feminists were against pornography.

This story is only one of a number of such feminist masterpieces. Here is a short list of them, discussed at TruthOrFiction.Com

The Flat Tire Killer (discussed above)

The Crying Baby Killer

The Online Killer

New Carjacking Method

Back seat kidnapper

Perfume peddlers knock women out with ether and then rob them

The $5 Bill Killer

Shopping Mall Abductions

If you come across any more, please contact me.

Flying in the Face of Common Sense.

British Airways, Air New Zealand and Quantas operate an outrageous anti-male policy. They will not allow an unaccompanied minor to sit next to a man. After loading, if such a situation has occurred, the cabin crew will ask the man to change seats with a woman. He has no choice in the matter. Reference

It is impossible to know how many other airlines operate a similar policy, as such things are rarely made public. It is a policy which can be operated in secret during the booking process, and no-one need ever know. It has only come to light because men have protested about it.

I advocate that everyone should boycott these airlines until this policy is abandoned. If you call an airline to make a booking, ask them whether they operate a similar policy, and if they do, take your business elsewhere, and tell them why you are doing so.

If you find yourself being asked to change seats, refuse to do so. This is surely a breach of your human rights. Challenge them to have you arrested. Go to the newspapers and have a field day. Sue them through every court in the land. Picket their offices. Do your best to humiliate them in public.

This policy is part of a wider cultural and political war against men. We need to fight on every front.

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Diluted Megan's Law on the Way.

"Single mothers will be able to ask the police to check the background of a new partner to find out whether he is a sex offender under moves being considered by the Home Office", according to The Guardian.

It seems that the same courtesy is not being extended to single fathers. And there was me thinking that feminists were opposed to gender-specific legislation.

"The proposals...are seen as an attempt by the government to respond to demands for greater disclosure of the whereabouts of paedophiles, triggered by a number of high profile cases such as the murder of eight-year-old Sarah Payne."

Still no acknowledgement of the fact that there are female child sex offenders (Reference). This is due to lack of public awareness, and good old fashioned prejudice. Eighty-six percent of young people who claim they have been sexually abused by a female are not believed (Reference).

Women who sexually-abuse children are better able to disguise it as care-giving (Reference).

This combination of the naive Victorian belief that "women just don't do things like that", combined with women's ability to cover their tracks, and a relentless and virulent campaign of feminist propaganda against males, means that female paedophiles literally pass unnoticed.

In the Guardian report of the proposed new law, there is still no mention of the fact that, excluding sexual abuse, most of the child abuse (Reference) and child murder (Reference) is committed by women.

Still no mention of false accusations. Still no sign of a False Accusers' Register. Still no sign of a Warren's Law to tell us if a known malicious false accuser is living in the neighbourhood. Still no removal of the right to anonymity for false accusers.

We still have a mountain to climb.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

The Wonders of Technology

Have you watched this video yet? It's powerful stuff, but not always pretty. It's an attempt to expose and examine violence committed by females, against each other, and against men and children, and about society's refusal to recognise or condemn it. My one criticism is that it lapses into sentimentality in parts, but, nevertheless, we need more like it.

Here are a couple more videos I came across.

In this one, we see hidden CCTV camera footage of a woman abusing her children.

In this one, a New Zealand doctor discusses male depression and suicide following family breakdown.

Technology is the men's movement's best weapon. The mainstream media refuses to report our ideas, and the internet has been our most successful tool in getting around the Lace Curtain of feminist censorship. We need to do more to capitalise on the potential of technology.

Back in the Sixties and Seventies, feminists started their own publishing houses to get their ideas into print. We need to do the same, but luckily for us, it is much easier in a 21st Century context. Technology is men's natural habitat; tech savvy women are pretty thin on the ground. Let's play to our strengths.

The men's movement is largely internet based. It has done a lot with blogs, and chat forums, and conventional websites. It's time to take it to the next level. We need more amateur film-makers producing videos like the ones above. Most guys can now get access to a digital video camera, and video editing software is easy to come by. Make a movie and post it on YouTube, then distribute the link through the online men's community, and email good links to your friends, or even to the mainstream media. This is a valuable way of getting our arguments to a wider audience. It's called viral marketing.

The guys from Bull(shit) Busters, who made the first video listed above, taped footage from the TV, incorporated it into their film, and just added some simple titles. The doctor just stood in front of a camera and gave a lecture. It's that easy. Videos like these are the early pioneers. Let's create our own Hollywood.

Let's not forget audio files, multimedia presentations like PowerPoint, and Macromedia Flash. The works we produce can be easily emailed. How often do you get email jokes around your office? It can all be done with the skills a lot of us already have.

It's not just about putting our case forward. Technology has other practical benefits too. This is another useful site, Don't Make Her Mad.com, explaining how to use technology to protect yourself from false allegations, mainly by covert electronic surveillance.

If you have any more ideas about how we can use technology to our advantage, please post a comment here.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

'Miss A' named by peer

The psychopathic liar known only as 'Miss A' has been named. She was the liar responsible for falsely accusing husband and father of two Warren Blackwell of rape, causing him to spend three years and four months in prison for a sexual offence he didn't commit. Even after the truth was exposed, she continued to enjoy anonymity, as if she was a real rape victim.

Lord Campbell-Savours used his Parliamentary immunity to name her, in a bold move designed to protect the public. Good for him. Her name is Shannon Taylor. That's the first hurdle crossed. Now we just need to cage the psycho bitch. Let's hope Northamptonshire Police learn to tell their arses from their elbows before too long.

Why not write to Lord Campbell-Savours and thank him, and suggest to him that we need a False Accuser's Register, and Taylor's name needs to be on it. We need a 'Warren's Law'; people need to know if a serial false accuser is living in their neighbourhood.

Mad Female Child Killer Gets Locked Up (for once)

A mother drowned her 7 year old daughter in a river in order to protect her from paedophiles. Heather Vinkenbrink developed paranoid schizophrenia, and became convinced that her family was being persecuted. After killing her daughter, Vinkenbrink told the police, "Now she'll be safe from the paedophile ring in the day nursery" Reference

Another casualty of the feminist-led paedophile witch-hunt. Given the media furore over imaginary paedophiles for the last twenty years, who can blame her?

The abuse industry in the UK has grown into a ravenous monster in the last two decades. There is good money to be made, and moral authority to be had, and it fits in well with the feminist agenda to demonise men.

We have all sat and watched serious items on prime-time BBC news, informing us about rings of devil-worshippers sacrificing children behind every suburban curtain. The most bizarre thing of all is that we didn't burst out laughing. We actually thought it might be true. We shake our heads patronisingly at those hill-billies back in the 1930s who thought that Orson Welles' 'War of the Worlds' radio play was a serious news broadcast, but we are scarcely any less gullible ourselves.

What followed was Orkney, Lewis, Rochdale, Cleveland, Shieldfield, to name just a few. Families were torn apart. Children were harmed instead of helped. And as far as I am aware, not one person in the abuse industry has even been fired, let alone prosecuted. All these so-called experts, like Liz Maclean of Orkney fame, have quietly disappeared like cockroaches into the woodwork. Yet the feminist-led moral panic about imaginary paedophiles continues unabated.

It seems that paedophiles have given up worshipping the devil now though. They prefer to hang out in internet chat-rooms instead.

In this climate, Heather Vinkenbrink happened to develop schizophrenia. She became convinced her daughter was in danger, and killed her in order to protect her from a fate worse than death. The court has placed her in a secure psychiatric unit, and I hope she receives the treatment she needs.

There never was a paedophile ring in the day nursery. The lesbian feminists who told us these lies for political ends, like Beatrix Campbell, have got a lot to answer for. They are the ones who should be held to account.

Monday, October 23, 2006

Mad Female Child Killer Walks Free (yet again)

Danielle Wails, a young mother from Newcastle, was convicted of infanticide and walked free today. If you also follow the other link on the page, 'False trail after baby fire death', you start to get the picture.

Wails was the mother of a four month old baby, Alexander. She was estranged from the baby's father, Robert Gallon, who apparently "did not live with Ms Wails, but played an active part in his son's life". Wails wanted him back. She obviously believes in the grand romantic gesture.

She set fire to her own house, apparently in an effort to gain Gallon's attention. The baby was burned alive. The BBC stated on TV that 'the 999 call, with the baby screaming in the background, was so distressing it could not be played to the court'.

What kind of kangaroo court is this? "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. There is important evidence in this case, but we're not going to play it to you in case it upsets you. We don't want you to have nightmares, you poor little things". Could it be that, had the court heard the recording, they would have locked her up? We couldn't have that now, could we?

But it gets worse. Much worse. She explained the fire by telling the police that 'two men' had broken into the house, tied her up with the telephone cord, and set the house on fire. A massive police search was launched to find the two masked intruders.

After Alexander's death, she then proceeded to bombard Gallon and his family with phone calls and texts in an effort to effect a reconciliation. Paul Sloan QC, prosecuting, said: "There were many other false claims. It would seem that the underlying purpose behind these false claims was to win back her partner's sympathies and support."

The police and fire brigade noticed early on that her story didn't add up. She was eventually charged with murder, but pleaded guilty to infanticide.

Can you imagine if the police had believed her and convicted two random local men for the murder? Do you think she would have owned up?

"An independent review into Alexander's death concluded that his mother's behaviour was unpredictable and his death could not have been prevented."

So the social workers have covered their arses then. No-one's directly to blame. However, the report's author - social care expert Catherine Weightman - found a series of shortcomings by the agencies involved with the family and has made a number of recommendations which must be implemented.

It seems these vague, ill-defined, institutional failures have provided the justification for Wails to walk: "Wails was given a three-year community order with a period of supervision".

Is it just me, or does that seem surprising to you? This woman is a child killer, an arsonist, a serial liar, and a stalker, who wasted police time, and put the human rights of local men in danger. And the court set her free because she was apparently depressed at the time. Awww, poor dear.

If she committed these actions as a result of mental illness, shouldn't she be in a secure psychiatric hospital? She is obviously a danger to herself and others. The judge has left her free to walk the streets.

Can you imagine what the outcome would have been if Gallon had done this instead of Wails? He would be in Broadmoor for life. The tabloid press would take him apart. The grieving mother would be all over the day-time chat-show circuit for months to come.

I think there is a double-standard at work here. If a man is mentally unstable, that's a reason to lock him up. If a woman is mentally unstable, that's a reason to set her free.

Friday, October 20, 2006

Up Against The Wall

I received this email today:

AgainsTTheWall has left a new comment on your post "Amnesty Still Telling Lies":

AI have point-blank refused to interest themselves in the cases of Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf - both kidnapped and sent from the USA to Germany where they are currently incarcerated for their works on modern history.

AI is a cowardly PC organisation of the worst stripe.

Publish this comment.

Reject this comment.

Having never heard of the two gentlemen in question – but having my suspicions - I did a quick Google search. Lo and behold, I was right. They are Holocaust Deniers and Nazi sympathisers.

I did consider rejecting the comment and forgetting it. After all, my blog is not a forum for lying, Hitler-worshipping morons. I decided in the end that it would be better to respond. It’s important for the Men’s Movement to stamp out any emerging Dworkin Tendency before it takes root. We don’t want to leave these guys unchallenged and then find ourselves twenty years later teaching their deluded bile in universities as if it’s the truth. That’s what the feminists did with Dworkin, Solanas, MacKinnon and Daly, and the other hate-spitting neo-fascist harridans, yet another reason why I will never give the feminist movement any respect or credibility whatsoever. We need to make sure we don’t make the same mistake.

It also occurred to me that 'AgainsTTheWall' might be a feminist who is trying to fool me into posting pro-Nazi propaganda on my blog, in an effort to discredit me. I don’t know. But I can safely say it’s a deeply unpleasant moron of some description.

Let’s make this clear once and for all. I harbour a deep-seated loathing of totalitarianism in every form, and I regard this as one of my best character traits. The feminist movement is the last surviving, largely unchallenged, bastion of Twentieth century totalitarian ideology. That's another reason I oppose it so vigorously. Don’t expect me to have any sympathy with your right-wing causes. I don’t. Your flavour of totalitarianism is still totalitarianism.

One of the hall-marks of totalitarianism is the refusal to tolerate free enquiry. I frequently lambaste the feminist movement for jumping to false conclusions on the basis of fabricated evidence. Why on earth this person thinks I am going to give a moment’s credence to Holocaust denial is beyond me.

Dear AgainsTTheWall,

As an organisation, Amnesty International concerns itself with the plight of political prisoners (*). Political prisoners are typically:-

(1) Incarcerated for criticising the prevailing political authorities
(2) Denied due legal process.

Neither of these criteria applies to the two gentlemen that you mention. They were not imprisoned for criticising the German authorities. They were charged with breaking German laws, for which they were given a fair trial in a German court. When you use the word ‘kidnapped’, you mean extradited, under a treaty between two democratically elected governments. In short, these gentlemen are not political prisoners; they are simply prisoners. As such, I believe that Amnesty International was correct in refusing any involvement in their cases.

If you and your little jack-booted friends came to power, I wonder how many political opponents you would be ‘kidnapping’, and how much regard you would have for their human rights. As an apparent Nazi sympathiser, your supposed concern with human rights is a hypocritical sham.

Regards,

Heretic

(*)Or at least it did until it was taken over by feminists. Nowadays it mainly concerns itself with the lives of women in Third-world countries. However, let us assume for the sake of argument that it is still concerned with political prisoners.

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Amnesty Still Telling Lies



This is part of something that fell out of my copy of the Observer today. Amnesty International's latest campaign is against the trafficking of women for prostitution. If you have read my recent posts, such as Traffic Noise and Legalise Prostitution, you will know that:

  • The current moral panic over the 'traffic in female sex-slaves' is the latest incarnation of the Victorian moral panic over the supposed 'white slave trade'. Historians have debunked this myth already.
  • Most prostitutes are not trafficked.
  • Most people who are trafficked are not prostitutes. Most of them are in fact men.
  • Traffickees are trafficked voluntarily, and pay for the privilege. Abductions are rare.
  • Most prostitutes who are trafficked fully intend to work as prostitutes, but they are often lied to about their working conditions.
  • The only way to significantly improve conditions for prostitutes - and to eliminate coercion - is to legalise the industry.

Amnesty is clearly jumping on the latest moral bandwagon in an attempt, either dishonest or naive, to attract funding from middle-class feminists, the kind of people who read the Observer.
I will start supporting Amnesty when:-

  • They start admitting that most political prisoners are men.
  • They start admitting that most torture victims are men.
  • They start admitting that most executed prisoners are men.
  • They concern themselves with male military conscription, especially that of boys.
  • They concern themselves with male genital mutilation as well as female.
  • They concern themselves with male industrial deaths.
  • They concern themselves with the neglect of male health problems by governments.

Better still, they should not concern themselves with 'gender issues' at all, and instead stick to their original, very noble, agenda, of ending torture and execution.

I am not saying they should ignore human rights abuses against women, but they should tell the truth. Their current feminist-dominated agenda is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I advocate that you should not support Amnesty International as long as it continues to act as a gender-feminist mouthpiece.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

"Mothers lose right to equal salaries"

"Women who take time out of the workplace for maternity leave have no automatic right to the same pay as male colleagues who are doing the same job but have not had time off, Europe’s top court ruled yesterday...Bernadette Cadman, 44, a health inspector from Manchester, brought the case after she realised that she was being paid up to £13,000 less a year than male colleagues who were doing the same job.", says The Times of London.

There is no end to the narcissism and selfishness of middle-class women. Are they seriously suggesting that employers should not pay their workers in proportion to their length of service and experience? That seems to be what they are demanding.

Why should someone with no experience be paid the same as someone with twenty years' experience? The fact is, the veteran employee has job skills which are both deeper and wider, better established colleagial and client relationships, more self discipline, and is generally of more value to the company than someone with no experience. They are a tried and tested, reliable asset to the organisation, unlike someone who has just walked in off the street. Of course employers are going to pay them more, and if one employer doesn't, another one will.

I think you'll find that if women were the ones with the greater experience and higher salaries, that would be perfectly acceptable. You would be able to hear a pin drop in the feminist camp. Jemimah will expect her own seniority to be recognised if she has it, but she denies her male colleagues the same right.

I don't believe that even feminists could argue something as absurd as the claim that experience should not be linked with pay, so in some ways I have just knocked down a straw man to make a point. Their gripe is only about maternity leave.

When Jemimah gives up her job to spend a year at home looking after little Sebastian, she expects to go back into the workplace at the same level as her colleagues who didn't take any time off. Why on earth does she think she has a right to that? They've been working all the while, completing new projects, keeping up with developments in the industry, establishing new customer relationships, while she has been at home. Now she has to play catch-up, but that's her problem. The fact is, no-one forced her to have a baby. It was her choice.

I've told this one before, but it is worth repeating. A male friend of mine who comes from a South European country had to do compulsory military service at eighteen. He commented that when he and his friends came out of the army and entered university, the girls they knew from high school were already one or two years ahead of them. It would not be reasonable for him to insist that he should be allowed to enter university straight into the third year. If you take one or two years out of the career market, then you go back into it one or two years behind everyone else. That's life. At least working women can choose whether or not to have children; my friend couldn't choose whether or not to join the army.

I don't accept this special pleading for mothers. I don't think that taking a year off to have a baby is any different from taking a year off to travel the Amazon rain-forest, climb Everest, or undertake any other quest for self-fulfillment. Because let's face it, that's why Jemimah had her baby. To make her feel more fulfilled. In fact, that's why Jemimah has a career.

Did you spot the casual sexism in the Times article I quoted? "she realised that she was being paid up to £13,000 less a year than male colleagues who were doing the same job". Male colleagues? What about the childless females?

Personally, I'd like to take a year off to tour the flesh-pots of South East Asia. Hey, it might make me feel more fulfilled. And when I get back, if my boss doesn't give me the same promotion he gave my colleagues, I'm going to sue his ass. It's my right.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Legalise Prostitution

Anti-prostitution campaigners typically cite a central corpus of issues as evidence that prostitution must be regarded as an absolute social evil, and eliminated by means of oppressive law enforcement. These include:

  • Violence against sex-workers, including rape and murder.
  • Economic exploitation of sex-workers.
  • The involvement in the industry of professional criminal elements, including gangsters, pimps and people-traffickers.
  • Drug-use among sex-workers.
  • Unhealthy or dangerous working conditions for sex workers.
  • The involvement of under-age sex-workers.
  • The intrusion of street prostitution into the lives of those who do not wish to be involved, such as local residents.
  • Prostitution encourages the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases.
  • Prostitution constitutes a significant sector in the shadow economy, in which:

    • No taxes are paid
    • Commercial contracts are enforced by violence, due to the absence of recourse to legal process.
    • Causes secondary economic crime such as corruption and money-laundering.



All of these problems exist, and they are indeed a heady cocktail of issues.

However, they are all easily solved. All of them. At a stroke. All you have to do is legalise prostitution, and all of these problems will substantially go away.

The fact that prostitution is illegal is in fact the cause of these problems, not the solution to them.

However, anti-prostitution campaigners are not motivated by logic, but by moral dogma, ignorance and narrow self-interest.

Feminists have got it absolutely right when they talk about abortion. Making abortion illegal does not stop it from happening. It just makes it more dangerous. Therefore, it is in the public interest to keep it legal, and therefore regulated and safe.

However, they do not apply the same logic to things they disapprove of, such as pornography and prostitution, or in the last century, alcohol. A charming character called Carry A Nation used to go into saloons with a group of her friends, and smash the place up with axes. She and her fellow feminists were a key force in the Temperance movement, which eventually led to alcohol prohibition under the Volstead Act of 1919.

Prohibition was a national disaster for the US. It led to the creation of a massive shadow economy, organised crime, the criminalisation of many otherwise law-abiding citizens, police corruption, violence and a disregard for the rule of law.

A bit like the 'War on Drugs' today. Making drugs illegal actually makes them more dangerous, because gangsters are not concerned about quality control. Bootleg whiskey was often poisonous and contained methanol. That's why there were so many blind Blues musicians like Blind Lemon Jefferson. But the temperance fanatics would take this as evidence that they were right all along: "Look. You drink whiskey, you go blind. We were right!". They seemed to be willfully ignorant of the fact that they were the ones actually causing the problems.

This is exactly the situation today with regard to both illegal drugs and prostitution. People are going to do these things whether you like it or not, so you just have to make the best of it.

Many moralists were against setting up needle exchanges for drug addicts, on the grounds that we shouldn't be encouraging people to inject drugs. However, responsible policy-makers accept that you have to deal with what's in front of you; you can't just wish you had something different. In fact, needle exchanges have been very successful in reducing the spread of infections.

Feminists like to cherry-pick their issues. One policy for abortion, another for prostitution. It's time they started being honest.

My view is that anything which takes place between consenting adults in private is no-one else's business.

If we legalise prostitution, we can set up licensed brothels. These could be subject to police inspections and health and safety checks. The staff and the owners will pay taxes. There will be professional recruitment procedures. No more people-traffickers, pimps and gangsters. No more violence. No more disease. No more under-age workers. No more coercion. Let's see if anyone wants to work there. Of course they will. This is exactly what the Australians have done.

I offer the Australian model of legal prostitution as a model for the Western world. I challenge anyone, even Julie Bindle, to find anything wrong with it, beyond the same mundane operational problems which affect any business.

In the licensed brothels in Australia, there has never been a single murder of a prostitute, or a single case of HIV infection. In Britain, in the past 10 years, over 60 street prostitutes have been violently murdered. A third remained unsolved. They make up the biggest group of unsolved murders in Britain. Reference.

I offer the American model of alcohol prohibition as an explanation of why the current situation in Britain is so completely fucked-up, and far from being the solution, is actually the source of most of the problems. It is interesting to note the high degree of feminist involvement in both problem situations. Feminism simply causes far more problems than it solves.

As well as licensed brothels, there should be a zero-tolerance policy towards both street-walkers and kerb-crawlers. Never mind 'zones of tolerance'. The street is no place for prostitution. The appropriate venue is the private house or licensed brothel. The same thing applies to the gay community. The public toilet is not your personal brothel. Summary arrest for everybody. No exceptions. We need to get casual sex off the street and into a safe private environment. If we do that, the problems associated with prostitution will all largely disappear overnight.

Traffic Noise

The government has set up a new agency to combat people trafficking. A worthy enough cause in my view, but one distorted once again by the feminist-dominated media. All we hear about is women trafficked to work as prostitutes against their will. We just love stories about female victims, don't we? We can't get enough of them. I'm not saying it never happens, but let's get some facts straight.

  1. The agency itself identifies four different markets for people trafficking (in no particular order):

    • Those trafficked to work as prostitutes (Predominantly women).
    • Those trafficked to undertake forced labour (Mainly men).
    • Children (Presumably for adoption by childless couples).
    • Those trafficked to work as domestic servants (Presumably mainly female).

  2. Abductions are rare. With the exception of children, almost all traffickees are trafficked voluntarily, and even pay large sums for the privilege. They are economic migrants.
  3. The UN has stated that those most likely to be trafficked for forced labour are men.

We never hear most of that. All we hear about is women being tricked or forced into prostitution. Some writers have commented that the moral panic over people-trafficking is simply a resurgence of the myth of the 'White Slave Trade, a nineteenth century moral panic created for largely racist motives.
This article is particularly worth reading:

The campaign against 'trafficking in women' has gained increasing momentum world-wide, but in particular among feminists in Europe and the United States, in the last two decades. This current campaign is not the first time that the international community has become concerned with the fate of young women abroad. Modern concerns with prostitution and 'trafficking in women' have a historical precedent in the anti-white-slavery campaigns that occurred at the turn of the century. Feminist organisations played key roles in both past and present campaigns. While current concerns are focused on the exploitation of third world/non-western women by both non-western and western men, concerns then were with the abduction of European women for prostitution in South America, Africa or 'the Orient' by non-western men or other subalterns. Yet, though the geographical direction of the traffic has switched, much of the rhetoric accompanying the campaigns sounds almost completely the same. Then as now, the paradigmatic image is that of a young and naive innocent lured or deceived by evil traffickers into a life of sordid horror from which escape is nearly impossible.

The mythical nature of this paradigm of the 'white slave' has been demonstrated by historians. Similarly, recent research indicates that today's stereotypical 'trafficking victim' bears as little resemblance to women migrating for work in the sex industry as did her historical counterpart, the 'white slave'. The majority of 'trafficking victims' are aware that the jobs offered them are in the sex industry, but are lied to about the conditions they will work under. Yet policies to eradicate trafficking continue to be based on the notion of the 'innocent', unwilling victim, and often combine efforts designed to protect 'innocent' women with those designed to punish 'bad' women: i.e. prostitutes.

The current moral panic is not really an anti-people trafficking effort at all; it is an anti-prostitution campaign; we are being told the lie that the two things are one and the same.

The nineteen cockle-pickers who drowned in Morecambe Bay were people-trafficked illegal immigrants. Seventeen of the dead were men. I don't hear much moral panic about that. Where are the tabloid headlines like "Trafficked to death"? As the call-girl-cum-author Belle de Jour pointed out in her letter to the Guardian (unpublished), "When Chinese migrants died collecting cockles, no one was daft enough to suggest that the solution was to limit the number of shellfish one should have access to, or better still, forbid people from eating fruits of the sea altogether."

The desire to combat people-trafficking is not an argument against legal prostitution. If anything, it is an argument for it.

How ironic it is to witness the Left frothing at the mouth about the issue of illegal immigrants. And for all the wrong reasons.

Monday, October 02, 2006

Good Old Fashioned Prejudice

I heard John Humphries on Radio 4 this morning mouthing the usual feminist bullshit.

Apparently, the lack of women CEOs in the corporate sector is because of 'good old-fashioned prejudice'. Then he was smarming up to Jenny Murray from Wimmyn's Hour. It annoyed me before I had to go to work.

There is an important difference between demanding equal opportunites and demanding equal outcomes. Everyone is in favour of equal opportunities (well, everyone except feminists, looking at the education and legal systems after 40 years of feminist meddling), and in fact white middle-class Western women have more opportunities than anyone else in history. They have the opportunity not to spend their lives working like slaves, and then they cite this as evidence of their oppression. Incredible.

Feminists have already got everything they ever dreamed of, and more, in terms of equal opportunities. Surely it is time to go and do something else. But no. They have switched their attention to demanding equal outcomes instead. This is a fundamental shift in policy, which has been introduced piecemeal, largely unnoticed.

Equal outcomes are impossible to achieve even in theory, and there is no reason we should want them in practice.

What a narrow, book-keeper's notion of social justice, to look at some statistics, and say 'This column doesn't match that one. This is a social injustice'. It is no such thing. To jump to conclusions about prejudice is a classic case of the kind of superstitious, paranoid conspiracy thinking I wrote about before.

To become a CEO (or get to the top of any other professional tree for that matter) requires not only talent, but years of hard work and commitment. Those who do this lose out on family life, suffer stress, and so on. Men are more prepared to do this than women because they have different personal objectives, and more social incentives.

You are expected to 'take it like a man' if you suffer stress. Other people judge a man's worth by his career. Being a fat cat makes you more attractive to women.

The reverse is not the case. Becoming a CEO doesn't make a woman more attractive to men. People do not judge a woman's personal worth by her job. She is not expected to put up with stressful situations stoically. Women also have socially acceptable ways of acquiring money other than by working for it, such as marrying it.

There is simply no incentive for women to make those kinds of sacrifices, and so it should come as no surprise to find that most of them don't. Most women would rather spend time with their family and friends, and have less stress. It is no surprise that they live a lot longer, a sexual disparity which feminists never seem to complain about for some reason.

Most women would probably rather marry a fat cat than be one (you get the wealth and status without the work). As long as this remains true, most fat cats will be male.

The personal choices that men and women make determine these outcomes, and they make them for good reasons. Women are not more stupid than men. Neither is there any kind of misogynist conspiracy going on. The 'glass ceiling' is inside women's (and for that matter, men's) heads.

Feminists and their camp-followers consistently refuse to take individual choice into account. For all their screaming about women's freedom of choice, they themselves consistently refuse to accept that the choices made by millions of women (such as to get married, have children, and devote their time to their children) have any validity.

This is partly because their social constructionist world-view is very strongly deterministic, so they don't believe very strongly in the notion of free will (except when it suits them of course). This same devaluing of free will produces the kind of madness espoused by the Dworkin-MacKinnon axis, that under the Evil Patriarchy (TM), women do not have the capacity to give meaningful consent, and therefore any consent they do give is essentially worthless, and therefore all heterosexual sex is rape. The mainstream feminist movement takes this kind of drivel seriously.

Even so, social constructionists though they claim to be, they dogmatically permit no social constructionist model other than prejudice and conspiracy. Even as social constructionists, they refuse to consider economic and sexual incentives as determining factors, which is almost incomprehensible. Almost. The fact is, there is good money to be made in the victim industry by peddling these myths, so it will continue until we remove their funding.