Tuesday, December 11, 2007

The 'Two Percent of Rape Accusations are False' Myth

'The Truth Behind Legal Dominance Feminism's "Two percent False Rape Claim" Figure', Edward Greer, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

In this academic paper, Edward Greer attempts to trace the origins of the claim that only two percent of rape accusations are false. Summary:

"For at least the last decade, Legal Dominance Feminism (LDF) has been the predominant voice on sexual abuse within legal academia. However, many of its claims regarding the sexual abuse of women are erroneous. This article attempts to demonstrate that the LDF discourse on rape is fundamentally flawed. At the core of LDF discourse on rape is the proposition that "women don't lie" about sexual abuse. In an attempt to shift the laws governing rape to correspond to this purported social reality, LDF advocates shifting the burden of proof from the woman complaining of the alleged sexual wrong to the man defending against it. But if, as may well be the case, as many as a quarter of the men currently accused of rape are actually innocent, then the goals of LDF are truly destructive. First, the proportion of wrongful convictions would surely rise if LDF's program were fully implemented. Second, wrongful convictions would fall disproportionately on black youths."

Thanks to Angry Harry for pointing out this excellent piece.

Monday, December 03, 2007

Scenes from the Sex War, #1

Listen:

Feminist: One in four women is battered in her own home by her male partner. Only I hold the solution. Give me power and money.
MRA: Your claims about domestic violence do not stand up to empirical examination. Your efforts over the last four decades seem to have yielded no positive results, only social collapse. On closer examination, your agenda seems to be ideological and authoritarian rather than liberal and humanitarian as you claim. It is time for a radical re-examination of the entire field.

Feminist: You hate women because you've got a small penis.

So it goes.

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Dear Katherine

I received this comment on my post Never date Western Women

hello heretic,
i am an (sic) 19 year old feminist attending a prestigious university in california. as to your opinion that femininsts (sic) are lesbians gathering in secret blah blah crap, think about this:
the actually (sic) definition for feminism is believing that women should have equal rights to men. if you or your girlfriend dont believe that, welcome to the 21st century. times are changing, and your typical view of radical feminism and close (sic) minded conservativeness is falling further and further behind. not all feminists are bra burning lesbians (i'm certainly not). sexism is still prevalent today, which is why feminism is too. Feminists have an actual cause--were not just crazy women ranting about the unfairness that men like YOU caused. The ERA hasn't been passed--can you explain that? The government is full of conservative, close-minded, sexist men who still feel for some reason that men are superior to women. Anyways, I have ALOT more i could say, but i have to get back to writing my paper on how sexism is still present in the United States today. I actually found your site by typing in "sexist laws in the united states". Interesting, huh?
Oh well, I guess youre happy with your prejudiced, generalized view of feminists. As they say, "ignorance is bliss"


Dear Katherine,
Thank you for your comment. Not majoring in English then? I was a lot like you when I was 19. I thought I knew everything. I was full of reforming zeal to try to free the world from suffering. I was tempted to throw in my lot with fashionable causes which would give me access to a trendy, interesting bunch of cool new friends. It’s called adolescence. I’m sorry if that sounds patronizing, I really don’t mean it to, but it is true.

Back then, older people told me I was na├»ve for campaigning to have nuclear weapons abolished. To me, it seemed like a simple truth, and I was mildly insulted by their comments. Now, of course, I realize they were right. This is not a counsel of despair though. What you are going through now is a necessary stage in your personal intellectual and social development. The trick is not to give up trying once you’ve read a couple of books, assuming that you have all the answers. As you get older, you learn that the world is a good deal more complex than you thought, and that human civilization cannot just be arbitrarily re-made at whim. If it was that easy to create a paradise on earth, don’t you think someone would have done it by now? People a lot smarter and more powerful than you and I have tried and failed, usually with disastrous consequences. As Karl Popper said “Those who promise us heaven on Earth have only ever delivered Hell”.

“the actually (sic) definition for feminism is believing that women should have equal rights to men.

Well that might be your definition, but it is certainly not the view of everyone in the feminist movement, and it is not borne out by what the feminist movement does in practice. See for example my article Why Did Feminists Attack the Family?

The basic assumption of feminism is that women have fewer rights than men. My dissent starts right there. Women do not have fewer rights than men. There is clear evidence to suggest that they have more. It is also wrong-headed to talk of ‘rights’, as if that’s all there is. Rights and responsibilities are inseparable. In the past, men had more rights in some fields, but they also had many more responsibilities. Feminists demand rights without responsibility, which is a recipe for tyranny, and we are seeing the effects of this already.

Let me ask you this: What exactly is it that you feel you are being deprived of? As a middle-class American female, you are a member of one of the most privileged social groups, living in the richest and most powerful country on earth, and yet you regard yourself as a victim of organized political oppression. You need to start looking into your real motivations. Calling yourself a feminist improves your social position.

if you or your girlfriend dont believe that, welcome to the 21st century. times are changing, and your typical view of radical feminism and close minded conservativeness is falling further and further behind

The times they were a-changin’ back in the Vietnam era (Is it true that most Americans can’t even point to Vietnam on a map?), but today although the climate may be a-changin, politically the world has taken a major shift to the Right. This arguably started around 1979, with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Iranian revolution, the Thatcher-Reagan axis, the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union, the subsequent aggressive Anglo-American wars of conquest in the Middle East, and the present resurgence of aggressive Russian nationalism. The summer of love was over before you were born, and it doesn’t look like coming back any time soon.

I am very far from being a closed-minded conservative. I suggest that, if anything, it is you who is a closed minded conservative. In any case, the crux of your argument is simply a threat: I must either agree with you or face complete social exclusion. I am prepared to take my chances.

Feminism sets itself up as the arbiter and the authority on all issues related to sexual politics. What do we want from such an authority? Surely, the primary duty of any such body should be to promote mutual understanding between all parties, so as to lessen conflict and produce better outcomes for all. Is this what the feminist movement actually does? Not at all. It goes out of its way to stir up sexual hatred wherever possible.

Feminism is simply not fit for purpose. It just doesn’t do what it says on the can. The very assumption that women are the victims of men, the very fact that it calls itself feminism, means that it cannot do the job it claims to do. It is gender-exclusive, to the very core. Imagine a movement set up to resolve the Middle-East problem calling itself Islamism. I think other parties to the conflict might have good reason to be suspicious, don’t you? I’m not suggesting Muslims don’t have a case, of course they do, but so does everyone else, and they couldn’t reasonably expect to get a fair hearing. The feminist movement insists that no-one has a case to be heard apart from them, and at the same time, they insist that they are acting selflessly, as honest brokers. If the UN went around causing wars whenever it could, we would be right to complain about its professionalism and to question its agenda. Yet this is what the feminist movement is like. Feminists are not the honest police officers they claim to be; they are vigilantes, organizing lynch-mobs at every opportunity.

Although useful, this is in some ways a false analogy anyway, because men and women are not in a state of war. The idea that we are is perhaps the greatest travesty of feminism, the most poisonous misrepresentation of them all. According to basic feminist theory, the most important - the defining - political relation in society is the relationship between men and women, and that relationship is characterized as being essentially antagonistic in nature. This whole premise is absurd, destructive and divisive.

Men and women’s interests are almost identical, and where they do differ, they are entirely complementary. Men and women want to have positive relationships with each other, and the feminist movement does everything in its power to ensure that this does not happen. That is, more than anything else, the source of my displeasure.

not all feminists are bra burning lesbians (i'm certainly not).

You’re putting words into my mouth. Bra-burning? The irony is that zealots like yourself are so busy accusing everyone else around them of being bigots, that they fail to see that it is they themselves who are the bigots.

sexism is still prevalent today,

Yeah, that quiet guy in your class is a real nerd, isn’t he? That male professor is probably a pervert. He’s probably a kiddie-fiddler. So what if 9.7 million men died in World War 1? Fuck ‘em. It’s their own fault.

which is why feminism is too.

Firstly, the idea that sexism only affects women is itself sexist. Secondly, I do not see any evidence that the feminist movement is either able or willing to improve matters. It is a self-serving cult.

Feminists have an actual cause--were not just crazy women ranting about the unfairness that men like YOU caused.

Men like me? You don’t know anything about me, and you are accusing me of ‘causing unfairness’, simply because I am male. This is sexist and prejudiced, the very things that you accuse me of.

The ERA hasn't been passed--can you explain that?

Yes, it’s a misogynist conspiracy by the Evil Patriarchy (TM).

I’m not an expert on the history of US constitutional law, but a very quick internet search reveals this article:

The House passed ERA on October 12, 1971, after rejecting the Wiggins Amendment which would have exempted women from "compulsory military service" and which also would have preserved other laws "which reasonably promote the health and safety of the people." Only 23 Congressmen voted no, of whom one was the senior female member, Representative Leonor Sullivan (D-MO), who made a strong speech opposing ERA because it would harm the family.

In the Senate, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., (D-NC) proposed nine separate amendments to ERA to protect the traditional rights of women.

The Ervin amendments would have exempted women from compulsory military service and from combat duty; they would have protected the traditional rights of wives, mothers and widows, and preserved the responsibility of fathers to support their children; they would have preserved laws that secure privacy to males and females; they would have continued the laws that make sexual offenses punishable as crimes. All these modifying clauses were defeated. When ERA was passed in strict, absolute language, only nine Senators voted "no."

Congress sent ERA out to the states on March 22, 1972. Within twelve months, 30 states had ratified ERA.

A small group of women in 1972, under the name "Stop ERA," took on what seemed to be an impossible task. In 1975, they founded "Eagle Forum" - the genesis of the pro-family movement, a coming together of believers of all faiths who, for the first time, worked together toward a shared political goal. Eagle Forum volunteers persevered through the years and led the movement to final victory over ERA.

The last state to ratify ERA was Indiana in January 1977. There have been perhaps 25 different votes on ERA since that time (in legislatures, committees, referenda, and Congress), but Indiana was ERA's last success.


As a student of feminism, you haven’t done your homework very well. You seem to think that ERA was supported by all women, but opposed by ‘sexist’, ‘conservative’ men. This is not true. You say it was never passed. This also appears not to be entirely true. You have no doubt been told this by your Women’s Studies ‘professors’, who wish to paint a picture of the world as being sexually polarized when it is not.

The government is full of conservative, close-minded, sexist men who still feel for some reason that men are superior to women.

I think this statement is probably just not true. I certainly don’t think there is much evidence for it. In fact, it is a generalization, a statement of prejudice and bigotry, the very thing that you accuse me of.

but i have to get back to writing my paper on how sexism is still present in the United States today.

I’m tempted to feel pity for you. What you are receiving is not a college education at all, but political indoctrination into a quasi-Marxist religious cult. They are teaching you to repeat the party line like a mantra, and not to ask questions. Here are some books that they won’t be mentioning in Women’s Studies.

They don’t want you to read this heresy, because you might start thinking for yourself.

I actually found your site by typing in "sexist laws in the united states". Interesting, huh?

Excellent! I’m glad my site is becoming more prominent in the rankings. I’m sure it didn’t show up very highly though. I’ve never written about American law.

Oh well, I guess youre happy with your prejudiced, generalized view of feminists. As they say, "ignorance is bliss"

My personal experience of feminism has been far from blissful, let me assure you. And that was back in the days when I actively supported them! Since I began opposing them, which they gave me absolutely no choice over, my life has been a lot happier, thank you.

Again, don’t be so quick to call other people ignorant. There is much that you don’t know. Since you are a college student, you may like to look into Title IX, and the effect it has had on campus life. You may like to look into the campus date-rape campaigns of the 1990s, which aimed to stir up anti-heterosexual and anti-male hysteria on campuses on which no rapes had ever taken place. You should be asking yourself: Who benefits from this? Obviously, someone does, but it almost certainly isn’t you. Good luck to you, and remember: always ask awkward questions. That's what college is for.

Friday, November 09, 2007

BBC Politically Corrects the Skimmington

On this evening's episode of QI on the BBC, the topic of the Skimmington was mentioned, but completely misrepresented. It was referred to solely as the ritual of 'rough music', which was one of its names, and we were told that it was a community punishment meted out to wife-beaters and philanderers. In fact, it was the opposite; its targets were husbands who were themselves the victims of domestic violence or infidelity.

The name 'skimmington' was never mentioned; this was originally a large skimming ladle, often used by violent wives to assault their husbands. Also not mentioned were references to the skimmington in the works of Hogarth and Hardy, or in Samuel Butler's poem 'Hudibras'. No mention of its various names: Charivari, katzenmuzik, shivaree, the kind of interesting trivia which typifies the usual QI episode; no mention of the fact that Charivari was taken up as the name of a Parisian satirical magazine, and then a copy-cat version in London which later changed its name to Punch; no mention of the fact that it seems to be the origin of the practise of tying tin cans on to the back of a newly wed couple's car.

The skimmington is pregnant with interesting facts. It must have been difficult for BBC researchers to ignore these; it is not easy to research the topic at all without discovering these things. Yet, nothing of this was ever mentioned. 'Rough music' was a punishment for wife-beating, philandering, and also sometimes, for being hen-pecked. The politically-corrected BBC is deceiving us yet again.

Friday, October 26, 2007

Verdict, 26th October 2007

Following my last post, I recieved this update today:

"Grandmother given 2 year suspended sentence today....Because she contacted her grandson in Care. The boy is 15 years 6 months. He is eligible to leave the Care home when he is 16.

The grandson has been informing his grandmother that he is being physically assaulted and verbally abused, in Care. His grandmother came to his aid....Now she has been sentenced in a secret court, from which the press were banned.

The grandmother now has a 2 year suspended sentence and his step grandfather is now serving a 2 year jail term....And the prisons we are told are too crowded to house serious violent criminals and sexual convicts. Convicted violent prisoners are being let out, to make way for grandparents, whose only crime has been, to keep in contact with their grandchildren!

Ends.

Grandparents Apart Self Help Group Scotland are 7 years in business and we are at the stage when some of our member’s grandchildren are old enough to speak up about their experiences with social services and living in care. One of our older members was recently reconciled with his grandson that he was denied contact with all those years ago.... The boy who is 16 only had an idea how near he was living to the grandfather. The boy wanted to tell us his story..

‘The Honest Truth’

Q: How do you feel you were treated by social services in general?
A: Alright but different periods with different carers had bad experiences.

Q: Were you listened to?
A: Definitely not when I was younger, but yes now I’m older.

Q: Were social services truthful with you?
A: When I was younger No. They lied to me about my grandparents and family. Now I’m older they are more truthful.

Q: Were you told no one wanted you or loved you by your social worker?
A: When I was young one social worker did and carers told me I wasn’t wanted.

Q: Do you think you were brainwashed when you were young?
A: Yes definitely.

Q: Were you aware your grandfather was trying to get contact with you?
A: Yes. The social worker said I did not connect with my grandparents so they stopped me seeing them.

Q: Your grandfather was told you did not want to see them.
A: That was untrue I always wanted to see him.

Q: Would you have wanted to live with your grandfather?
A: Yes!

Q: How many foster homes have you been in?
A: 8 or 9 foster homes.

Q: Did you change school often?
A: 5 different schools.

Q: Why so much?
A: The social workers said I had a lot of anger and had behaviour problems.

Q: How good were your exam reports?
A: I did not do exams. I think it was because I was not good enough.

Q: How good is your behaviour at school and in care?
A: Not good, I was told I had a problem with anger and sent to special school for it.

Q: Have you ever been assaulted in care or foster homes?
A: Both, 3 or 4 times. One that really stands out was when I had soapy water poured into my mouth for swearing, I though I was going to die. Another time I fell and banged my head, it was treated as a joke but I was upset so I got beaten, I still get headaches from that fall. I was also made to stand in a corner for hours at a time. One carer was so bad I told the social worker and I was moved again.

Q: Were you ever sexually assaulted or an attempt made to sexually assault you?
A: No!

Q: Have you still got contact with your family?
A: No, I’m not sure where they live. I met one brother once but that was all.

Q: Were you aware your grandfather was living locally to you?
A: I had an idea they were, I asked my present social worker to find them and he did.

Q: What do you think about what has happened to in your life - was it a good life, were you happy, were you treated well?
A: No I was not happy being moved about from place to place and was often treated roughly.

Q: Do you have any hobbies?
A: Graffiti artistry.

Q: What are your ambitions?
A: To be a motor mechanic or join the army.

Q: What do you think about your mother and father not taking care of you?
A: I don’t think about it much, it hurts too much that they didn’t want me.

Q: Were you encouraged to take part in social activities?
A: Yes, I was taken to football matches.

Jimmy Deuchars
Grandparents Apart Self Help Group Scotland
22 Alness Crescent
Glasgow G52 1PJ
0141 882 5658"


What a testimony. "I had water poured into my mouth for swearing, I though I was going to die." This is called 'waterboarding', and is a recognised form of torture.

"I was also made to stand in a corner for hours at a time."
Holding stress positions is also a common form of torture. This is happening to children in the UK today.

This child was deliberately kept from his grandparents, even though they wanted to live with each other. He complained to his grandmother that he was being physically and verbally assaulted, and she appeared in court like a criminal simply for contacting him. His step-grandfather is now serving jail time for the same 'offence'.

The child was consistently punished and pathologised by social workers for being angry. Who the hell wouldn't be angry? You'd be crazy if you weren't angry!

This is the UK today. These are the secret family courts.

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Domestic Violence: The Scientific Evidence


  • References Examining Assaults by Women on Their Spouses or Male Partners: An Annotated Bibliography. Martin S. Fiebert, Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach
    SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 203 scholarly investigations: 156 empirical studies and 47 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 185,500. Reference
  • Dominance and Symmetry in Partner Violence by Male and Female University Students in 32 Nations, Murray A Strauss. 'Violence by only the male partner was the least frequent pattern according to both male and female participants.' (Abstract)
  • Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence Daniel J. Whitaker, PhD, Tadesse Haileyesus, MS, Monica Swahn, PhD and Linda S. Saltzman, PhD "In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases." (Abstract)
  • DV Stats.Com A search engine which locates academic studies on Domestic Violence by keyword.
  • For a collection of more general links on the subject, click here

The scientific evidence clearly shows the following:

  • Domestic violence affects only a minority of couples. In other words, it is relatively rare.
  • Women initiate domestic violence more often than men do.
  • Domestic violence is just as common in the homosexual communities as it is in the heterosexual community.
  • Domestic violence often collocates very strongly with alcohol and substance abuse.
  • Domestic violence is usually reciprocal, rather than one partner hitting the other exclusively. Where it is non-reciprocal, the evidence shows that in heterosexual relationships the perpetrator is more likely to be the woman than the man.

New Book Recommendation

Check out this new book 'That Bitch: Protect Yourself Against Women with Malicious Intent', by Roy Sheppard and Mary T Cleary (Centre, 2007).

There is an interesting review of the book here.

The book is a survival guide for men (and women) on how to protect themselves against a (Roy is at pains to stress) small group of vindictive, violent or self-serving women who use and abuse partners, colleagues and even children.

Roy - a former journalist turned presenter, author and conference host - started pondering over coffee one day how many male acquaintances, who he regarded as thoroughly decent types, seemed to be being mistreated by manipulative mates or taken to the cleaners in bitter divorces.

"This is a terrible situation that a lot of guys get into and there is evidence that some commit suicide because of it.

Finally he discovered evidence that supported his suspicions - a site called AMEN run by Mary T Cleary (his co-writer). Mary used to work in the A&E department of a Dublin hospital and who had been shocked by men who would come in with serious injuries that they would attribute to accidents.

"They'd say things like 'I fell down the stairs' or 'I walked into a door' but as Mary said to me, you don't get a stab wound in the back from falling down stairs."

Roy and Mary include the startling statistic in their book that a survey conducted by the Marriage and Relationship Counselling Service in 2006 said mutual violence accounted for 33 per cent of domestic cases, male-perpetrated violence 26 per cent and female-perpetrated 41 per cent.


This should not come as any great surprise to anyone. The scientific evidence on Domestic Violence is extensive and unambiguous, and contradicts the received wisdom on every detail. However, the Domestic Violence industry is dominated by radical feminists who do everything in their power to stop the truth from getting out.

"It is for people who just don't know what to do, especially if they are a nice guy who will go out out their way to make their partner happy. The type of women we are talking about will target the soft touch. They see them as weak when in fact they are just being nice.

"These sort of guys, and I do know a lot of them, they are too accommodating. They think of it as being kind and generous but in a perverse way the woman sees it as being weak.

"They can make things so impossibly difficult the man is eventually pushed into leaving or having an affair, simply because he has a need for intimacy, like everyone else. Then she can turn round and say 'I am a victim. Give me sympathy' when in fact she has set this up deliberately."

Mary Cleary describes the book's subjects as "domestic terrorists" preying on the "good".

The behaviour of these self-serving harpies he says is damaging to other women, even if they are not their intended targets.

He sites the case of the girl who claimed she had been attacked by a cab driver simply because she wanted to get out of paying the fare.

"When you make false allegations or cry wolf you create an environment when others are disbelieved a little bit more."


This is another self-evident truth which the feminist movement goes out of its way to ignore. This has always mystified me: why feminists insist on endorsing and concealing destructive female behaviour even when doing so is going to make things worse for women generally. Child abuse and domestic violence perpetrated by females, and false allegations of rape are the best examples. The fact that the feminist movement condones such behaviour calls its entire credibility into doubt.

"I think women who are aggressive or bitchy haven't got any other options. They may have intellect but they are misusing it."

Roy believes while some of it may be the result of a natural volatile temperament, it could also be a continuation of the cycle of abuse they themselves had suffered as children.

"They had no ability to defend themselves and they learnt how to very effectively later in life, even in circumstances when they very genuinely don't have a reason to. But they don't realise that because they are constantly in a state of threat."

Even though the men being attacked might be physically stronger, they don't usually fight back - either it has been drummed into their nature not to hit a woman or they fear their partner could then accuse them of abuse and they could up losing access rights to their children in a split. The book very clearly indicates that in law, when it comes to divorce "the cards are stacked against the husband".


The fact that the book attempts to probe the psychology of abusers in an honest way is highly commendable, but it is not always the case that abusers were abused themselves. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but it appears that the authors have not taken into account the existence of Anti-Social, Borderline and Narcissistic Personality Disorders - in other words, Psychopathy - which unquestionably account for a great deal of this behaviour.

Bizarrely, the title is so controversial that it cannot be used in the USA. Over there, it goes by the name of Venus: The Dark Side, and much of the book's website, and the review, are given over to a justification for using such a title.

"There is hardly any man (or woman) who has not suffered at the hands of the women we describe in this book, and hasn't at least muttered our title under their breath at some time. Therefore the title is highly appropriate.

Reasonable women do not have a problem with our book because they know it is NOT about them. And any woman who claims that it is offensive to ALL women is simply wrong. Or she recognises that it's about her and she wants to mislead or distract others away from her own malicious behavior."


The double standards become clear when you consider that the Guardian publishes, on the front page of its magazine section, openly hate-filled articles such as the recent one by Germaine Greer entitled "Do we really need men?" I couldn't find the original on-line, but there are plenty of references to it, such as this article by a female blogger who includes it in a discussion of 'trash' she has read recently. A mainstream national newspaper front-pages with an article entitled "Do we really need men?". This sounds like something straight out of Hitler's Germany. If we saw a German newspaper from the 1930s with a headline reading "Do we really need Jews?", we might be horrified, but we certainly wouldn't be surprised. If the Daily Mail said "Do we really need blacks?", there would be legal action in the courts, and rightly so. Deploy this same language against men, however, and it is perfectly acceptable. Of course Greer was swaggering to impress the girls, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable, and the fact that she would stoop so low to advance her careeer is utterly contemptible.

If you're in any further doubt, just go and look for some feminist quotes online. The message seems to be "I can criticise you, even up to the point of calling for your extermination, but you can't criticise me at all".

Someone writes a book entitled 'That Bitch', and it is too hot to handle. How absurd. Interestingly, Jackie Collins wrote a trashy chick-porn novel called 'The Bitch', and that was considered perfectly acceptable. There is also a feminist tract called 'Bitch', by Elizabeth Wurtzel. No-one seems to mind about that.

One wonders if it is the book's agenda, rather than its title, which is ruffling American feathers.

Add this book to your reading list. Arm yourself.

Sunday, October 07, 2007

IMBRA: Another Feminist Scam

Not enough attention has been given to a recent feminist scam in the US, called the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act (IMBRA).

Carey Roberts described it in a recent article:

A little background: It’s no secret that conditions in post-socialist Russia are grim. Author Sonya Luehrmann recounts how women desperately search to find a husband “to put one’s personal life in order, to settle down with a stable family.”

And here in the United States, some men find American ladies to be a little too, shall we say, high-maintenance for their tastes.

Before long over 200 match-making services around the world had sprouted up like a clutch of springtime tulips.

But feminists are rankled by any hint that their nostrum for female liberation may be curtailing American women’s marriage prospects. Worse, some of these foreign women actually aspire to be mothers and homemakers. Imagine that!

So the Sourpuss Sisters conspired to put the kibosh on the operation.
Reference

In an echo of Hitler's 1935 Racial Purity Law, which forbade sex between Germans and Jews, feminist TV host and columnist, Bonnie Erbe, is calling for a ban on American men taking foreign brides.

Realising that the term "racially inferior" can't be used these days, Erbe justifies her extreme views by labelling foreign brides as "less well educated" and poses the question "Do we really want another 40,000 plus people entering the United States per year?"

Reference

Unlike Bonnie Erbe, most feminists were not prepared to risk being labelled as Politically Incorrect by criticising immigration or immigrants, so instead they resorted to their favourite strategy of portraying women as victims:

It was Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington who quarterbacked the legislative strategy. First she brandished the notion of “mail-order brides,” casting foreign women as victims of predatory males. Then she dubbed international dating services as “marriage brokers,” conjuring up the image of a rogue operation trading lives for dollars.

On July 13, 2004 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee scheduled a hearing to air the issue. No dating services or happily-betrothed foreign women were invited to testify — their comments would not likely fit the script. (My emphasis)

During her testimony, Cantwell made the startling claim that match-making services serve as a nefarious front for international human trafficking. She concluded, “there is a growing epidemic of domestic abuse among couples who meet via international marriage brokers.” As proof of that “epidemic,” she highlighted the cases of three abused women.

But it turns out that Senator Cantwell’s supposition that dating services drag women into a life of sex slavery and indentured servitude was nothing more than a feminist tall-tale”
. Reference

Here is the truth of the matter: the only scientific study done on marriages involving foreign brides was published by the Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1999, written by Dr. Robert Scholes. It found that between 4000 and 6000 international marriages occur as a result of international matchmaking agencies each year. Divorce rates are miniscule: 80% of these marriages “survive over the years”, compared to less than 50% of marriages with American women. Despite a lack of scientific evidence of abuse rates in these marriages, the report is laden with imaginary feminist pontifications.

Feminists also claim that international matchmaking somehow constitutes sex trafficking, despite the fact that there is no evidence that organized sex traffickers use these services. Feminists consider all marriages with foreign women to be “servile” sex trafficking and inherently abusive and provide no science to support the notion.
Reference

“The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service report revealed [that] “less than 1 percent of the abuse cases now being brought to the attention of the INS can be attributed to the mail-order bride industry.” Reference

A second analysis soberly concluded that foreign brides are “dramatically less likely to be involved in domestic violence as calculated by the Intimate Partner Murder Rate.” Reference

And earlier this week the Washington Post reported that early estimates of up to 100,000 human trafficking victims being secreted into the United States each year were grossly exaggerated. Despite more than $150 million of taxpayer dollars diverted to a massive search and rescue effort, it turns out the actual number of trafficking victims is closer to 200 annually. Reference

The bill's feminist proponents had it enacted through trickery.

It was sneakily appended to the uncontroversial Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 and passed by an undemocratic "voice vote" by the Senate on Friday, December 16 and the House on Saturday, December 17, when lawmakers were impatient to return home for the holidays. No hearings or witness testimony took place.
Reference

The poor boy (an expat living in Bangkok) has obviously been away too long if he thinks VAWA is uncontroversial.

IMBRA requires any man who wishes to go through an international dating company to submit to an extensive background check.

These are the disclosure requirements that even Ms Erbe describes as "horrifically burdensome."

  1. Every state of residence since the age of 18;
  2. Current or previous marriages as well as how and when they terminated;
  3. Information on children under 18;
  4. Any arrest or conviction related to controlled substances, alcohol or prostitution, making no distinction on arrests not leading to conviction;
  5. Any court orders, including temporary restraining orders (which are notoriously easy to obtain);
  6. Any arrest or conviction for crimes ranging from "homicide" to "child neglect";
  7. Any arrest or conviction for "similar activity in violation of Federal, State or local criminal law" (without specifying what "similar" means).

The one thing that both supporters and opponents of the IMBRA bill can agree on is that these rules weren't drawn up to regulate foreign dating sites. They are intended to drive them out of business.
Reference

The first tip-off that IMBRA is a feminist social cartel: IMBRA does not provide information to American women because matchmaking services with more than 50% of female American clients are exempt.
Reference

Why not? Are American women not deserving of the same protection? It is not about that, because it is not about protecting women at all. IMBRA was designed as a barrier to marriage, but only for American men, and only for marriage to foreign women. American women's freedom to seek out more victims for divorce, alimony and child-support payments must not be hindered.

In order to create IMBRA, the feminist lobby deployed the myth of the ‘people-trafficked prostitute’, which is a modern manifestation of the myth of the White Slave Trade:

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.
Reference

Yet the US feminist lobby, in enacting IMBRA, has deployed this favourite cultural myth, not to combat prostitution, but to combat marriage. The facts show that marriages to foreign women are less likely to be abusive, and less likely to end in divorce.

IMBRA has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting women; it is another weapon in the feminist war against marriage. Some of them just oppose marriage in principle; others don’t like the foreign competition.

As I said elsewhere, the feminist movement can be regarded as a powerful trade organization, like a union. It attempts to set the price of access to women. It keeps trying to force the price ever-higher while women are expected to deliver less and less. That is why they object so strongly to any kind of commercial sex; it undercuts middle-class women. This is the reason behind all the anti-porn and anti-prostitution propaganda from the feminist movement. It is presented as being designed to protect women, but it is nothing to do with that.

When trade unions realise that their own jobs are being threatened by 'cheap foreign imports', they demand that the market is rigged in order to artificially protect them. The same thing is happening here. What feminists are engaging in is protectionism. It is about protecting Western middle-class women’s monopoly over the price of sex.

IMBRA is a major piece of legislation designed to enforce this protectionism. It is perfectly acceptable for American women to seek out foreign husbands; it is just American men who must be prevented.

When men seek foreign brides, it is abusive sex-trafficking in 'mail-order brides'; when women do it, they are innocently seeking love and marriage. What a con. Once again we see rank double standards at work, based on nothing more than selfishness, implemented by means of lies, distortion and moral panic. The usual feminist recipe.

Like most American women, Erbe dismisses a wife who acts in an openly kind or caring way towards her husband as a "submissive" doormat. No wonder the divorce rate is going through the roof. If these women get outsourced, they only have themselves to blame. Reference

As Usher argues, the implications go further than just marriage:

The danger of IMBRA to free speech cannot be understated. If IMBRA stands court tests, virtually any speech can be blocked on the internet for any manufactured reason whatsoever. Speak now, before the liberal elite holds your speech for you.

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Here is the News

My usual source of news, Men's Activism News Network, is down for maintenance at the moment, so in the mean-time here are some of the news stories I would have submitted to it this week:

Girls set upon victim like ‘wild animals’
A girl aged 15 told yesterday how she thought that she would die during a beating from two fellow schoolgirls who fell on her like “wild animals”. Bethany lost consciousness during the assault and it took three adults two attempts to drag off her attackers. The alleged attackers have been continuing lessons. The school is accused of failing to act against the bullies.

Teachers given Conservative boost
A Tory government will give teachers accused of abusing pupils the right to anonymity until the case is settled, the party's conference has heard. Shadow education secretary Michael Gove said the move would help shift the balance of power in the classroom from the troublemakers to the teachers. Heads will be given the power to exclude "thugs" without outside bodies overturning the decision, he said.

I never expected to find myself agreeing with them...

Top lesbian tennis coach 'found in bed with girl of 13'
"A top woman tennis coach was caught in bed with a 13-year-old girl after starting a lesbian affair with the child star, a court heard yesterday."

A LESBIAN AFFAIR? The woman is a paedophile. No male sex offender would ever get this soft soap treatment in the press. The newspapers would be calling for castration, not talking wistfully of love that dare not speak its name. Adults who have sex with children are called paedophiles. End of story.

Woman yelled 'eat my pork, feel my fork' as she stabbed partner who stole her chop
Tracy Wenn became enraged after Anthony Donkin stole her dinner - and promptly turned on him with a steak knife. As she stabbed him in the leg, causing a seven-inch wound, the enraged 45-year-old bellowed "eat my pork, feel my fork," the slogan from the Quorn TV ad. But as he howled with pain, she realised the wound was serious and called police. As her partner was rushed to hospital, Miss Wenn was arrested and eventually received a two-year supervision order at Hull Crown Court yesterday. But, as she emerged from the hearing, the grandmother-of-eight remained unrepentent. "At least he won't do it again," she said.

Care home nurse 'stuffed apron in mouth of 99-year-old' for being noisy at lunch
A care home nurse stuffed a plastic apron into a 99-year-old woman's mouth as punishment for being noisy at lunch time, a hearing was told. Anne Fisk ordered the vulnerable pensioner to 'shut up' after screwing up the disposable apron into a ball and forcing it into her mouth, it is claimed. The 52-year-old nurse allegedly told shocked fellow staff "You did not see that" after the incident. Fisk later grabbed the pensioner by the wrist before smacking her because she had started banging cutlery on the table. Fisk force-fed another 91-year-old patient who had trouble swallowing her food. Fisk allegedly left the frail pensioner sobbing when she forced several mouthfuls of meat into her mouth. Fellow staff had to comfort the woman, after Fisk allegedly told her: "You are pathetic." Fisk denies the allegations of acting inappropriately to both residents. She faces being struck off.

Struck Off? This is multiple assault. She should be in prison. Oh, wait a minute:-

15 women’s jails to be shut, with offenders offered detox and help
Fifteen women’s jails in England and Wales would close and be replaced with small custodial units in the biggest prison shake-up under consideration by the Justice Ministry. Many short-term prisoners would be held in open community prisons rather than in closed jails, which would offer them detoxification treatment and help with resettlement in the community. Many short-term prisoners would be held in open community prisons rather than in closed jails, which would offer them detoxification treatment and help with resettlement in the community. The document does not say what would happen to the existing women’s prisons but some, such as Holloway in North London, could be sold for housing, while others could hold men.

Well, why not close women's prisons? The courts will never jail women anyway. No point in them standing empty...

Half of single mothers 'do not want to work', says report
"Up to half of all single mothers do not want to work and simply will not take jobs, a report has found...Four out of ten lone mothers, the report added, say they do want to take jobs 'but only at some point in the future'."

So in other words up to 90% of lone mothers don't really want to get a job right now? That's funny. I thought all women were desperate to become brain surgeons and rocket scientists, and the only thing stopping them is the rampant sexism of nasty, evil men. Is that not right?

Do you think Heretic should emigrate?

Sunday, September 30, 2007

How to be a Queen Bee

In order to understand how the feminist movement works, it is useful to examine female adolescent group behaviour.

Although intended for the parents of teenage girls, one source which I have found particularly useful for this is ‘Queen Bees and Wannabees’, by Rosalind Wiseman.

In an adolescent girl gang, there is usually a leader, the 'Queen Bee'.

“Through a combination of charisma, force, money, looks, will and manipulation, this girl reigns supreme over the other girls and weakens their friendships with others, thereby strengthening her own power and influence…Never underestimate her power over other girls (and boys as well). She can and will silence her peers with a look” (p25)

Wiseman goes on to provide some further characteristics of the Queen Bee.

“Her complaints about the other girls are limited to the lame things they said or did.

She can persuade her peers to do just about anything she wants.

She’s charming to adults…

She can make another girl feel ‘anointed’ by declaring her a special friend.

She’s affectionate, but that affection is often deployed to demonstrate her rejection of another girl…

She won’t…take responsibility when she hurts someone’s feelings…

She thinks she’s better than everyone else. She’s in control, intimidating, smart, caring, and has the power to make others feel good or bad. She’ll make stuff up about people and everyone will believe her”
(pp25-26).

Gang membership is enforced by rules, and Wiseman mentions examples from the cliques she studied, such as having to wear pink on a Friday, or not wearing a skirt more than twice a week, or not speaking to certain individuals in school.

Members should be sexually attractive enough to have social credibility, but they mustn't upstage each other and certainly not the Queen Bee. The clique controls how 'slutty' its members are allowed to be - in other words, it controls female sexual display, or put another way, male access to female sexual beauty. The clique also decides whether a certain boy is cool enough to go out with. So in short, female social groups set the price of sex by attempting both to control the supply side and influence the demand side.

As with any teenage gang, you get ahead by intimidation, or by performing rebellious feats of daring; the gang provides its members with incentives to behave badly towards outsiders (and sometimes towards insiders who have fallen out of favour).

A profile of the typical Queen Bee would be something like the following:

  • She is charming and charismatic.
  • She is manipulative, lying and deceitful.
  • She is extremely shallow and superficial.
  • She is aggressive and ruthless, and has no concern for others’ feelings or needs.
  • She is arrogant, and seems to have an unshakable sense of superiority and personal entitlement.

I came across this definition of Antisocial Personality Disorder, and it seems to fit the Queen Bee remarkably well. The text describes the difference between the terms ‘psychopath’ and ‘sociopath’. I am suggesting that the Queen Bee is often a sociopath.

“I use the term sociopath (socialised psychopath) for an individual with many of the characteristics of Antisocial Personality Disorder who expresses their violence psychologically (eg constant criticism, sidelining, exclusion, undermining etc). Psychopathic APD people are usually, but not exclusively, associated with low socio-economic status and urban settings and tend to be of lower intelligence. Sociopaths are usually highly intelligent, have higher socio-economic status and often come from "normal", "nice", "middle-class" families.

... most of the research on Antisocial Personality Disorder has been undertaken with people who are physically violent, as these people have come to the attention of the authorities (police, welfare agencies, doctors, psychiatrists, etc) through their recognised (physically) antisocial behaviour. They have committed criminal, arrestable offences. I believe relatively little research has been undertaken with people who are psychologically violent but rarely physically violent; these people tend to commit non-criminal, non-arrestable offences. People who are physically violent tend to have low self-esteem, low intelligence and low self-discipline; people who are psychologically violent tend to have low self-esteem, high self-discipline and high intelligence”.


People with these kinds of anti-social personality disorders are very good at getting themselves into positions of power, by manipulating and intimidating others. There is no doubt that many tyrannical leaders in history were psychopaths. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot are obvious examples. An excellent book on the subject is Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes. Psychopaths are able to manoeuvre themselves into positions of power and influence within otherwise benign political structures, and turn them to their own ends. This is probably the origin of much political violence and corruption. There is no reason to think that women’s political organisations are immune from this.

Robert D Hare is the leading expert on psychopathy, and he has also applied his thinking to corporate situations as well. Corporations often seem to behave like psychopaths (destroying the environment and exploiting the poor for example), and this is perhaps partly due to the nature of the corporation itself, and partly due to the fact that corporations are often led by psychopaths.

Evidence is now accumulating that psychopaths wreak havoc at every level of human society. If we really want to make the world a better place, then understanding and dealing with anti-social personality disorder is perhaps one of the best approaches to take.

Psychopathy may prove to be as important a construct in this century as IQ was in the last (and just as susceptible to abuse), because, thanks to Hare, we now understand that the great majority of psychopaths are not violent criminals and never will be. Hundreds of thousands of psychopaths live and work and prey among us. Your boss, your boyfriend, your mother could be what Hare calls a "subclinical" psychopath, someone who leaves a path of destruction and pain without a single pang of conscience. Even more worrisome is the fact that, at this stage, no one -- not even Bob Hare -- is quite sure what to do about it. Reference

It seems likely that many leading feminists have also suffered from anti-social personality disorders.

Queen Bees like to control the behaviour, dress, relationships and sexual behaviour of their female subordinates. This should provide us with an insight into the feminist movement’s fixation with what other women do in bed, who they do it with, what they wear, whether they wear make-up, whether they use internal tampons, and so on. These women were doing this kind of thing at fifteen, and they are still doing it at forty. They do it because it gives them power over others. If you happened to be a Queen Bee at school, and especially if you are a lesbian, what better place to go than the feminist movement, to carry on where you left off. Taking power within a women's group is not too difficult for such people, and many of the other women will also plug straight back into the adolescent roles they previously occupied. The Queen Bee knows how to push their buttons.

Although the evidence shows that women are not beyond using physical violence when it suits them, such violence tends to take place in private, out of the way of prying eyes. You do not generally see acts of mass public violence committed by women, although it is not unknown.

Instead, women's methods of attacking their enemies usually consist of passive-aggressive psychological techniques, such as vicious gossip and rumour-mongering (destruction of reputation), destruction of relationships, verbal and emotional abuse, false accusations (falsification of primate distress signals), the recruitment of proxy attackers, social exclusion, public shaming or moral intimidation.

Recruitment of proxy attackers is an important one with regard to physical violence. When women want such actions carried out, they generally persuade men to do it for them, as it is more effective, and they can deny responsibility. For example, Kathleen M Blee, in her excellent book, Women of the Klan, describes how the powerful WKKK were able to persuade male members of the KKK to attack men who beat their wives or defaulted on child support.

However, there is no doubt that verbal denigration is vastly more common as a method of attack by females. They have always done this in private. Whenever they have entered public life, it should come as no surprise to find that they have done exactly the same thing. Blee describes how the WKKK organised ‘poison squads’ to circulate vicious rumours aimed at driving particular individuals out of town. Misandry in popular culture can be seen as simply the latest incarnation of this practice. The target of the WKKK was usually Black, Catholic or Jewish citizens, but the target of today’s feminist movement is the entire male population.

What we see now in popular culture is a constant low-level denigration of men, a relentless, often subtle stream of contempt and negative representation. This has the effect of controlling the overall cultural 'temperature' of sexual politics, which in turn makes it easier for women to rule the roost in private, or be given preferential treatment in public, such as leniency in the courts. It is this insidious cultural climate, produced by little more than concerted and highly organised gossip, which is the problem as much as anything.

In his classic work, The Games People Play, the psychiatrist Eric Berne describes a game called ‘Now I've got you, you son of a bitch’, in which the aggressor scrutinises the victim’s behaviour for signs of weakness or failure and then uses it against them. This practice of gathering dirt on people is really the classic strategy of the gossip, and perhaps the commonest of all female games.

The men’s and fathers movements concentrate a lot of attention on child contact following divorce, and although useful as a galvanising issue, it is far from being the root cause of the malaise. Denying men contact with their children is just another symptom, just another way of punishing and controlling men by passive methods. Women learn these techniques in adolescence, and it takes a mature mind to see through them.

Ganging up against men serves an important function in encouraging group cohesion. If you and I find ourselves stranded on an island inhabited by hostile natives, we will probably form common cause very quickly. That is the picture of the world that the politically astute (many of whom are psychopaths) often paint for the naive. The feminists, who essentially want power for themselves, are telling women "They all hate you, you know. We need to stick together. Only I can save you". This was also the basic message of Hitler to the German people. Anti-male propaganda cements the female social group together with the propagandists (i.e. feminists) in the leadership role.

I don't think there are any instant solutions to totalitarian feminism, it will take a long time to change it, and it will require a large number of small personal rebellions. The type of totalitarianism we are dealing with here often operates in private, on a small-scale, personal level. It has to be understood in that way and combated appropriately. It works by pressing particular psychological buttons. The first task is to recognise this.

Further reading:
Mental Abuse.Org

Female Manipulation on Men’s Links

Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work, by Paul Babiak, Robert D Hare

Saturday, September 29, 2007

The Great Female Con

I came across a great book yesterday called The Great Female Con, by a guy called Andy Randead. It is an ebook (in PDF format, so you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader).

Also there is an interview with the author on the page, and I highly recommend that you listen to it. I wish I had known all that stuff when I was twenty. It should be taught to boys in college. Well why not? Radical feminism is compulsory already...

Saturday, September 22, 2007

Left in the Gutter

Here is a narrative for you, academic Lefties, since I know how much you like them:

“Well, the news is good so far”, said the chairman, swivelling his chair to look at the giant screen. “As you know, we managed to get our guy into office after all, thank God. We should really thank Bud over there for doing such a good job on the voting machines”.

The other Barons turn and briefly nod an acknowledgement. Bud remains impassive, chewing on his cigar. An image of the new President fills the giant screen. A vidcast of a recent speech.

“God, the guy’s a monkey”, says a voice.

“He may well be a monkey”, says the chairman smoothly, “But he is OUR monkey”.

He waits, briefly, for more interruptions, and continues. “Things are proceeding according to plan. We already have our new Pearl Harbor, our casus belli, so there is nothing to stop us going ahead. Hank will fill us in with the details”.

Hank stands at the podium. “Gentlemen”. He looks awkward for a second. “And ladies”. He pronounces very deliberately, nodding towards the far end of the table.

“The plan is a work of genius. The government will invade Islamistan, in pursuance of its energy security priorities. Why Islamistan? It’s the oil, stupid”.

There is a ripple of laughter around the table.

“They will require large amounts of materiel in order to achieve this; tanks, planes, bombs, etc. Those tanks and planes are very thirsty, so they’ll need a lot of oil too. There’s plenty of good business here for us. That’s stage one”.

He changes the slide.

“As a prelude to a ground invasion, there will be a prolonged air attack, aimed at disabling the country’s communications and transport infrastructure; roads, bridges, railways, water and utilities. But not the petrochemical facilities, obviously”. He grins. There is another ripple of laughter.

“Once the army goes in, their priority will be to secure these facilities first, and then to pacify the native population. We can help with this as well. The government will sub-contract some of its requirements to the private sector, both in terms of logistical support and tactical support.”

“So they’re going to come to us to hire trucks and mercenaries?”

“Exactly. That is stage two”.

He changes the slide again.

“Obviously, the whole point is to extract the gas, and we have already secured preferential concessions there. This chart shows projected revenues over the first ten years”.

There are nods of approval round the table.

“That is stage three. Then of course, there is the reconstruction. We will need to put in place a new civil infrastructure, which is stage four. Any questions?”.

“So the government will pay us to knock all the buildings down, and then pay us more to put them all back up again?”

“Exactly”.

“So we’re making money every which way”.

"Yep".

"And the whole thing is financed by taking their oil?"

“That’s the genius of it, Bob”.

The intercom beeps. A female voice. “Sir, it’s your eleven o’clock with the Civil Rights people”.

There are a few nervous glances around the table, but the chairman seems unfazed.

“Show her in”.

The door opens, and a burly security guard glances around. In walks a diminutive, serious-looking woman in glasses. The door closes, and she approaches the table.

“Mr Chairman, I have come here to appeal to you on behalf of the women and children of Islamistan. Everyone knows that in war, it is women and children who suffer the most. I call upon you, Mr Chairman, and members of the panel, to fulfil your responsibilities in this area, by funding an Islamistan Women’s Aid program, so that my friends and I can feel impo…er…work selflessly to alleviate the suffering of the innocents.”

The chairman passes her a check. “Here you are. There’s a few million dollars for your women’s … whatever it is".

"Wow. Thanks!"

"No problem. Off you toddle. Thanks for coming”.

Outside, there are hugs and squeals of girly triumph.

“Was that it?” asks one of the Barons. “I’m suspicious. That was just too easy”.

“Oh, don’t worry about her”, says the chairman smoothly. “She’s got no idea what’s going on. She spends most of her time downtown, hanging around outside a titty bar, giving out fliers”.

The expressions around the table vary from bafflement to grins of amusement.

“In fact she’s good for us. Having her on board will look good on the six o’clock news, and she can help with the task of pacifying the natives”.



Near the embarkation point, a unit of the 21st Christojihadist Militia goose-steps down the street, buckles glinting in the sunshine. The column passes a small group of bums drinking cheap booze on a bench. In his staff car, the Obersturmfuhrer glances up from his map of Iran, and looks at them briefly.

Two men are having an animated discussion. “But you’re oppressing my right to problematize phallocentric knowledges. You don’t accept the primacy of meta-narrative”.

“That’s where you’re wrong”, retorts the other. “I am a better post-modernist than you. I’m just saying, what has the government ever done for us?”

“Well, there is the welfare checks”, replies the first.

“Well, OBVIOUSLY there’s the welfare checks. But apart from the welfare checks, what has the government ever done for us?”

One of the women intervenes. “Honestly, you men”, she sneers haughtily. “Arguing and fighting. That’s all you’re good for”.

The men subside, cowed, and return to their bottle. The woman gloats to her friends in smug satisfaction.

The Obersturmfuhrer returns to his map. There is no immediate need to arrest them, because they pose no significant threat. If one of the drunks should develop enough balls even to heckle, he will be tasered.

The column marches on, unopposed.


Don’t worry though, academic Lefties, this is only a story; there is no such thing as the truth. Sleep well, now. Don’t have nightmares.

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Heretic's Most Popular

The Green Fields of France
The thing I didn't realise until very recently was that he, and the men who died in his trench, and most of the other 420,000 British casualties, couldn't even vote. Most of the men - British anyway - who fought in WWI didn't even have the right to vote. Did you know that? It doesn't seem to get mentioned very often. The only gender issue we remember from that time, a time when men were being exterminated by the million, is that women couldn't vote.

The Skimmity
All schoolchildren know about the scold’s bridle and the ducking stool used to punish women, but they are not told about the skimmity ride. In Western Europe up until the early Twentieth Century, husbands who were victims of infidelity or domestic violence by their wives would be subjected to ritual public humiliation by their entire community.

The Trouble with Being the Witch-finder General
Have you ever wondered why it is that after 40 years or so of relentless feminist campaigning, the situation with regard to domestic violence has still not improved any? Why has the DV industry apparently made no impact? Shouldn’t we be seeing substantial results by now?

Banning the Bomb
The peace camp movement was a product of the economic and political climate in Britain at that time. It could not have happened without mass unemployment, a housing shortage and a benefits system. People lived there often because they had nothing better to do.

War: One of the Bad Things that Women do to Men
The woman who sent that feather is entirely responsible for this man's death, just as surely as if she had pulled the trigger herself.

Double standards over parenting
Big Sister says that in a family, mothers and fathers are interchangeable; there is no reason to think that the mother should provide the best childcare. Mothers should have the same opportunity as fathers to pursue a career outside the home, and in order to make this possible, fathers should do more housework and childcare. Anyone who says that the mother should be the principal child-carer is a misogynist. However, if the parents divorce, all of this changes. Suddenly, the mother is the best natural parent, and she should get custody by default. The father is an unsuitable parent, and the children belong with their mother. A complete turn-around.

The Pay Gap is a Myth
The pay gap is a myth. Once you control for the fact that men work longer hours, and don't take career breaks to have children, you find that men and women earn the same amount. You disagree? Answer this simple question: If women are cheaper to employ than men, then why do employers ever hire men at all? Why don’t they just hire women, who are just as good, if not better, thus saving money?

Never Date Western Women
I have a policy of never dating Western women, and certainly never feminists. Big cities like London, New York and Sydney are jam-packed with beautiful foreign girls from Latin America, Eastern Europe and Asia. They are sexy, fun, good company and they treat men like human beings. They have not had their minds poisoned by feminist hate-speech. What a contrast from those spoiled, manipulative, over-privileged, endlessly-complaining women who grew up here.

Thought experiment number 1
Let us buy an island somewhere and conduct an experiment in feminist utopianism. It would be the most addictive reality-TV show ever – lets call it ‘Big Sister’. Any woman who wanted to go and live there could do so free of charge. No men would be permitted. Would it be a socialist-feminist heaven on earth? I wonder how long it would be before the electricity stopped working, and the rubbish began piling up in the streets, and the drains were blocked, and the rats didn’t even bother to hide any more.

Thought experiment number 2
For our second thought experiment, let us imagine what would happen if Mary Daly got her way. She will exterminate all the men (and most of the women too, it seems), and then artificially breed a population of identical lesbian clones. This is the stated intention of Daly, Solanas, and other right-wing radical feminists. Would such a society be viable?

The Witch-hunt: Coming to a Town Near You.
In 1991, nine children were siezed from their beds on the remote island of South Ronaldsay in a dawn raid by police and social workers. The authorities had become convinced that an organised paedophile ring was at work in the community, and ritual child sexual abuse was being practiced.

On Conspiracy Theories
In order to survive in a troupe of chimps, you need to constantly navigate your way through a minefield of elaborate social ritual and hierarchy. Those who could not do so didn’t survive in the long-term; we are all the offspring of the socially adept. Over the course of evolutionary time, our brains have become hard-wired to understand other people’s intentions. So much so, that we cannot help but see intention even where there is none.

Where to, guv?
As I looked out at the apparently empty streets, I thought about the small armies of workers who were wide awake. Columns of orange-dressed men spend their waking hours marching along black, rat-infested tunnels beneath the streets, so that in the morning, office workers like me can ride the tube to work. These armies of faceless working men are the life-blood of this great city, its immune system. Without them the city would quickly die.

Justice for Warren Blackwell
Warren Blackwell spent three years and four months in prison for a sexual offence he didn't commit. He was convicted of sexually assaulting a woman following a party in a social club. His accuser, it turns out, was a serial liar with a long history of crying rape. However, she remains anonymous.

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.

Legalise Prostitution
However, these problems 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.

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.

New Move to Name and Shame the Deadbeats - Shame They are Mostly Women
What few realise is that women refuse to pay child support more often than men.

The Lessons of Ipswich
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.

How much is your house worth?
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. 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. Previously we would have lived in families. But the family is an instrument of the Patriarchy, so it is being forcibly abolished.

Female Paedophile Parade of Shame
Check out this website. It summarises the recent rash of female teachers, mainly in North America, who have been charged with sexually abusing their students. Many of the victims were autistic or special needs children. The striking thing about them is the lenient sentences they received.

Interview: Warren Blackwell
I was lucky enough to have the chance to interview Warren Blackwell, the innocent father who spent over three years in prison on trumped up charges of sexual assault as the result of a false accusation by a woman called Shannon Taylor, who has a history of mental illness and convictions for dishonesty. He spoke to me about his experiences.

False Accusations: The Scientific Evidence
A list of academic papers and articles detailing the evidence about false rape accusations.

Female Child Sexual Abuse: Some Evidence
A list of academic papers and articles detailing the evidence about child abuse committed by women.

Cleveland – 20 Years On
In Cleveland, in 1987, a local paediatrician, Dr Marietta Higgs, began to diagnose large numbers of children as having been sexually abused. Whenever a child was referred to her for an unrelated problem such as asthma, she took the opportunity to perform an ‘anal dilatation reflex’ test. This involved parting the child’s buttocks to see whether the child’s anus dilated. If it did, she took this as a sole indicator of sexual abuse – in effect, she assumed that the father was sodomising the child. She did not seek any corroborating evidence.

Of Human Bondage
It is interesting to note that the black slave trade actually ended before the white; after abolishing African slavery in 1807, the British government finally ended the white slave trade in 1816, by sending a large naval force to the city of Algiers.

Boyz n the hood
The spate of high profile killings among young people in South London continues. This is mainly black-on-black crime, involving surprisingly young people. Everyone is ignoring the root of the problem. The dog-shit on the living-room carpet that we are not allowed to talk about. Feminism.

The Wolf at the Door of Fascist America
Naomi Wolf is quite right to be concerned about the transformation of the USA into a fascist dictatorship. That process seems to be well advanced. I do find it slightly ironic, however, to hear a committed feminist of long standing complaining about 'closing down an open society'. In fact, in the face of a fascist America, we now need an effective Leftist opposition like we have never needed one before. But where is it? The women are too busy conducting Goddess-worshipping ceremonies, and worrying about whether or not they feel as fulfilled as the magazines tell them they should. The men, meanwhile, are skulking in the corner, too cowed to say anything.

The Scandal of Operation Ore
US authorities identified the credit card details of some 7200 UK citizens on the Landslide database, and passed them on to the UK authorities. Thus began Operation Ore. All over the UK, police began breaking down people’s doors at six in the morning. Among those caught in the net were teachers, police officers, a judge, The Who guitarist Pete Townshend, Robert del Naja of Massive Attack, and Ronnie Barker’s son Adam. To date, around 2300 men have been convicted of child pornography related offences. So what’s the problem?

My Favourite Feminist Quotes
I was inspired to dig out some of my favourite feminist quotes. So here, for your edification and delight, is a small selection.

Boys Pay the Price of Media Witch-hunt
The child 'protection' industry, in collusion with the tabloid media and the radical feminist lobby, have, over the last two decades and more, manufactured a climate of such paranoia that the relationship between men and children has been seriously eroded.
A Man at Greenham Common
There was what was known as 'women's magic', which aimed to deny objective reality by levitating the military base off the earth and placing it on the moon. The failure of these actions was always blamed on the negative influence of men. The magic was justified on the basis that it frightened men. It did in fact frighten me a great deal, because it was so irrational, and because the women openly claimed that rationality was a male invention that must be destroyed. To hear this was to confront pure insanity, and have no arguments against it (because they would only be 'rational male' arguments).

You're Not Allowed to Be a Battered Husband
One of my friends was a victim of domestic violence for years, at the hands of his violent wife. The final straw came when she stabbed him and he was seriously injured. Fortunately he recoved, and he was divorced. He told me how he called a domestic violence helpline, and was told that they had nothing to offer to men. Domestic violence, apparently, is something that men do to women. So he eventually set up his own domestic violence helpline. He published his phone number and address, and that is when the trouble really began.

Barbeque Dads
”What is it with the British with divorce? It’s all you ever hear in this country, divorce all the time”. I didn’t know where to begin. “Well, there is this thing called Cultural Marxism. The Patriarchy is a heterosexual dictatorship…” I anticipated the look of confusion I would receive and instead decided I was happy just to find myself in an oasis of sanity, pleased to find that there is still somewhere in the world that hasn’t been overtaken by this man-hating, heterophobic, anti-family cult. Somewhere, in another town in England, an eleven year old boy had just been shot dead by a boy on a bicycle, but here, just for a while, was civilisation.

Why Did Feminists Attack the Family?
'First-wave' feminists in the early Twentieth Century were not at all anti-family. Indeed, one of their demands was that control of hearth and home should be the domain of women. It was only as a result of second-wave feminism, in the late 1960s, that the feminist attack on the family began.

Let’s Reclaim Evidence-Based Discourse
I had to comment upon Katherine Rake’s recent piece in the Guardian, Let’s Reclaim the F-word. The good Dr Rake is the Director of the Fawcett Society. It is interesting to note that "Her recent book, co-authored with Mary Daly, is Gender and the Welfare State". Mary Daly is the feminist who was fired from her job at Boston College because she would not permit male students to attend her classes. She is one of the Nazi feminists who advocate the mass extermination of men.

IMBRA: Another Feminist Scam
Yet the US feminist lobby, in enacting IMBRA, has deployed this favourite cultural myth, not to combat prostitution, but to combat marriage. The facts show that marriages to foreign women are less likely to be abusive, and less likely to end in divorce. IMBRA has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting women; it is another weapon in the feminist war against marriage. Some of them just oppose marriage in principle; others don’t like the foreign competition.

Domestic Violence: The Scientific Evidence
The scientific evidence is extensive and conclusive, and contradicts the feminist story in every detail. Domestic violence affects only a minority of couples. Women initiate domestic violence more often than men do. Domestic violence is just as common in the homosexual communities as it is in the heterosexual community. Domestic violence often collocates very strongly with alcohol and substance abuse. Domestic violence is usually reciprocal, rather than one partner hitting the other exclusively. Where it is non-reciprocal, the evidence shows that in heterosexual relationships the perpetrator is more likely to be the woman than the man.

The Emperor's New Slaves
The abuse industry is now a grave threat to civil liberties in the UK. By constantly identifying fictional ‘slaves’ to rescue, it justifies its own existence.

Anthem for Doomed Youth
In the UK, youths in their mid-teens exist in a cultural black hole. Too old to go out to play, too young to go to the pub, they don’t want to stay inside with mum and dad in front of the TV. They need something else to do. Yet society doesn’t provide them with much. The two things which teenagers need most – a good education and strong family support – have been taken from them by Marxists and feminists.

The Industrialisation of the Family
With the Left and Right jointly responsible for undermining family and community, Mrs. Thatcher’s service-based economy has stepped in to fill the gap. In the broken society of individuals, people now have to pay for services that they once got from their family. This constitutes in effect, the industrialization of the family.

The Myth of Multi-Tasking
As far as I am aware, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the claim that women are better at multi-tasking than men. Feminists who make such claims offer nothing in the way of any kind of credible psychological model, or theory in the Philosophy of Action, no appeal to evolutionary theory. Nothing. It is an example of what is called ‘folk psychology’.

The Truth Will Out
They more families it breaks up, the more money it makes. The naive taxpayer wrongly believes that the money is being used to protect neglected and abused children from harm. The opposite is the case. By taking children away from perfectly good parents and grandparents, they are exposed to much greater risk of abuse, including sexual molestation. They grow up to be disturbed and dysfunctional adults who exhibit a whole raft of additional social problems such as criminality and substance abuse, which - you've guessed it - need to be dealt with by even more 'professionals' with even more taxpayers' money.

Why Ideologies hate the family
The feminist movement, and the paedophile panic, are just the latest in a long series of instruments used by socialist and totalitarian political interests to attack the family. The family itself is what these political interest groups find threatening.

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Let’s Reclaim Evidence-Based Discourse

I had to comment upon Katherine Rake’s recent piece in the Guardian, Let’s Reclaim the F-word.

The good Dr Rake is the Director of the Fawcett Society. It is interesting to note that "Her recent book, co-authored with Mary Daly, is Gender and the Welfare State: care, work and welfare in Europe and the USA, 2003, Cambridge: Polity Press" Reference Mary Daly is the feminist who was fired from her job at Boston College because she would not permit male students to attend her classes. She is one of the Nazi feminists who advocate the mass extermination of men.

“If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males. People are afraid to say that kind of stuff anymore”. Reference

Katherine Rake is working in collaboration with someone like that. That is who is in charge of the Fawcett Society, and that is who gets published in the Guardian these days. Be scared. Be very scared.

In the Guardian article, the dishonesty and self-delusion begin with the very first sentence.

“Roll up, roll up, for a spot of that old favourite, feminist-bashing. Anyone can have a go, it's easy.”

The article is supposedly about ‘feminist-bashing’, by which I take it she means people expressing disagreement with, or criticism of, feminist claims. Is she going to answer the criticisms levelled at feminism by the emerging men’s movement? No, not a bit of it. She refuses to believe that there even could be any valid criticism.

“Trot out that readymade mythological figure of the dungaree-clad, scary, hairy and humourless feminist… The stereotype of the mythological feminist, while ridiculous, is dangerous in that it gives the impression that feminism is first and foremost about how women should dress or whether they should wear make-up.”

I do not criticise feminists because of the way they dress, and I am not aware of anyone else who does. I couldn’t care less how they dress; it’s their cult religion I find offensive. Their lies, their hypocrisy, their deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, their double-standards. Their penchant for demonising men and destroying families, and endorsing and concealing destructive female behaviour. That will do to start with.

What she also fails to acknowledge is that it is feminists themselves who talk about how women should dress or whether they should wear make-up. Take for example, Jackie Clune’s article, My Crime Against the Lesbian State:

“The most radical among us struck fear into the rest with their certainty and their expert deployment of feminist guilt. I was frequently berated by the Lesbian Police in bars and clubs; for wearing red lipstick (apparently an obvious allusion to my vagina and therefore an invitation to men - why not women?), for wearing a black biker's jacket (blatantly disrespectful to victims of the Nazi Holocaust who would be reminded of German storm troopers every time they saw black leather) and hilariously, on one occasion, for having "too much fun" with my mates. (Didn't we know we were excluding other women in the bar and probably making them feel inadequate because we were laughing so loudly? And, besides, with female circumcision still at large, what were we doing laughing in the first place?)”

It is feminists who try to dictate to women what they should and shouldn’t wear, and what they should and shouldn’t do: no-one else.

The claim “Anyone can have a go, it's easy” is particularly ironic given the ferocious intellectual gulag (the ‘Lace Curtain’) that the feminist movement has created. As with other religious cults, the feminist movement has taken great pains to demonise, ruin, isolate and destroy anyone who has the temerity to question its holy writ.

I have cited already on this blog the kind of Maoist-style shaming and isolation inflicted on people like Neil Lyndon and Erin Pizzey.

Other examples include Esther Vilar, author of The Manipulated Man. “I hadn't imagined broadly enough the isolation I would find myself in after writing this book. Nor had I envisaged the consequences which it would have for subsequent writing and even for my private life - violent threats have not ceased to this date” Reference

David Thomas, author of ‘Not Guilty: In Defence of the Modern Man’ tells how he was threatened by a group of feminists at a publishing industry event, with Kathy Lette telling him “You’d better make sure you get your statistics absolutely right, or we’ll crucify you”.

I have already mentioned my colleague who started his own domestic violence helpline for men, and was terrorised by feminists into closing it down.

The examples can go on and on.

Christina Hoff Sommers, author of Who Stole Femnism and The War Against Boys, was jeered off stage by a mob of feminists for questioning the prevailing orthodoxy. Reference

Canadian academic Jeffrey Asher describes how he was persecuted by academic feminists for teaching a course representing men positively.

This is just a selection of many such examples. Rake’s article is itself simply another stitch in the Lace Curtain, as its whole purpose is to de-legitimise any kind of critical thinking or dissent.

The mere existence of this oppressive political and cultural censorship is enough reason in itself to be profoundly distrustful and suspicious of the feminist movement as an entity.

“Roll up, roll up, for a spot of that old favourite, feminist-bashing. Anyone can have a go, it's easy.”

But only if you want your life destroyed by a mob of middle-class political thugs.

She continues:
“It belittles feminists' true legitimate and serious concerns - that the pay gap still exists, that violence against women is at crisis levels, that women's caring roles are so undervalued, that women are still woefully underrepresented in positions of power.”

Here we have some of the most hackneyed feminist myths, long exploded, still being repeated like the religious catechism that they unquestionably are. OK, let’s go through the evidence again. There are four points here.

1 The Pay Gap. The pay gap is one of the most tenacious and perennial of all feminist myths. Warren Farrell does as good a job as any of exploding it in his book ‘Why Men Earn More’. His most cogent argument is this: If an employer has to pay a man one dollar for the same work a woman would do for 59 cents, why would anyone hire a man? Reference The feminist story about the pay gap, like most feminist claims, is a juvenile conspiracy theory. It argues that employers will actually waste money on employing men rather than women, thus making themselves less efficient, less profitable and less competitive, just because of some kind of irrational prejudice on their own part. This shows a startling degree of ignorance of economics. In the white heat of global commercial competition, any employer who behaved in this way would soon be driven out of business by his more efficient competitors. The picture of the workplace which is painted by the feminist movement is impossible to sustain in practice. It doesn’t happen because it simply can’t happen. The truth about the Pay Gap is much less simple, and is based upon the choices which men and women make.

The real situation is this:
Firstly:

  • Women tend to choose more casual, people-orientated jobs which pay less. They pay less because they require fewer technical skills, and more people are willing to do them.
  • Men tend to choose more technical, dangerous, boring or less people-orientated jobs, because they pay better. They pay better because they are more difficult or risky, and fewer people want to do them.

In other words, men and women just have different priorities in life. This startling fact will come as no surprise to anyone except a feminist, and there are good evolutionary and cultural reasons why it should be so.

Secondly, there is the effect of reproduction on the job market. If we examine never-married men and women in the same job, there is evidence that the women actually earn slightly more than the men. Once they have children, however, everything changes. Fathers tend to work harder to earn more money, and women tend to work less, as they take time off to stay at home with their children.

This arrangement suits everyone, except feminists. The feminist story of the Pay Gap is a misleading distortion of the facts in every detail.

2 Domestic Violence
This is the most recent research that I am aware of.

Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence Daniel J. Whitaker, PhD, Tadesse Haileyesus, MS, Monica Swahn, PhD and Linda S. Saltzman, PhD

Take a look at this diagram:



Click on the image to read the full article.

  • Most relationships are not violent, so what she means by ‘crisis levels’ is not clear.
  • Domestic Violence is just as common among homosexuals as among heterosexuals.
  • Domestic Violence correlates strongly with alcohol and drug abuse.
  • Domestic Violence is usually reciprocal.
  • Here comes the big one: "In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases."

The feminist story about domestic violence is completely wrong in every single detail, but woe betide you if you try to point this out. There is good money being made from telling men-hating lies, and feminists don’t want anyone messing with their government-funded cash cow.

3 Women's caring roles are so undervalued.
It is not really clear what Rake means by this. Conservatives talk fondly of motherhood and apple-pie. Motherhood is an institution which is held in the highest esteem by absolutely everyone - except feminists. I suspect that what she is hinting at is the idea that women should be paid by the government to cook their own food, clean their own houses and look after their own children. However, she doesn’t really say what she means.

4 Women are still woefully underrepresented in positions of power
I refer you to my arguments above regarding the myth of the ‘Pay Gap’. See also this article, Women Know Best Why They’re Not CEOs “…few women make it to the very top of the business world... Why is this? Liberal feminist groups, like the National Organization for Women (NOW), tend to insist that sexism and discrimination are the primary cause. Yet many individual women recognize that their choices — particularly the choices they make once they have children — make the difference”

Not only do feminists arrogantly ignore individual personal choice on this issue, but there is a much deeper flaw in feminist logic here also. Corporate Capitalism is an aspect of the Patriarchy (or is it the other way round? No-one quite seems to know). Corporate Capitalism is one of the evil works of men, destroying the world, oppressing the poor (especially women), perpetrating the rape of Mother Earth. It must be stopped. But we need to get more women into top boardroom positions. So is Corporate Capitalism a good thing or a bad thing? It seems to be a good thing when women do it, but a bad thing when men do it. This, needless to say, makes no sense whatsoever, but Rake does not trouble herself over trifling matters of logic.

“Add to this the fact that there is no one organisation or definition of feminism, and it makes it all the easier for people to indulge in a spot of feminist-bashing; they can pick and choose and exaggerate the elements they want and then knock them down.”

Ironically, we have here a perfect illustration of the original purpose of sex, that subject which is the very source of the feminist neurotic complex. Populations of organisms protect themselves against attack by parasites by maintaining genetic diversity. I covered this in an earlier article. Feminists attempt to do the same. ‘Feminism is not just one thing but many, so you can’t attack it’. The argument is pure smoke and mirrors. All feminists share a central corpus of core beliefs, otherwise they could not call themselves feminists. It is these which I am examining. My arguments apply more or less across the board, but even where they do not, so what? If I manage to destroy one of the crazier outlying regions of feminism, thus forcing them to restrict themselves to the realm of sanity in future, surely I am doing them a favour, as feminist thinking is strengthened as a result? Not a bit of it. Feminism is primarily a religion, not a coherent theory of politics, and religions do not like to submit themselves to critical examination. Faith is everything. The ‘diversity’ argument is also a double-edged sword; if it makes you less vulnerable to attack (and I don’t think it does), it also makes your case less coherent.

“Feminists aim to transform not just who gets the top jobs in business, but also who gets the job of cleaning the toilet at home. Feminists want to change not just who walks the corridors of power, but also who feels safe walking home at night. Feminism is not just about allowing women to lead the same lives that men have for many years; it's about changing the rules of the game... It's about more than tinkering at the edges - and that feels threatening to a lot of people.”

This paragraph illustrates, no doubt intentionally, the broad sweep of feminist ambition. These middle-class women intend to re-engineer every aspect of our lives, public and private, whether we like it or not. The arrogance of it is truly remarkable. Here we have an admission, straight from the horse’s mouth, that feminism is an attempt to undertake fundamental root-and-branch re-engineering of human society, and all on the basis of precious little in the way of convincing evidence or rational thought.

“Feminists want to change…who walks the corridors of power”. The fact that they want to fundamentally re-engineer our political system should set alarm bells ringing everywhere; it should open feminists to an extraordinarily high level of scrutiny, not immunise them from it. The rest of us would not be doing our duty as citizens if we allowed anyone to undertake such a program unchallenged, and even more so, given the appalling record of feminists’ Twentieth Century predecessors. The Twentieth Century contains plenty of examples of such attempts to artificially re-engineer society, and they resulted in mountains of corpses on every single occasion. As the great liberal philosopher Karl Popper once said “Those who promise us heaven on Earth have only ever delivered hell”.

Does this feel “threatening to a lot of people”? It should do. If you don't find it profoundly frightening, then you haven't been paying attention.

Despite its egalitarian smoke-screen, and its pretensions about saving the world from itself, feminism is deeply self-serving. “…who gets the top jobs in business”: Why, women of course – feminists themselves - and they think they can forcibly re-engineer the entire world to bring this about. “…who gets the job of cleaning the toilet at home”: someone else, of course, a compliant man, or a low-paid immigrant servant. It’s all about me, me, me.

If Rake really wants men to do more house-work, which is obviously what she means, she would do well to start off by being honest. All the feminist movement is able to do is nag men for not doing enough work, and laugh at them for being useless around the house. Hardly constructive. Not to mention patently false.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 2004 Time Use Survey, men spend one and a half times as many hours working as women do, and full-time employed men still work significantly more hours than full-time employed women.Reference

But there is another side to this also. The fact is, women don’t want to give up their control at home.

Caregivers can clash when stay-at-home fathers step up their game. "It's still the norm for moms to act as the gatekeepers to fathers' involvement with their kids".

Why women won’t give up ruling the roost ”…through all the turmoil of feminism, postfeminism and gender equality crusades, actually, when it comes to the housework, I only want my husband to be equal on my terms….I think of these habits as faults, but actually they are simply choices — just not my choices. So, despite the fact that we are equal, I still think of the house as my domain, where things should be done my way…Real equality does not mean that everything is done the woman’s way. It means that just as workplaces have to accommodate the particular needs of women, so homes have to accommodate the particular behaviours of men. And more than that. It means that women have to accept their partner’s domestic ways, provided they don’t threaten household safety, as being as good as their own. Like many women, I find this almost impossible, which means that though I pay lipservice to the idea of my husband being an equal partner in the house, I don’t really want him to be anything of the sort. In the house, I wish to be in charge and I don’t want to make any allowances.”

Maternal chauvinism is a dad's greatest obstacle to parental parity. “If men haven't become equal partners at home, it's because women won't allow it. Women, they say, may seek equality with men in the public world, but they want to maintain control over their traditional domestic turf, and are particularly slow changing when it comes to relinquishing their primacy as mothers. "Generally, men are as involved with their kids as their wives will let them be," says Armin Brott, author of several advice books for fathers.“

Until men are given equal status within the family, there will never be equality. This will not happen until women relinquish some of their power, and take responsibility for their own negative attitudes. I don’t think that Rake and her ilk really want to hear these uncomfortable facts.

"Feminism is...about allowing women to lead the same lives that men have for many years" What can she mean? Is she advocating compulsory military service for women? Is she advocating a system in which women will be forced to either work full-time or face complete social exclusion? Is she aware that men are more likely than women to die younger of all major diseases, more likely to commit suicide, more likely to become homeless, more likely to go to prison, more likely to abuse substances, more likely to be a victim of violence? Yes, you too can have it all, just like the men. Statements like this make me think that feminism is based, not only on zero evidence, but also on simple envy. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence - until you get there. Men's lives are not, and simply never have been, the paradise that feminists insist they are.

As for “who feels safe walking home at night”, I hardly know where to begin. The epidemic of gang culture and its accompanying gun and knife crime can be traced directly to the decline of the family, fatherlessness, and the decline of traditional sources of authority such as police and teachers. The feminist movement has been one of the main driving forces behind this trend. It has done more to promote fatherlessness and family breakdown than any other single factor. Where families and fathers disappear, the gang takes over. Where gangs rule the streets, you have violent crime. After spending forty years attacking marriage and the family, demonising men and separating fathers from their children, feminists are largely to blame for the current mess.

The evidence is all around for anyone honest enough to look. Take for example this excellent report from Civitas, The Cost of the Fatherless Family

Or this: Feral Britain. “Committed fathers are crucial to their children’s emotional development. As a result of the incalculable irresponsibility of our elites, however, fathers have been seen for the past three decades as expendable and disposable.”

Why does Rake think that feminists have a unique perspective to offer on the subject of street crime? What are they going to say: “Nasty men should start behaving more like women”? Very profound. Given that it demonises men, destroys families, consigns boys to educational failure and conceals the anti-social behaviour of women, feminism is not only utterly bankrupt on reducing crime; it actively promotes it, by creating the social breakdown which produces crime.

The lying and distortion continue.

“The pay gap short-changes women every day; quality childcare is out of the reach of most parents; rape conviction levels are at their lowest ever; and more than 80% of MPs are men.”

Whing, whinge, whinge.

The Pay Gap I’ve covered. Let’s look at these other myths and lies.

Childcare. What does Rake recommend exactly? No doubt she thinks that the taxpayer should pay for a servant to look after her children for her (assuming she has any) while she flounces around shopping, eating lunch with her friends and going to the gym. Why on Earth should we do that? They are her children. She had them. She should take responsibility for them. By going out to work each day and earning money, the father is already taking responsibility.

Rape convictions. The scientific evidence shows that most rape allegations are false and malicious. The police and the courts already know this. I have already written at length about the case of Warren Blackwell, who spent over three years in prison for a sexual assault that never happened, after having been falsely accused by a mentally ill serial accuser, and convicted by a corrupt system. Consider also the recent Duke University Lacrosse scandal in the USA. All the evidence shows that such cases are far from unique.

Feminists, of course, can never admit that the system is working correctly, and that the conviction rate for rape is so low because there are so many false accusations. Instead they try to rig the court system so that innocent men are convicted on the mere say-so of a mad woman. The feminist movement is using rape as a weapon to demonise men and destroy as many of them as possible. They are not concerned about protecting women. The real agenda is a political one.

More than 80% of MPs are men. I covered this above in my discussion of men and women in leadership positions. Once again, we see this simple-minded feminist suspicion, this juvenile conspiracy theory. “There are more men than women in government. That’s not fair. They hate us. It’s a conspiracy”. There may be any number of perfectly good reasons why the situation is as it is, individual personal choice being the main one. If the system is rigged to balance the statistics, as feminists such as Rake advocate, who is going to benefit? Democracy? The electorate? No. Rake and her middle-class feminist friends. Do not be fooled into thinking that feminism is about equality. It is nothing of the kind.

“And we now also have to contend with the hypersexualisation of our culture, a phenomenon that has developed and snowballed with hardly a murmur of dissent. Against a backdrop of ubiquitous images of women's bodies as sex objects, rates of self-harm among young women are spiralling, eating disorders are on the rise, and plastic surgery is booming”.

The claim that we are living in a ‘hypersexualised’ culture is a highly questionable one, given, in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic world, our long history of censorship of sexual discourse. In the English-speaking world in particular, we have a significant Protestant heritage of Puritanism. Compare our culture to that of the ancient Romans or Hindus, for example, and Rake’s claim seems absurd. These cultures featured images of copulation as public, even religious, art. It is only in the last few decades that our own draconian censorship has been relaxed to some extent, and I wonder if this is really the source of Rake’s displeasure.

Rake cites a causal link between images of women in the media on the one hand, and eating disorders and self-mutilation among women on the other. She does not say what solution she proposes to these alleged problems, but it is difficult to imagine any ‘solution’ which does not involve a return to draconian censorship of the media; as ‘images of women's bodies as sex objects’ in the media are deemed to be the source of the problem, the solution must be to control what the media is allowed to publish. It is 1970s anti-porn feminism re-hashed as liberalism. Control of the media is the real agenda here, not the welfare of women. ‘Images of women as sex objects’ will be the beginning, but it will not stop there. I have already discussed feminism’s dislike of criticism at some length above.

In an interesting article entitled Anti-Porn is the Theory, Repression is the Practice, the English Collective of Prostitutes describe how an article they had written was censored by radical feminists simply because it questioned their agenda. Feminists like Rake will call for censorship under the guise of protecting women, but this will not be the real agenda. It will be used to censor anything they don’t like, and anyone who disagrees with them.

So is there any evidence of such a causal link, and if there is, what should we do about it? We are all exposed to the same media, and most of us do not develop these psychiatric conditions.

Suicide is the most dramatic form of self-harm, and boys are much more likely than girls to commit suicide. In the USA, boys commit 86 percent of all adolescent suicides. Reference This source contains this incredible statement: “It occurred to me that if 86 percent of adolescent suicides were girls, there would be a national commission to find out why. The Center for Adolescence at Stanford has no one who can speak on the topic. Neither does the American Association of Suicidology. "Try to go out and get funding for it. If there is no research money available, no academician is going to go that route.”

Rake, interestingly, does not seem to be concerned about male suicide. No doubt this is because (i) she is simply not concerned about the welfare of boys, and (ii) no-one would believe that male suicide is caused by the media, so there is nothing to be gained by mentioning it – for control of the media, I believe, is her real agenda.

In addition, boys are also affected by eating disorders, although in smaller numbers. However, Rake needs to explain why this is. Is it images of men in the media which cause this? It would seem unlikely.

There is evidence that you are more likely to develop an eating disorder if

  • You were not breast-fed as a baby.
  • You were forced to ‘clean your plate’ (i.e. you could not control your own food intake) in childhood.
  • You are female.
  • You are middle-class.
  • You have a difficult relationship with your mother.
  • You live in an ‘eating disorder hotspot’ such as the US.

In other words, although local culture is a factor, it is not clear precisely what role the media plays, compared to say, peer pressure. Controlling middle-class mothers, on the other hand, are an established cause.

Even if it could be established that the media is the sole cause of eating disorders – which is clearly not the case - it would not be obvious that censoring the media would constitute a solution. The costs to the wider society of doing so might be higher than the benefits, given that we already have other ways to address mental illness. The feminist agenda here is really about political control of the media, not about protecting women at all.

What is the feminist problem with sex in the media? The feminist movement can be regarded as a powerful trade organization, like a union. It attempts to set the price of access to women. It keeps trying to force the price ever-higher while women are expected to deliver less and less. That is why they object so strongly to any kind of commercial sex; it undercuts middle-class women. This is the reason behind all the anti-porn and anti-prostitution propaganda from the feminist movement. It is presented as being designed to protect women, but it is nothing to do with that. The evidence clearly shows that porn-stars are rich, successful and popular, and that the only way to improve conditions for prostitutes is to legalise the industry.

It is also interesting to note that relaxing censorship on sexual discourse in the media actually reduces the incidence of sexual violence: When pornography was made freely available in Denmark in the late 60's, the incidence of sex crimes, sexual violence towards women and children, dropped markedly. In 1967 erotic material in Denmark was removed from the obscenity statute. This resulted in sex crimes in Denmark which had been stable from 1958 to 1966 decreasing by 25 percent in 1967, 13 percent in 1968 and 30.5 percent in 1969. Patricia Petersen, Lecturer in Psychology, Central Queensland University, Brisbane.

Once again, the truth is the direct opposite of what the feminists claim it is. If porn causes rape, then relaxing censorship should lead to an increase in rape; instead it leads to a decrease. By extension, we can expect that increasing censorship will lead to increased sexual violence. It is sexual repression which produces sexual violence, not sexual libertarianism.

Feminists also wish to make it impossible for Western men to seek foreign wives for the same reason: ”International Marriage Broker Regulation Act is a brute blockade making it impossible for foreign women to meet American men for marriage. American men must provide hardcopy about their criminal...records to marriage introduction services, which must then show it to the woman and get her signature, before sharing contact information...matchmaking services with more than 50% of female American clients are exempt”

So it is perfectly acceptable for women to seek foreign spouses; it is just men who must not be allowed.

When trade unions realise that their own jobs are being threatened by 'cheap foreign imports', they demand that the market is rigged in order to artificially protect them. The same thing is happening here. What feminists are engaging in is protectionism. It is about protecting Western middle-class women’s monopoly over the price of sex. Feminists see themselves as the gatekeepers. Introducing censorship of the media, under the guise of ‘protecting women and children’, is a part of that agenda.

Now here comes the rallying cry to the troops.

“We need to harness the beginnings of a third wave of feminism. A unified movement must include those who [sic] feminism has failed to reach in the past, such as men, many ethnic minority women, working-class women, and young women.”

This is a straightforward admission of the fact that feminism only appeals to white middle-aged, middle-class women, which is, of course, perfectly true. Unfortunately, and despite their pretensions to the contrary, that group exercises a vast amount of power and influence, and not always benignly.

“This vision could be centred around five key freedoms: power, rights, autonomy, respect and choice”.

Its not clear what the difference is between these, as she does not define them.

“In a world of equal power, women politicians would no longer be seen as a rare breed, whose clothes attract more comment than what they say”.

Who is it that comments on their clothes? It certainly isn’t the male heterosexual community.

“Choice would make it unremarkable to see a woman managing a Premiership football team, or a male nursery nurse”.

Football team? Is it only prejudice that keeps women from managing football teams? Or is it that they are simply not interested? Most managers are respected ex-players, and this would tend to preclude most women. Rake seems to forget that qualifications and experience are necessary when applying for a job – not to mention motivation.

As for male nursery nurses, now this is a whole can of worms. I wonder if Rake has been living on the moon for the last twenty years. How else could she not be aware of the fact that men have been driven out of the teaching profession by a false accusations pandemic, for which feminists like herself are largely responsible?

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the UK, most English-speaking countries, and other countries such as Norway, were in the grip of a moral panic about children being sexually abused by Satan-worshippers. Even writing this down, it seems scarcely believable that people could take such an absurd idea seriously. This moral panic originated in the USA, perpetrated by Evangelical Christian groups. It was quickly taken up by radical feminists, who saw it as an opportunity to demonise men, and to wage war against the family.

The first significant case in what was to become a witch-hunt, was the McMartin pre-school trial in the USA. A casual remark by a child led to accusations from a mother. Other parents joined in and panic quickly spread: “By spring of 1984, 360 children had been identified as having been abused. No physical evidence was found to support the allegations. The mother who made the original complaint was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in the same year.”

The panic soon crossed the Atlantic to the UK, and spread further afield to Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere. Describing the entire history of the Satanic Panic is beyond the scope of this article, and I have written about aspects of it already, especially Cleveland and Orkney

Some particularly shameful miscarriages of justice occurred as a result. Take for example, Peter Ellis, a New Zealand child-care worker falsely accused of child abuse, and the victim of a witch-hunt by 'professionals'.

Similarly, Bernard Baran, a male childcare worker spent 22 years in prison for child sexual abuse he did not commit.

In the UK, the Shieldfield Case was particularly disturbing. It is covered particularly well by the writer Richard Webster:
In November 1998, when the report of an inquiry into allegations of multiple abuse at a council-run nursery was published, no one questioned its authority.

The report, written by three social workers and a psychologist, was the most sensational in the history of British child protection. It led to front-page headlines in practically every national newspaper. “Some depths of human depravity simply defy belief”, said the Daily Mail. “Children as young as two were repeatedly molested by staff and … supplied to paedophiles for filmed sex sessions … In scenes of almost unimaginable horror, rapist paedophiles dressed as clowns or animals slashed terrified toddlers with knives”.

The report’s authors had been asked to examine complaints by parents that two trained nursery nurses, Dawn Reed and Chris Lillie, who worked together at Shieldfield nursery, had sexually and physically abused a large number of very young children in their care. Although Reed and Lillie had previously been acquitted in a criminal trial, the inquiry concluded that they were guilty not only of carrying out horrific acts of abuse themselves but also of supplying children to a paedophile ring whose members had raped and abused their young victims, and used them in the making of child pornography.

For the first time in living memory, two people found not guilty in a British court of law had become fugitives, living in fear of the lynch mob.


All of the cases, in the USA as well as the UK, turned out to be unfounded, but not before generating a media frenzy, and putting the families concerned through hell...the misanthropic assumptions underlying it have only been strengthened since the early 1990s. Organisations like the NSPCC are more rather than less influential, and the idea that child abuse is going on in countless apparently normal homes is absolutely mainstream...it is worth remembering what the professionals are capable of. Reference

Even leaving aside the individual miscarriages of justice, the consequences for the wider society of this latter-day witch-hunt against men have been all too predictable.

On Nov. 28, 2002, 2-year-old Abigail Rae died by drowning in a village pond in England. Her death is currently stirring debate because the ongoing inquest revealed an explosive fact. A man passing by was afraid to guide the lost child to safety because he feared being labeled "a pervert”. Reference

Male teacher numbers hit lowThe number of men working in primary schools in Wales has reached its lowest level in nearly 10 years. It is thought one of the reasons for the decline could be fears about false allegations of abuse against children.

Discipline fears as female teachers outnumber male peers by 12 to 1…the decline has been particularly marked in secondary schools, fuelling fears of rising misbehaviour among disaffected teenage boys whose lives lack male authority figures….There are fears men are being scared away by the fear of false child abuse allegations while others are thought to be put off by the absence of male companionship in primary schools.

For further reading on the Satanic child-abuse panic, see these references:

Child Abuse at Mens-Links.Net
Education at Mens-Links.Net
False Accusations at Mens-Links.Net

At the same time, as the links above will show, the feminist movement conceals and denies genuine child abuse committed by females.

This is the kind of oppressive, psychotic regime that feminists such as Rake have produced and seek to extend, a political system based on panic, subterfuge and coercion. She and her ilk have already inflicted untold harm upon a generation, but still they are calling for more.

“This world, that feminism could deliver, is one that many ordinary men and women want to see…To make it happen, we have to reclaim the f-word, show what we are really about and unite for change. If we do, we can put a stop to feminist-bashing forever”.

I do not believe for a second that feminism can deliver a fairer or more just society than the one we have presently, nor even wants to. In her criticism of ‘feminist-bashing’, Rake seems to be more interested in silencing criticism than in improving society. I think I can see very clearly what she is really about.

The article is a catalogue of lies, myth and distortion from beginning to end. It is intended to be a call to the troops to rally around the feminist flag. In this sense, it is a response to the emerging men’s movement, and the increasingly vocal criticism of feminist claims. But it is a deeply conservative and predictable response; rather than attempting to address the sharp evidence-based criticisms being levelled against feminist dogma, she merely attempts to repeat and reinforce it, repeating mythical claims of victimhood, emphasising the nobility of the feminist cause, shaming its detractors and calling for declarations of loyalty and hard-work from the troops on the ground. To my mind, the mere fact that the feminists are sufficiently rattled that they feel the need to write propaganda such as this is evidence that the message is getting out.

Let’s not forget that, as that wise and humane political sage Chairman Mao once said, The Personal Is Political. As head of the Fawcett Society, Katherine Rake is one of those who profits from the demonisation of men and families. She is one of the fat sows feeding at the government-funded trough of taxpayers’ money. She certainly doesn’t want to see that being threatened.