JohntheOther

The Revered Queezy McLynchmob

2012-02-10T05:18:00.000-08:00

Earlier this week the individual calling himself the amazing atheist, known for regularly ranting against the doctrine of feminism for its anti-human-rights philosophy and its religious adherence to a set of ideological dogmas managed to shit the bed while debating a feminist on the online forum of reddit.

After this feminist attempted to claim moral superiority by announcing herself as a victim of rape, the amazing atheist, or TJ as he's also know quite stupidly told her he'd rape her with his fist, and heaped other abuse and insults on top of this.

As a consequence, a substantial segment of the online community have justifiably thrown TJ under the bus. It is possible that the argumentative feminist he was addressing was in fact an actual victim of rape, and not just playing the victim card for it's trump value. Even in the assumption that she was fabricating a story, the rhetorical threat offered by the amazing atheist was awfully foolish, made more surprising that he is a long term veteran of online argument. I expected him to know better, and to conduct himself better, im sure others did to.

However, Im not here to beat up on the amazing atheist, but im coving this ground to provide context.

Seeing an opportunity, the religious leader queezy lynchmob decided to gather the villagers, collect together torches and pitchforks and place himself at the head of the inquisition, denouncing this offensive blasphemer against holy writ.

Interestingly, our champion of the faith , professor Queezy is a professor of biology at university of Minnesota Morris, and considered by some as a prominent advocate of rationality. And this is where things get a bit gluey. Certainly, the professor wasted no time placing himself at the head of the mob with an article titled: The not-so-Amazing Atheist self-immolates.

In this piece, he does what almost any skilled rhetorician with an axe to grind would do, and that's tear TJ a new orifice. Im not going to pretend TJ didnt deserve it, and the rhetoric used to do so is effective. Professor lynchmob characterizes TJ's technique as very ugly, and recommends to his readers that he doesnt recommend a reading. However, like many pundits in the pulpit, the professor proceeds to quote TJ's choicest and most offensive missteps, just to make sure nobody missed any.[1]

This is where I come to a question. As a high profile professor of biology, and prominent proponent of rationality, isn't stooping to partizan engagement in online shit-slinging matches between un-credentialed ideologues below professor’s weight class , and frankly, dignity?

I cannot say for certain, but I have never seen professor Dawkins lower himself or insert himself into what amounts to taunting matches between the laity, even when such contests revolve around evolutionary biology, or atheistic humanism - the fields of expertise and interest to both Dawkins and Professor Meyers.

I have also never seen Dan Dennett or Sam Harris do any such thing. Even the unfortunately departed Christopher Hitchens, boisterously argumentative as he was did not insert himself into squabbles between his inferiors, even when the squabble's subject was something he has a strong opinion on.

Professor Myers, it appears, is not limited this consideration – and I will freely grant that my layman's esteem for a professor of biology may encompass some mistaken understanding.

Since that episode of internet forum insult exchange Professor Meyers, has addressed other topics, and made a strong statement in which I find myself in strong agreement with him.

On Februray 6 he posted a blog entry titled “Dear Jezebel”[2] in which he quite rightly criticized the editors of jezebel dot com for their sadly mawkish enthusiasm for the magical thinking needed to believe in homeopathic medicine.

This is medicine diluted to a point where statistically, no molecules of the purportedly active ingredient remain, due to repeated dilution to the point of having a mixture of nothing but water.

In his rebuttal of this quackery, Meyers said the following: “It's the people who try to justify everything with their biases and gut feelings and falsified opinions that have gotten us in our current mess.”

And I couldn't agree more.

However, what I find perplexing, even frustrating is how a scientist and a rationalist can say this in the same blog posting in which he defends a religious ideology with an earned reputation for advocacy research, censure of nonconforming view, repeated re-use of multiply debunked false claims and a stunningly callous dismissal of human damage to non-adherents of the dogma, and to those with a Y chromosome.

Callous disregard for human damage as exemplified in Catherine Commins' infamous statement in which she said:
Men who are unjustly accused of rape "have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them." That quotation, by the way, if considered within it's full context is not better, its worse, however, for brevity's sake ill leave it alone for now.

And what about repeated re-use of multiply debunked claims of fact.

The 1 in 4 women are raped myth, first reported in the translucently dishonest advocacy research of Mary Koss, who counted her survey subjects as victims when they did not count themselves as such.

Koss's 1 in 4 number has been endlessly recycled, despite the deeply faulty methodology in obtaining it, and in recent memory, proponents of the narrative of omnipresent rape have demonstrated their sloppy disregard for data by blurring that already false claim from 1 in 4 to 1 in 3.

Christina Hoff Sommers, when speaking before a live audience on the domestic violence grievance industry, ( whose operatives are the repeaters of so many of feminism's false facts ) said during her presentation:

“We’re not talking about a few errors, we’re not talking about occasional lapses, we’re talking about a body of egregiously false information at the heart of the domestic violence movement. False claims are pervasive. False claims are not the exception, they are the rule.”
Dr Murray Strauss, a professor of sociology and the co-director of the family research laboratory of durham new hampshire published a paper in 2007 called

How feminists corrupt DV research[3] , and in that paper Professor Stauss detailed seven principal methods used to maintain a factually false narrative of uniquely male perpetration of partner violence.

This is systematic fraud within an ideology which only escapes universal classification as a religion because it lacks a supernatural being in the center of it's dogma.

According to Professor Meyers:

"There's a reason I promote atheism and skepticism coupled with feminism, and it's not because I'm trying to foist a feminist ideology on skepticism. It's because skepticism drives me to consider discrimination and injustice as wrong, not just in an abstract moral sense, but unjustifiable and invalid."

Okay, but what about discrimination and injustice done against somebody other than women, systematically accross a culture – measurable by death rates, differential sentancing in courts, rates of violent criminal victimization and institutional discrimination in education, employment, family court, and increasingly, in law.
Or does discrimination and injustice only count when it impacts who the culture in it's cool-aid drinking assumption deems a victim demographic.

"It's the people who try to justify everything with their biases and gut feelings and falsified opinions that have gotten us in our current mess."

When Professor Myers wrote those words, he was talking about the muddy thinking and outright woo-woo which accompanies quackery like homeopathic medicine, but it could equally apply to bronze age mythology still clung to by twenty first century humans.

You wrote those words Reverend Myers, and when I read them its apparent they also apply to the religion of feminism. That ideology whose proponents do not tolerate dissent or nonconforming data.

[1] http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/02/08/the-not-so-amazing-atheist-self-immolates/
[2] http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/02/dear_jezebel.php
[3] http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/how-feminists-corrupt-dv-research/

Identifying a doctrine of hate and Violence

2012-01-29T18:54:00.001-08:00

The concept of radical feminism, an ideology of feminism which will sweep away the entirety of our social infrastructure, root and branch, and replace it with a wholly new fabrication; is the puerile dream of a child, taking no account of human nature, history, or the variety and disparity of human experience of real people in the real world. It's stupid, and when treated as a legitimate solution to any real world problem, is socially destructive, and entirely antithetical to the human rights of individuals.

In addition to this, central to radical feminism is an obviously false premise. The claim that society operates along lines to elevate the privileges, rights, and advantages of men, at the expense of diminished rights of women. This is obviously false. Women enjoy preferential treatment by the courts and family courts, privileged access to medical resources, preferred evacuation in emergencies along with other advantages. Men die earlier, comprise 93% of workplace deaths ( sing along if you've heard this before ), men are 9 out of ten of the homeless, 4 out of 5 suicides, and the majority of the victims of violent crime, including rape.
The factually false doctrine of patriarchy, in spite of it's glaring conflict with reality is used by feminists to excuse and justify total absolution from accountability.

Under the doctrine of “patriarchy”, any attack on men, or on the human rights of men is justified. This is expressed in activism and lobbying to change matters of domestic policy and law. For example, the pseudo-academic duluth model informing police and court policies on domestic violence.

“On the societal level, women’s violence against men has a trivial effect on men compared to the devastating effect of men’s violence against women.”

According to this doctrine – violence is uniquely harmless if performed by a woman against a man. Aside from being viscerally false, this sick delusion is foundational. It is the basis for socially accepted male targeting violence. Wrapped up with this excused violence is the equally vile conception that men are unfeeling, unemotional, senseless brutes, onto whom any outpouring of vitriol and force is not only deserved, but inconsequential.

Men's physical as well as emotional pain, rendered invisible, rendered nonexistent by a false doctrine, and justified in its continuance and escalation. For that matter, women's victimization is similarly escalated by feminist driven programs and policies for the political advantages of escalated female victimization. Feminine pain, distinguished from male pain by being socially visible, and a recognized evil to be ameliorated by heroic measure, including the rewriting of laws.

Lies, which support hared, and which justify and excuse violence and legal disenfranchisement of half the human race.

Radical feminism is considerably more than just a stupid, false, and willfully ignorant doctrine of childish, short-sighted feminine self interest. It is a violent hate movement with no end point, no goal except continuous advancement. Feminism, radical or not, is the social equivalent of a metastasizing cancer.

Another word for Slavery

2012-01-27T22:41:00.000-08:00

A Rant

In previous discussions on the topic of male reproductive rights, or to be more accurate, the complete absence of male rights in a climate of male financial responsibility for the exercised reproductive rights of women, that responsibility enforced by courts and police : the word , the appropriate word to describe men legally bound to finance somebody else's unilateral decision to reproduce is slavery.

That is the correct word. However, we generally avoid using it because for most people, when they hear it, all higher cognitive function exits through the nearest window.

You’re being ridiculous, you’re exaggerating, slavery doesn’t exist anymore, and my very favourite, any variation of the claim that we live in a patriarchy.

It this point in the discussion, when dealing with an MRA – or a realist, that is, a person who is both untainted with, and who values reality, consideration of the higher death rates of males, higher rates of criminal victimization, male targeting violence, male targeting hate in our media, education system and so on along with lots of other inconvenient empirical data might indicate a rational consideration of modern slavery in the context of unbalanced and one-sided legal duties and rights. Of course, that's not how it goes in the real world, there's deflection to other topics, accusation of misogyny, accusation of failure to be a real man and all manner of other dodging and distraction. But the fact remains that men have no reproductive rights, while being legally required to pay for the exercised reproductive rights of women. And this is slavery. Her body her choice falls apart when the platitude is stated in its complete form. Her body, her choice, his wallet, career, freedom, and children, also her choice.

I'll say it again, slavery, and it's an ugly word.

On what will seem at first to be another topic, in the last decade, we've witnessed the erasure of a substantial fraction of the legally protected civil rights itemized in the united states constitution. Specifically in the bill of rights.

First ammendment, freedom of speech - some will say its gone already. Ill say its nearly gone.

The stop online piracy act isn't really about piracy, its about shutting down, or controlling free expression on the most successful technological expression of free speech ever. The internet. You know the thing that makes this show possible, as well as avoiceformen.com – and your blog if you have one.

The right to keep and bear arms : enjoyed in most states, but in a culture of digital banking and digital identification, of increasingly little relevance in protecting the public against a government which recognizes no limit on its power.

No requirement to quarter soldiers : until last year, i would have said this was obsolete, now that NDAA has passed, I expect this to come under threat too.

The right to privacy, and potection from unjust search and seizure. The supreme court recently rules that putting a GPS tracking device on a car required a warrant, however, ill also mention full body scanners used by the TSA, pat downs, and the ongoing use of illigitemate wire-tapping against us citizens.

sixth amendment : The rights to a speedy trial. Nope, you can be detained indefinitely without trial.

The right to trial by jury. Except when the accusation is made by a woman over some matter of sexual impropriety. Then you can be tried and convicted by the employees and the students of a college or university, in an ideological court of kangaroos.

The protection of the 8th amendment against excessive bail or cruel punishment. But i guess torture isn't a punishment if it's done before a conviction is obtained.

And the 10th amendment which states quite clearly that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Also, corporations, which due to the limitation of liability through incorporation are not accountable, although they enjoy the legal powers, rights and privileges of personhood.

Combine this with the fact that the democratic system of representative government is now expressed in trans-national corporations using elected representatives of the people as salesmen and facilitators to the profits of corporations and banks with exactly zero regard for direct or indirect damage done to people or communities in pursuit of that profit.

And remember always that the increasingly grotesque, blatant human rights violations pursued by gender feminists not only serve the agendas of banking elites, they're pursued through the same gang of bought and paid for politicians.

This requires no connecting of dots from shady speculation. Obama's attorney general published fraudulent stats to benefit corrupt domestic violence profiteers at the expense of further demonizing and marginalizing men.

Obama also authorized the transfer of trillions of dollars of the bad debts of bankers onto the public – and sold this great rip off by pretending it was to protect the public from those bankers bad decisions.

In case anybody wonders, Obama is just the latest salesman, Bush was the same, Clinton was the same before him, and so on.

Gender feminism is, by the way, not a grass roots social movement, it was funded and propelled in the 1960's and 70's by money from the Rockefeller. Gloria Steinem was dating henry Kissinger when she started ms magazine in 1969. This is not a conspiracy requiring tin foil headgear to follow, its right out in the open. The Rockefeller financing was told to documentary film producer Aaron Russo. One of the freely admitted purposes of feminism was the destruction of the family unit. You know, the building block of human societies for the last few hundred thousand years.

The feminist Linda Gordon said:
"The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process."

Robin Morgan said:
"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage."

Throughout human history, men have been the protectors their families, and of society. However, now that they're increasingly except from participation in the privilege of having human rights, we see governments acting on behalf of corporations and bankers, and rapidly rendering legally protected humans rights for everyone a void relic of history. And the same elected officials are enacting the policies of 50 years of radical feminist pressure and lobbying, and acting on behalf of their corporate onwre, rather than the electorate which consists of actual human beings.

How stupid do we have to be, how willfully blind to fail to grasp what is going on.

The funny thing being, that if anyone uses that ugly, obsolete word, slavery, emotional driven, intellectually inattentive intellectuals will denounce the idea – condemn the speaker with accusation of trogloditic male privilege and fail totally to understand what is right in front of their eyes.

Oh look, jersey shore is on, pass the cheese covered wacky fries.

Slavery, they will say is a relic of history. One, which in it's recent american manifestation is currently being erased from the history books by elements of the american tea party.

The funny thing about slavery, is that when considered by any modern thinker ( using that word loosely), it's conceived of as something accomplished by brute force, with manacles, whips and chains and direct violence like beatings.

Whether we're talking about ancient rome, or more recent American history, slaved are best gaurded by other slaves. Free human beings dont keep other free human beings in violent bondage.
In a society using slaves, it is the slaves who wield the weapons. This is because using weapons is dangerous, it gets you killed and maimed to a much greater degree than deciding on the actions of other people from an oak panelled office.

It is prisoners are held in bondage with manacles and jail cells. Slaves on the other hand are manacled by control of their minds.

For example, controlling their minds by convincing them that despite higher male death rates, higher rates of criminal victimization, lower life expectancy, despite female favouring affirmative action in higher education – that what we live in is a patriarchy.

If you control their minds, then keeping them in manacles just slow them down when you need your slaves to silence anyone who speaks up in complaint.

Where did all the good men go? [A Rant]

2012-01-23T13:49:00.000-08:00

One of the more commonly repeated opinion pieces rearing its ugly visage in the various public open sewers which constitute our mainstream media is the headline “where have all the good men gone”.

This is a stunningly stupid question, asked repeatedly in endless variations.

There's a number of screamingly obvious answers to this, which despite the glaring, blatant nature of those answers, seem elusive to the empty headed animal food trough wipers bleating their repetition of where have all the good men gone. Just to get it out of the way, Im going state the obvious.

What happened to all the good men is the women asking that inane question. Women go through their lives surrounded by men they cant see, because these men by being kind, polite, helpful, friendly and non frightening and consequently don't trigger feminine instinctive attraction to assholes, psychopaths, criminals, and various unreconstructed cavemen. Asking why cant you find a decent guy while the decent guy is standing right next to you, or carrying your groceries, well, shit, do you need me to draw you a picture?

A more interesting answer to the question of where have all the good men gone is another question.

Just exactly how do we define good in this equation?

What is it that women want?

It's a long list: but my admittedly incomplete understanding is that what women want is a creature of approximate man shape, broad shoulders, tall, well dressed, with a nice car, a high figure salary, good teeth and cool hair, and all the alpha characteristics to make him a conquerer and leader of men. Except he also needs to bow and scrape and be the selfless self sacrificing lapdog to his woman, except when he's supposed to be dominant, but not too dominant, and also read her mind, but only when hes supposed to, but remain confused and in need of feminine guidance at other times. And a great big cock.

I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
It should be fairly obvious that trying to conform to this list would be both exhausting and futile. Even switching around the criteria I've provided as examples, for other stupider criteria, some variation of a list like this is constantly implied in women's magazines, daytime talk shows, soap operas, romantic comedies, self help books, and everywhere else flattering women can earn somebody a buck.

This isn't even the problem. The problem, ladies, yes, you ladies asking where the all the good men went, the problem, or at least an important part of it is the combination of our society's increasing marginalization and criminalization of male identity, and your ongoing silence. Well, silence isn't quite right, women are now, and have been continuously vocal for the last half century, loudly and repeatedly making it abundantly clear that as men, we're worthless, we're rapists, we're your oppressors, we're violent, we're un-feeling – ill tell you that one hurts, lets see, what else, that we're a bunch of retrograde, infantile, stupid, inferior, lesser humans. We, as stupid inferior men also notice that the inherent internal inconsistency in this public narrative does nothing to diminish the force and volume of the message.

Strangely, from the vast majority of the demographic comprising 65% of the electorate and spending 65% of disposable income world wide – not much besides accusation, and to state it plainly, hatred.

One thing its important to understand, is that even accepting that men as a demographic are indeed stupid enough to throw rocks at – the accusatory and increasingly violent public narrative is penetrating past the thick skulls of men, and registering on the fragments of brain not already devoted to sports, porn, and cheese covered wacky fries.

Did I mention violence? Thats another thing, our society, it seems has decided in its collective mind that violence perpetrated against men is not only totally acceptable, when the person performing that violence is female, well our society, as reflected in the courts as well as our entertainment media thinks it's downright funny.

Kicking a man in the balls is a staple of visual comedy. Kicking a woman in the crotch? Nope, thats just assault. How about sexual dismemberment – you know, drug a man, tie him up, wait for him to wake up, and then cut his dick off with a knife and destroy the severed organ in a garbage disposal.

Day time TV with female hosts and a female audience thinks mutilation is funny. As long as the victim is male, of course.

Men, in their stupidity, their failure to grow up, unwillingness to commit to a relationship, and their increasing refusal to settle down like a good little disposable provider and utility are clearly to blame, and surely it has nothing to do with our culture's and women within our culture's increasing toxicity , hatred, and legally and socially accepted violence towards men.

Yes, men are at fault, where have all the good men gone?

They're right where they've always been. It's just that increasing numbers of them are waking up to the reality that they aren't teated by convention or by law as human beings, and as a consequence they don't want to talk to you.

Most don't even care to explain why.

A Bit More Substance

2012-01-23T13:17:00.000-08:00

Speaking volumes through silence

Part 1 of 2 A Resounding Silence

Part 2 of 2 Silence of the man

The Organized Silencing of a Man Publicly Burned to Death

Class hatred and violence in public policy

Projection and violence by proxy

An acceptable doctrine of violence

Eve Ensler prefers good rape

Cultivating violence through rhetoric

All human sexuality is EVIL !!!!!!! ( okay, maybe not, how about just male sexuality?)

Eric Holder weaponizes a Grey Goose

Brown University declares due process dead

The political use of feminist astroturf

Leo Strauss and neo conservatism

Your money is debt

Evolution of understanding

Owned by my possessions

2012-01-21T17:03:00.000-08:00

For the last 25 years – which is as long as I've been an adult, I've had a box of photos, ancient coins, meteor fragments, foreign bank notes, lenses from optical instruments and other bits and pieces collected over the course of my life. Included in this are a number of items of antique jewelry of variously forgotten provenance.

This box of stuff is, to me, interesting, which is why I've kept most of it for my whole adult life. But I'm not a collector of things, and it's not like any of it has major sentimental attachment. In fact, I believe in the philosophical idea that objects own the people who posses them, and not the other way around. Your possessions require you to house and service them, they become anchors with no benefit.

I am not yet so enlightened that I can simply discard items like antique jewelry in the garbage without feeling like I'm committing vandalism, but I did decide this week to be rid of some of my lifetime's accumulated flotsam.

So earlier this week, I decided to sell some items on E-bay, starting with what I thought would sell easily. An antique brooch carved from tortoise shell into the shape of a sea horse.

I created an E-bay account, linked it to my pay-pal account, took photos of the brooch, wrote up a description and went through the steps of listing it on the auction site. I also looked up antique tortoise shell jewellery and found items similar to mine ranging in price from 20 dollars to several hundred. I put 10 bucks for the price, because I wanted it gone more than I wanted a fist-full of dollars.

E-bay deleted my listing within an hour, because tortoise shell is a controlled substance. Because the tortoises it's made from are endangered, or protected, existing material items made from it are illegal to sell, or to transport across national boundaries, or something like that. My listing on E-Bay violated their terms of service at any rate, and in the deletion notice I got in my email was a warning not to re-list it as fake tortoise shell.

So I'm left with this small item of art I can't sell – which I'm unwilling to dispose of because of my aversion to vandalism. I also can't give it to anybody I know because of the social signal that a gift of jewelry encompasses. I suppose if I knew any cross-dressers or transvestites, this wouldn’t be any problem.

It's in the garbage now, perhaps a hobo will find it.

Exposing a Hate Movement

2011-12-16T06:43:00.000-08:00

Anybody who follows A Voice For Men will probably remember the outing on that site of Pamela O'Shaughnessy. She's the Simon and Schuster published author who, as her online persona Vliet Tiptree, spent 4000 words at radical-hub, a feminist collective blog; building a case for a Mengellian "final resolution" using eugenics and selective infanticide to cull males from the planet.

Since Shaughnessy's exposure, she changed the name she blogs under, from Vliet Tiptree to Karma. However, also since then, several Men's Rights Acivists have infiltrated the private radical feminist blog as members - and these individuals have screen-captured and collected hundreds of pages of the conversations of O'Shaughnessy along with dozens of like-minded ideologues, including frank admissions of murderous intent, of intense gender based hatred, and a conscious will to harm or murder children. This last coming from members of the radfem-hub whose day jobs are actually the care of children. The first of a series of articles exposing a violent hate movement run by established, middle class women in academia and government will change the way you look at humanity.

Underbelly of a Hate Movement

Hunting the Spreaders of Hate

2011-11-05T23:38:00.000-07:00

Two days ago, I was emailed a link to the blog of a radical feminist calling herself Vliet Tiptree. I expected the usual semi-literate railing at perceived failings and evils of men, and here was no shortage of
florid censure. As expected, no substantive basis was provided for the repeated claims on equation with masculinity with evil, but thousands of words devoted to circular reiteration of idea that women are defined by their victimhood under the ubiquitous boot of “the patriarchy”. Admittedly, Tiptree calls it “the system”. The invisible, omnipresent, all powerful worldwide conspiracy in which all men consciously oppress all women. That thing which when examined from a consideration of evidence – turns out doesn't exist.

From Tiptree herself: “What I do have is an ongoing intolerable experience that this life I and other women live is blighted by male oppression, and that this blight diseases the trunk of our species’ existence, not just the branches, not just the leaves. Every moment of our existence, this blight injures us. It kills our spirits, ruins our bodies, destroys our happiness, twists our children. It has thrived for so long it sometimes seems ineradicable. This blight has many names: the Patriarchal System, Misogyny, Male Supremacy, Women’s Subjugation. “

This radical feminist blogger spends the next 20 paragraphs building a state of ecstatic victimhood. Rationalizing a moral landscape where as the permanently injured party, any act is justified. Then she works her way around to the proposed extermination of the male half of the human race.

It doesn't seem so abrupt when you take 4000 words to get there. However – Tiptree is not a women's studies sophomore temporarily enamoured with the power and possibility of newly discovered victimhood. She's a late middle aged woman whose made her life's ambition the extermination of half the human race.

Paul Elam and I intend to discover and publish her name.

Women and Children First

2011-11-04T20:14:00.000-07:00

A rant observing how despite the repeated claim of women's historical oppression, men are now as they always have been - disposable human beings.

"women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat." (Hillary Clinton). Well, sure – losing family members to horrible deaths is so much worse than actually having to die those horrible deaths.

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Download this episode (right click and save)

A Feminist Final Solution

2011-11-04T00:31:00.000-07:00

The concept of radical feminism, an ideology of feminism which will sweep away the entirety of our social infrastructure, root and branch, and replace it with a wholly new fabrication; is the puerile dream of a child, taking no account of human nature, history, or the variety and disparity of human experience of real people in the real world. Its stupid, and when treated as a legitimate solution to any real world problem, is socially destructive, and entirely antithetical to the human rights of individuals.

That's been the text of my youtube channel description for 3 years. Now, as if to prove my case for me, a collection of radical feminist bloggers have rallied around a former lawyer and current radical feminist whose recent post calls for the extermination of males. The blogger calling herself Viliet Tiptree uses 4000 words to build a case for women's eternal victimhood at the hands of men, skillfully avoiding specific detail in favour of metaphor. She then proposes the biological modification and population reduction of the Y chromosome afflicted. http://radicalhub.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/radical-feminism-in-the-21st-century/

Neither Paul Elam nor I fear a semi-insane former lawyer is about to engineer a genocide, however, decades of dedicated promotion of an agenda of murderous hate from a secretive collection of activists will alter the shape of society. That is, if such ideologues are not exposed and discredited.

In all the invective from opponents of mens rights, no critic of the MRM has yet accused us of plotting mass murder. Unfortunately, the opposition seems unbound by any standard of ethics or morality. Viliet Tiptree skirts around specifics that would justify her immediate arrest for conspiracy, but the intent is clear.

Paul Elam and I intend to discover and publish the identity of the blogger advocating biological solution to the problem of patriarchy. Therefore, AVfM is now offering a $1,000.00 cash award (or donate it to the charity of your choice) to whoever can provide us with verifiable information of Vliet Tiptrees real identity, including her name, residential address, place and address of employment, name of spouse if applicable, and images and any other information that may be used to bring her identity and location into public view.

Please email to avoiceformen@yahoo.com or at john@johntheother.com

Benevolent Sexism

2011-11-02T16:19:00.000-07:00

A day late, a hundred dollars and several million corpses short.

Benevolent sexism is the the most recent male failing touted by feminists in a continued effort to appear relevant. The idea being that manifestations of chivalry such as paying for dinner, holding open a door and other female-benefitting behaviours are, underneath their obvious benefit to women, secretly corrosive and further evidence of a ubiquitous, evil patriarchy.

This new nugget of execrable solipsism provokes several possible responses.

“Fuck off, you morons” lands close to the top of the list. Followed closely by “ Are you effing kidding me?”

To put this into context, sexism benefitting women is demonstrated by men dying on the job, or for the profit of oil companies, while women “support the troops” by applying a sticker to the back of their soccer-mom SUVs. Being excluded from dismemberment or death is pretty beneficial when it's based solely on sex. Having a door held for you, and calling that oppression is simply petulant.

However, getting past the audacious stupidity of this claim, it becomes evident that claiming small acts of kindness as “benevolent sexism” demonstrates that feminism has no end point. Nothing will ever be enough.

The concept of benevolent sexism isn't really about holding a door or not, rather it's about normalizing the idea that any behavior at all is harmful. The implied suggestion is that men exercising volition over their own actions are bad by definition, and that the only egalitarian act is to constantly check with the nearest woman on every act: “ is this okay? Is that okay? “ Of course that too would be extraordinarily annoying after about 3 seconds, and as much as some feminist describe their ideal man using all the characteristics of a docile and droopy lap dog, nobody likes a pussy, not even feminists.

Of course, the proponents of this idea, those who'd have it accepted as a sane, practical idea fall into two camps. The ideologues who cooked it up or who understand it's utility as a tool to shame and manipulate men of genuine good will are the minority, and should be treated exactly as they view the male half of the human race. Specifically, that is with a conscious will to do damage. The other group espousing this idea are followers who beat the drum because conforming with the doctrines of a mainstream ideology ensures social approval, and if you don't look too closely – allows the pretence of promoting a humanist ethic.

Whatever the differences in motivation may be, these two groups are identical in their consequences, and should be treated with the same contempt being consciously promoted towards male human beings in our society.

More Violence Celebrated by Mommy-Bloggers

2011-10-26T11:07:00.000-07:00

Catherine Becker continues to rear her ugly head. Or rather, the sheer undiluted ugliness of an ethic which celebrates the mutilation of human beings due to their sex is reflected in Catherine Becker fan clubs.
For the uninformed, Catherine Becker is a woman who, when informed by her husband that he would be seeking a divorce – drugged him, tied him up, and after he woke, sexually mutilated him by cutting his penis off – destroying the severed organ in a kitchen waste disposal.

A women's daytime show discussed this torture and mutilation to the cheering and laughter of their all female studio audience.
A sufficient number of men complained to CBS – and one of the show's hosts was required to make a public apology. Sharon Osborne was unable to stop giggling for even the minute long stage-managed false contrition.

That's the background.

Like Lorena Bobbit before her – Catherine Becker has fans, a lot of them. For several months, a facebook group called http://www.facebook.com/pages/Catherine-Kieu-Becker-Fan-page accumulated more than 200 members. That this fan club has been shut down reflects no remorse, only aversion to censure.

But Catherine Becker isn't unique, or even rare. In fact the celebration by women of sexual mutilations of men by vengeful wives and girlfriends is so common it's become a growing genre among a burgeoning demographic mommy-bloggers and other female sociopaths. Another cheerleader for mutilation is Nicole Fabian-Weber, a mommy blogger with jounalism experience and a large following on the highly trafficked CafeMom site. [http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/127533/wife_cuts_off_husbands_penis]

The public enthusiasm for female on male violence reflected in growing numbers of websites and blogs is one point of data in a larger trend. In Canada, yet another female murderer has just been acquitted of the ambush murder of her husband. Melissa Lewis posted for photos for the Toronto star in an article in which we're all re-assured that all is right, because mommy is back with her daughter and wants to move on.

Men, it appears are not humans deserving considerations when subject to violence, mutilation or murder. You-go girl is the apparent public ethic in addressing violent crime when offenders are comely young women.

There is a question nobody seems to be asking. As male victims of violence are increasingly disregarded, and violent female criminals treated by our media as human interest stories, empowered by the female free pass; what happens when men in receipt of violence and public indifference begin actually fighting back. Are we ready for that?

Driving Drunk equals Being a Victim of Rape

2011-09-18T18:31:00.000-07:00

At what blood alcohol level does a woman lose the ability to consent to sex?

This is a serious question. In fact, its so deadly serious that men who fail to take heed of it are liable to find themselves defending against a rape accusation. And whether a man selected for ritual public vivisection fields a successful legal defence or not, on the basis of accusation, his family, career, life, reputation, friendships, and everything else of value to him is destroyed.

So again we return to the question, at what blood alcohol level does a woman lose the ability to consent to sex? This question is never answered by the ideologues who endlessly shriek the reality denying claim of rape culture. In fact – the question itself, provoking of critical thinking is sufficient to get the asker banned from any feminist forum it's asked on.

This question leads us to others. For example: If a woman, after some as-yet unknown quantity of ethanol ceases to be an enfranchised adult and reverts to a volition-free ward of the state, then surely, a man deep into his cups is equally no longer a willing or enthusiastic participant to sex, but himself a rape victim as well.

Nope, at least, not if you ask a proponent of the rape-culture lie. You'll notice there I don’t call it a myth. It's a lie because myths don't tend to emerge due to malicious and planned deception. But the point is that men overcome with drink don't become rape victims because of a magic invisible force called 'pay-tree-are-key' Yes, yes, that.

Another interesting question we're never allowed to ask is, if we can get nicked and thrown in jail for operating a motor vehicle while drunk, that implies personal responsibility for choices and actions.

Have you been drinking sir? And do you know how fast you were going?
I wasn't driving drunk officer, my car raped me!

So if you're in the shit for making the conscious choice to drive a car after 4 beers – how is it that if you own a vagina – all those beers turn you into a victim rather than a sexually irresponsible jackass ( thats another word for slut ) And for that matter, if we dont swallow this context variable accountability based on whose gonads end up in the slammer - doesn't that mean that alcohol impaired sluts who spread their legs after a visit to the pub are actually criminals in the very same way that the dirty old man who mows down children in the street drunk behind the wheel of his white tradesman van. You vile slut, throw her in jail.

So Again : At what blood alcohol level does a woman lose the ability to consent to sex?

The answer of course is any blood alcohol level at all, because this isn't really about anyone being victimized. Well, except men but they don't matter. The moving, invisible, retroactively re-definable myth of informed consent is a great big ruse. And the real goal is to render normal healthy behavior subject to selective criminalization based on adherence to ideology, and owning a penis.

NAWALT

2011-09-16T10:57:00.001-07:00

You just hate women. This is one of the most common responses to statements or arguments made by an MRA (men's rights activist ). At it's base - “you just hate women” is lazy and false – which means that anyone offering it as a rebuttal, is lying and dishonest. It's offered to change the topic, to silence the discussion, and to belittle and marginalize the target. Criticism of a group is not the same as hatred of that group.

One of the things we talk about – or that comes up in MRM discussions is NAWALT – not all women are like that. Usually, this comes sharpy on the heels of some loose pronouncement from an MRA on the topic of women. Often, this is the lazy rebuttal from a blue pill believer, or a woman for whom the pronouncement being rebutted struck a little too close to home.

Not all women are like that. And on it's face – it's true, not all people in a major biological demographic are going to exactly conform to statement encompassing that entire group. But it's lazy – it's a knee jerk reflex, and it's utterance as rebuttal doesn't even require knowledge of the claim being rebutted, just that something, anything was said about women. Not all women are like that. It's not just lazy – its dishonest. Its dishonest because the truth of the pronouncement being rudely crashed aside by this bland, lazy platitude is eclipsed, and shunted aside unexamined. And what it usually means when we hear not all women are like that, its that yes, indeed they are, all of them, just like that, with a few notable exceptions.

Accountability

2011-09-15T17:58:00.000-07:00

If you've been to a voice for men, or you're a listener of AVFM radio you might be aware that women in western culture are increasingly socialized to have no acquaintance with legal, economic, or personal accountability. You might also be aware of this phenomenon if you live on the planet earth.
We are, as a culture endlessly bludgeoned with the message from our media that if an adult woman has a drink of alcohol, she's incapable of rendering informed consent to sex. If, for that matter a woman feels pressured, financially disadvantaged, or if she changes her mind after having consensual sex, then she is not responsible for her own choices and actions, but you are.

Additionally, western criminal courts increasingly provide a mandate for criminal non accountability for women when they commit violent crimes, such as the vicious premeditated mutilation of her husband by Katherine Becker, or the infanticide of convenience by Kasey Anthony, and women across north america who physically assault their children and spouses with legal impunity.

The family courts also serve as a wealth appropriation tool, redistributing the earnings of men whose wives exercise their legal option to discard their husbands while retaining their incomes.

And all of this is driven by the need to satisfy a mandate that women are not only oppressed by a sinister patriarchy, but are so downtrodden that they cannot reasonably be expected to take personal responsibility for their sexual choices, their violent actions, or their own economic interests. Feminists have been telling us for decades that all outcomes for women are the responsibility of men, and not the responsibility of women for their own choices and actions.

Now, this is one of the areas of contention between members of the men's rights movement, and the mainstream feminist ideology running the courts, the education system, the workplace and our politics.
In fact, while MRAs and Feminists both call themselves representatives of a humanist world view, there has been a persistent absence of common ground between men's rights activists and the vocal ideologues of the feminist movement. However, after considerable study, I believe I've found an area where MRAs and Feminists can begin to come to agreement.

I know, as I'm sure you do that in western culture, women are held to a constantly diminishing level of practical accountability for their actions, legal behavior, or financial choices. This is driven by our culture's chorus of feminist advocates, legal scholars, and lobbyists of various flavor, and one tiny unpopular and contrarian group like ourselves in the me's rights community are likely to reverse the gravitational motion of the tide any time soon. But being MRAs, many – if not most of us continue to find value in reducing the level of social carnage in our society.

So in a culture without accountability for an entire biological demographic – some changes to limit societal damage are definitely in order. First Ill start with what I'm sure feminists and MRAs can get behind. It's not enough to persist in the informal culture and tendency to hold women exempt from legal, personal and financial accountability – I believe that a formalized legal mandate is required. Im sure other MRAs can get behind me in saying that we must modify the structure of the law, so that women are officially not accountable for their actions. Kill your child? Okay, its a man's fault. Cut somebody up with a knife – no problem, women are not to be held responsible. Spend other people's money until both you and them are indebted to a status of indentured slavery for the next 3 generations? Spend away, – men are dying in coal mines to pay off a nation's debts while a 65% female electorate keep putting those corporate whores back into office.

No, we must hold women as a biological demographic unaccountable – and encode that non responsibility into law. Even the feminists can get behind this, it is after all what they've been pushing for for the last 50 years.

But it doesn't end there, because non responsibility is only half a system, its not workable by itself. The other half of the equation is that a biological demographic absented from responsibility cant reasonably continue to do things like vote, own property, enter a legal contract, hold public office, or enter debt – or do anything else that in our society, we give adults the rights to do. Its time to stop resisting, and repeal women's rights – let them enjoy total freedom from accountability, and make them, asa a biological demographic, wards of the state, or of their male guardians. P.E. and I will be drafting a letter outlining these principals, and posting it shortly on a voice for men for you do download to sign, and send in hard copy to your elected representatives.

I hope and believe that feminists and mens rights advocates can come together on this – and I thank you for your kind attention.

The Movement To Disbar Mary N Kellett

2011-03-29T14:11:00.000-07:00

There are times when injustice and corruption are so prevalent that to us as individuals, fighting them seems impossible. Faced with a collection of apparently insoluble problems it is easy to be overwhelmed.

Occasionally, an opportunity arises to take effective action, and such an opportunity is presented to you, now. In the state of Maine, a grotesque parody of justice is being propelled by a corrupt prosecutor and a complicit court system.

Vladek Filler is about to face his second trial on on the charge of rape, from his ex wife Ligia Filler. His first trial was brought by Assistant District Attorney Mary N. Kellett.

Kellet is a crusader attempting to imprison Mr. Filler on a case built around no physical evidence, soley on he word of his accuser, Ligia Filler. This woman, Filler's ex wife has demonstrated that she is a violent criminal, a liar, repeatedly caught in her in false accusation, and has physically and emotionally abused her ex husband and children.

Ligia Filler has a history of severe psychiatric problems, and has been referred to as “certifiable” by sheriff’s department personnel who she repeatedly threatened to kill.

Assistant Prosecutor Mary Kellet has obstructed the inclusion of exculpatory evidence, and has had her prior case against Mr Filler overturned due to prosecutorial misconduct. Apparently undaunted, she is will be dragging this man through the system again.

She can however be stopped. Kellet is arguably the most corrupt District Attorney in the United States.
The organization Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (S.A.V.E.) has taken significant action, sending a Complaint for the Disbarment of Prosecutor Mary Kellett to the Maine Board of Overseers for the Bar.

They have also written letter to Maine Governor Paul LePage, making reference the disbarment complaint and requesting intervention by the Governor on behalf of Vladek Filler and the citizens of Maine.

You can help.

Please write to Governor LePage and respectfully request an investigation of Mary N. Kellett. The message can be as simple as. “In the interests of justice, please assure that Mary Kellett is relieved of her prosecutorial duties and disbarred from the practice of law.”

full article at AVoiceForMen.com

Witch Hunts return to New England, thanks to Assist. D.A. Mary Kellet

2011-03-28T10:20:00.000-07:00

An Evolutionary Understanding of Female Psychosis

2011-03-22T20:07:00.000-07:00

image cheerfully stolen from:
http://www.shrink4men.com

Toxic women. This isn't a phrase with the popularized overexposure of the feminist propaganda piece deadbeat dads, but when I say the phrase, toxic women, you know what I mean. You don't need it explained. You've probably met one, or forty.

The field of Psychiatry has a bewildering array of labels for human beings who for whatever reason live lives surrounded by drama, damage and pain. Most of these people are women, and the phrase high conflict women reflects this. Several such people are my own relatives, so I can say I've studied the matter at length. In some cases, a woman at the center of such a vortex of pain will stand untouched by the damage impacting everyone around her. She will appear to be the long suffering victim of the circumstance of other people's bad behavior.

In fact, her episodes of escalated emotion will always be loudly and publicly attributed to perceived or imagined wrongs done against her.

This behavior model includes the manipulation of, and the inflammation of conflict between other family members, with a consistent thread of conflict escalation. These are problems seen as between the active combatants, and cannot be solved while they are quietly and covertly inflamed by an apparently by-standing third party.

It's well understood that women are the sexual selectors of the human race, and through controlling access to sex, have tremendous social power in any society not ruled by brute force.
What's less well understood is that for the sex of lesser average physical strength – biological control over reproduction means that manipulative skill and innate selfishness provide reproductive and survival advantage to women in a way they don't to men. A selfish and manipulative man doesn't afford any group survival advantage, while a highly selfish and manipulative woman of reproductive age, being the biological center of the family unit, does increase group survival.

If we can recognize this from the evolutionary perspective, framed in the modern social context of feminist ideology informing the courts, the family courts, education, government, law enforcement, employment, health funding and the raft of other female favoring social institutions – then the prevalence of clinical terminology describing mental illnesses which overwhelmingly afflict women, we need to realize we've created these clinical conditions.

Narcissistic personality disorder, avoidant personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, these are arguably not aberrations of normal human psychology at all, rather they are the amplification of female personality traits which afforded women a survival advantage throughout human pre-history. In a world of scarcity where humans often died of starvation, women with the attributes of innate selfishness and skill at manipulating men meant increased survival for themselves as well as their offspring.

Unfortunately, those hard wired characteristics don't simply go away in a modern setting where food and shelter are plentiful. Our modern culture, with it's prevalent feminist ideology has exacerbated these characteristics in women, and our mental health professionals who've classified the manipulative, and selfish behavior patterns as if they are disorders and the women displaying them victims – this serves to amplify these behaviors in our culture to the point of toxic, parasitic malignancy.

As long as the prevalent ideology of our culture treats women as victims, devoid of accountability and volition, we will all be burdened by a biological demographic who never grows up, adult child women who we must accommodate with increasingly bizarre convolutions of reality, we will all pay in pain, men and women both.

It Is Unacceptable To Think

2011-03-21T10:01:00.000-07:00

Occasionally, an apparently educated, apparently sane and well balanced person talking to me slides one of the following topics into the conversation. Then pretend they are talking about reality, I get a bit annoyed.

Before we get to that list, I'll mention that it is likely you will be offended by something on this page. If I were a craven liar, I would apologize for that, however I am not sorry if this upsets you. Anything on this page that you disagree with should upset you.

Maybe you will even be exercised enough to do something about it. I wrote that last sentence because I am a pathological optimist. Each topic here is mentioned in the most summary form, and I intend to provide no support here for any of the claims which follow. Some of these topics might be expanded into complete articles, and when that happens, I will provide links from this page, for now, I have a list. Like other topics mentioned, feminism is also bullshit, but its too big a subject to be relegated to just a bullet point, and is therefore omitted.

If you’re still reading by the time you get to the end of the list, I will have a few more things to say on the veracity of my arguments.

The Wage Gap: Is real. Yes, the feminist claim that there's a wage gap between mens and women's incomes is based on fact. Over their lifetimes, men (on average) earn more than women. What the feminists wont tell you is that its because men work more, and chose jobs based on pay, while women work less ( even full-time employed ) than men, and chose jobs based on flexibility, and access to friends and family. The wage gap - when attributed to pay discrimination - is bullshit.

Deepak Chopra: is a purveyor of snake oil and woo-woo mysticism. He happens to be particularly skilled, and lends himself psuedo-credibility by sprinkling his grifter's patter with the nomenclature of legitimate scientific fields like cosmology and physics. It's true because in this sentence, I use the word quantum, wooo!

Numerology: the belief in a mystical or esoteric relationship between numbers and physical objects or living things. Numerology is bullshit.

Young Earth Hypothesis: ( the belief that the age of the planet Earth is about 6 thousand years ) There is -->no<--- evidence to support a "Young Earth Hypothesis". There is a huge amount of measurable physical evidence indicating the age of the earth to be about 4.4 Billion years old. The Young Earth hypothesis is bullshit.

Astrology. The belief that knowledge of the relative positions of celestial bodies is useful in understanding personality, human affairs, and human events occurring on the surface of the Earth.
Astrology is bullshit.

Irreducible complexity: a hypothesis used by "creation science" advocates to refute the well established and widely-accepted-by-scientists-worldwide Theory of Evolution.
Irreducible complexity is bullshit.

Creation Science: The Christian biblical account of creation, re-framed using modern language and couched in scientific-sounding jargon. Lately renamed: "Intelligent Design". Not a scientific theory.
Creation Science and Intelligent Design are both bullshit. Actually, that's too soft, Intelligent Design is not mere bullshit, it's fraud.

The Iraq War. The undeclared ( read : illegal ) war in which the US Invaded Iraq, toppled the government, destroyed the infrastructure. This was based on retaliation for the bombing of the world trade centre in N.Y.C. conducted by non Iraqis, funded by non Iraqis and organized from a location in US-allied Saudi Arabia.
The Iraq War is bullshit.

The War on Terror. Not quite the same thing as the illegal US-Iraq war. The "war on terror" is a propaganda war of ideas, perpetuated by the Council on Foreign relations, and their political figureheads in the U.S. democratic and republican parties. This might be thought of as the "war against Islam" although that too would be a misleading half truth. In reality, the "war on terror" is a war against human freedoms and individual liberties, for world domination by a small un-elected elite. This war is with fought bombs and guns against the civil societies of Iraq, Palestine, Iran et-cetera. It is also fought against western civil society by the rapid erasure of civil liberties and the creation of an Orwellian police state, notably in the United States. The war against world wide human rights is very real. The war on terror is Bullshit.

The Sanctity of life. This is the notion behind the poorly reasoned desire of some people to preserve human life at all costs. Sometimes this is manifest in accident victims like the tragic case of Terri Schiavo, and other times in the semi mystical desire to protect the "rights" of a pre-sentient human blastula, at the expense of the life and self determination of a fully sentient adult human gestating female.
The Sanctity of life is bullshit.

Some of these assertions might seem obvious, some may seem like outrageous hateful lies. As a member of a moderately free and civil society, I am aware that a majorian viewpoint includes a number of established, accepted ideas which have the unfortunate property of being false. However painful it is to explode an "accepted truth" it is a necessary step toward creating a rational, humane society. I am confidant that most people want to live in a rational, humane society, and it is possible that many convince themselves that they do.

Unfortunately, we are all immersed in unexamined "truths" which effect our decisions and behaviour. When those "truths" are false, we make bad decisions. Sometimes the bad ideas we take for granted are so deeply buried that we not only fail to exhume and examine them, but the simple act of questioning becomes a heretical act. If we Understand this and fail to question our accepted truths, then we behave unethically.

In September 2007, a well known politician stated the antithesis to this point of view. He said "It’s unacceptable to think that there’s any kind of comparison between the behaviour of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists.." The context in this case was specific to the war in Iraq, but the idea that "It is unacceptable to think" expressed in an unintentionally revealing comment to reporters should have frightened every high-school educated north american down to their socks. How much farther down that slope is the legal recognition and punishment of "thought crime"?

It is not unacceptable to think. It is necessary to think. Soon, while doing so remains a legal right.

While I was writing this, somebody told me: "Changing EVERYTHING we do and how we do it just isn't going to happen."

To which I reply: It happened in the industrial revolution, it happened in the computer revolution, it happened many times before, and it will happen again.

When this article was posted : it was 697 days since Sean Hannity agreed to be water-boarded for charity.

Expressed mention of one thing implicitly excludes all others

2011-03-20T13:23:00.000-07:00

"Expressio unius est exclusio alterius"

This is a Latin dictum expressing a principal of western thought, particularly in law that
the expressed mention of one thing, implicitly excludes all others.

This principal is the first thing I thought of when I recently visited the website of The White Ribbon Campaign.

In case you haven't heard of this, they describe themselves as the largest effort in the world of men working to end violence, against women.
[but not violence against men]

Throughout their website, they variously use the phrases “violence against women” and “men's violence against women”. Those two phrases referring to general violence within society, encompassing all violent crime against women, and the latter phrase referring to violence against women in the context of domestic violence, against women. Not domestic violence, just the fraction of that problem which sees women on the receiving end.

Unfortunately, women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. [2]

This is well know by anybody researching or working in a field related to domestic violence. And It's understanding by such professionals is why the principle is so relevant in evaluating intent.
When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred.[3]

Being a principal of law, lawyers and legislators know it as well. Despite the fact that men are far more often victims of violent crime than women[4], the Violence Against Women Act remains on the books. This law specifically named for it's intent to provide extra protection for women and fast track convictions for men, in the face of the reality that men are more often the victims of violence generally, and equally victims of violence in situations of domestic violence.

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius – that principal stating: expressed mention of one thing, implicitly excludes all others is a useful tool to apply to other areas as well, but i'll limit this dicussion to just one more.

The motto of the largest feminist organization in the word is that  feminism is the radical notion that women are people.

I never though women being people was a radical notion, until I realized what's really being said.
That men are not.

[1] http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/expressio-unius-est-exclusio-alterius.html
[2] http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
[3] http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/E/ExpressioUniusEstExclusioAlterius.aspx
[4] http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/vsxtab.cfm

Feminism's Lightning-Bolt-Finger

2011-03-15T22:28:00.000-07:00

Try to imagine you have a finger which shoots lightning bolts. Lets say, you could point your finger at any person or object, and blast it into oblivion like a comic book super villain. This isn't a particularly realistic scenario, but for the moment, lets consider what one person with such a power would be capable of. They'd be a menace to public safety, they'd probably have to be stopped by the military.

Now, rather than just one person with such a destructive ability, imagine if half the population commanded such devastating powers. Well, you don't have to imagine, because this is the reality, except rather than an actual lightning bolt, the weapon is the whisper of the word rape.

In reality, a human being struck by lightning will almost certainly die, but the damage done ends with the person struck. By contrast, a false accusation of rape not only destroys the life, and career of an individual falsely accused, it splashes outwards, wreaking havoc on the lives of children, friends, colleagues, family, and associates. It echoes a wave of destruction and pain across generations.

For women discovered in making false accusations, the consequences are trivial. Prison sentences are rare, and when false rape accusers are jailed, its is for some token period of time. Those accused generally face 5 to 20 years if convicted, and inmates imprisoned for rape generally get raped by other prisoners.

Accusers are held legally anonymous by the courts and media, while those accused are generally named and destroyed prior to any evidentiary inquiry.

Reasons for making false rape accusations fall into three large categories:

1 To provide the accuser with an alibi.
2 To injure the accused out of spite, unrelated to any actual rape.
3 To gain attention and sympathy.

The transcendent cruelty and caprice demonstrated use of false rape accusation for personal gain exceeds my descriptive powers. A casual reading of the news shows false accusations increasing, sometimes accompanies by some law enforcement spokesman tut tutting over the waste of police resources. No mention of careers, lives and families destroyed by the frivolous accusations for trivial personal gain.

As long as women making rape accusations enjoy a legally protected anonymity, then the accused must also be protected until or unless a court of law produces a verdict of guilt. Continuation of the current double standard is an erosion of the mandate of justice in our system of law.

An individual found guilty of making a false rape accusation should serve a prison sentence equal to what a man found guilty of that rape would serve, were the accusation legitimate.

While women enjoy these totally unbalanced powers, and an increasingly discriminatory system of apartheid, feminist jurisprudence will accelerate our society towards one in which justice is found through retributive violence, rather than through the rule of law. Failure to correct this can produce only a much more violent and brutal society, and educated, elite feminists lobbying for an increasingly feminist legal system know this, It can only be concluded that they seek that violent society.

Really, Professor Myers? Really?

2011-03-13T20:43:00.000-07:00

Professor P.Z. Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, and maintains a pro-science, pro secular humanist blog called Pharyngula. I have great respect for this man.

This is why I was disappointed to find him condemning the Men's Rights Movement, out of hand based on one inflammatory comment left by a visitor to The Spearhead. Myer's comment

Professor Myers, in basing his opinion on a user submitted comment is doing what prominent fundamentalist Christians do in their efforts to discredit atheism as a viable world view. Rather than addressing the arguments made in article content of the movement, he has taken an unfortunately reactionary user comment as the exemplar view representing the men's rights movement as a whole.

Myer's view of the MRM, based on one spearhead commentator's (admittedly regressive) response to Daniel Craig's recent appearance in an International Woman's Day public service announcement.

Myers:
So the MRA masculine ideal is violence and angrily demanding gay sex? I am not surprised.
(Warning: if you follow that link, it contains links to the Spearhead, a revealingly named blog which is the MRA version of Stormfront. Trust me, you don't want to go there. Not unless you really want to see how contemptible male entitlement can be.)

I have posted my comment on his site, repeated here in full.

Dear Professor Myers,

I read your recent dismissal of the “me's rights activist” reaction to Daniel Craig's recent appearance in a public service announcement with interest but also some disappointment.

Your assessment of the comment from the website “the spearhead” was accurate in it's evaluation of one violent comment. However, characterizing an entire social movement as reactionary, violent and contemptible based on a single comment is something I have come to expect from fundamentalist christians seeking to discredit secular humanism as a viable world view. I did not expect you to stoop to this.

For a more accurate view of the movement you dismiss so easily, I would recommend your attention to the articles posted on several websites, including the spearhead, and http://www.avoiceformen.com.

This article (linked below) provides a concise summary of the men's rights movement.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/03/14/the-unabridged-mens-movement/

Thank you for your kind attention.

John Hembling

Unprecedented: Alberta Provincial Government Produces Documentation on Men as Victims of DV

2011-03-11T14:14:00.000-08:00

For the longest time, the women's shelter industry, and the grievance industry – something I've named
the victim industrial complex has produced domestic violence public service announcements uniformly
depicting men as abusers, and women as victims. This is a fiction, running in opposition to the actual
domestic violence statistics showing women abusing men at nearly the same rate as men abusing
women [1].

For the first time that I know of, a government has produced educational material on domestic violence
specifically addressing men as victims. The provincial government of Alberta has done what I believe
is unprecedented in the Western world.

Posters:

Young Man – Ethnic

http://www.child.alberta.ca/home/images/familyviolence/img_opfvb_hand_metis_male.jpg

Young Man – White

http://www.child.alberta.ca/home/images/familyviolence/img_opfvb_hand_young_male.jpg

Older Man

http://www.child.alberta.ca/home/images/familyviolence/img_opfvb_hand_older_male.jpg

Information Sheets
Men Abused By Women

http://www.child.alberta.ca/home/images/familyviolence/doc_opfvb_sheet_Men_colour.pdf

Men Abused By Women In Intimate Relationships

http://www.child.alberta.ca/home/documents/familyviolence/doc_opfvb_booklet_men_colour.pdf

Reference:
1 http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Lies of the Victim Industrial Complex

2011-03-08T22:25:00.000-08:00

Image: FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Domestic Violence is a well publicized problem. Every DV public service announcement I've ever seen has depicted women, and sometimes children as the victims, and men as the perpetrators.

These adds appear on television, the radio, in magazines and bus shelters, they're all over youtube. They're produced by tax funded nongovernmental organizations, students under the tutelage of gender studies professors, by the UN and other well funded, professionally staffed organizations.
They're produced by professionals with substantial budgets, backed by boards of directors and plenty of access to peer literature and academic studies.

The message of domestic violence public service announcements is clear.

Men are the problem, men are violent, and in fact, violence is intrinsic to masculinity. Loud and clear, that is the message from hundreds of funded relief organizations across the country.

This marketing is so effective that domestic violence is understood by the public to be the issue of men abusing women.

There's just one problem. The peer-reviewed literature, and crime statistics from law enforcement agencies does not support this portrayal of universal female victimhood, and masculine violence.

The majority of the large body of published, peer-reviewed research and collected statistics from enforcement agencies shows an entirely different picture.

Women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.

That is the reality demonstrated in the crime statistics and the peer reviewed research.

So, why do hundreds of relief organizations continue to tell the story that men are the aggressors and women are the victims.

They tell that story, because that's what pulls on your emotions, produces sympathy, and secures funding to pay the salaries of grievance industry workers and advocates.

To be sure, there are women battered by their husbands. But there are an almost equal number of men, battered by their wives, and for them, there is no help, no funding, no sympathy, and nowhere to turn.

The women's shelter industry depends on battered women. That is how they pay salaries and secure donations.

Battered women are the heart of the business model of a billion dollar a year racket. The shelter industry pursues policies to ensure a fresh supply of photogenic, beaten and abused women for the cameras when your government is drafting next year's budget.

The victim industrial complex is as organized, as corrupt, as violent and as dangerous as any mafia. In fact, more dangerous, because the victim industrial complex is a multibillion dollar transnational network which lobbies your government, writes laws and dictates policy. And these are the people who keep telling you that you live in a patriarchy.

AVFM Radio Launched

2011-03-02T23:33:00.000-08:00

What the heck is the Men's Rights Movement? Paul Elam's A Voice For Men radio show has launched, and the first episode can be heard in the player in this site's navigation bar. Have a listen, and learn why the initialisms MRA and MRM will soon be part of your lexicon at the water cooler.