Category Archives: Radical Feminists

Rape Paranoia Article of the Day

Here.

A very, very, very stupid article by a silly, ditzy feminist. This idiotic article is now being reposted all over the Blogosphere by silly, moronic feminists. It’s dumb. I don’t even have to start going into the ways it is dumb because it’s just dumb. First of all, rape paranoia is dumb. Violence paranoia is dumb.

We males have way more to fear from other males in the way of violence than females do (though we don’t have to fear rape so much, it is true). Males are simply dangerous. As a male, I have been on the alert for dangerous males and signs of danger and violence even in males I know well for a long time, most of my life in fact. I am frankly quite a bit scared of males myself. I think everyone, not just females, should be scared of males. I see no reason why females should be more afraid of males than we males are. They should probably be less afraid of us males. After all, we males bear the brunt of male violence against other humans.

There’s really no way to get away from the charge that one is a dangerous man. I’ve been dealing with the “dangerous” charge most of my life, but there’s not a lot of evidence to back it up. I’ve only spent 6 hours in jail. I’ve never been to prison. I’ve never even been charged with a violent crime. I’d say that I’ve never even committed one either, but you wouldn’t believe that.

I’ve committed very little violence against women in my life. I have committed some, but those women all assaulted me or tried to assault me first. They threw water in my face. They slapped my face. They chased me around an airport waiting area swinging on me and kicking at me. So, yeah, they all got hit. You women don’t want to me to hit you? Hey, no problem! Just don’t assault me first baby!

I am quite proud to say that I have never raped a woman or a girl. Of course I have been accused of that too, but it was a lie. She was drunk. I was drunk. We were both drunk. It was as consensual as things get between two drunks. Then again, my definition of rape is different from the feminist daffynition of rape.

The feminist daffynitions of rape are in bold below:

Ever had sex with a woman who said no? Yep, once. You see, there’s yessy no’s and there’s nooey no’s. This was a real yessy no. Yessy no’s mean yes, not no. Only nooey no’s mean no. She was saying, “Noooooooooo,” like she was having an orgasm. I listened, and I decided that was a yessy no, not a nooey no, so I proceeded accordingly. All was well and good after that!

Even had sex with a female who had been drinking or using drugs? LOL, I am trying to think of how many times I did it with a female who was not high or drunk. According to feminuts, if you have sex with a woman who was high or drunk, it’s rape. In that case, I am proud to say I must be one of the biggest rapists out there.

Ever had sex with a female who did not explicitly give you permission to have sex with her? LOL, I am not sure any female has ever in my life said, “Ok, I agree to have sex with you, Bob.” They have said similar things, like asking me flat out, “Bob, let’s have sex.” But mostly I just attack them. That means assault them. That means grope them. That means grab them. That means attack them. Then we just proceed from there and move on to the sex.

Ever groped, grabbed, attacked or assaulted a female? Yep. By attack or assault, I just mean that I got physical with them without asking their permission. I just jump on them. Push them up against a wall and start kissing them. Grab them and start kissing them and feeling them up. According to feminist idiots, that’s called “assaulting” and “attacking.” They also say it’s illegal; they claim it is something called “sexual assault,” and they say you can go to jail or prison for it. That’s funny because I have grabbing females my whole life and I haven’t been arrested yet. To be honest, few of them even complained.

Ever had sex with a woman because she was afraid of you? Who knows? Maybe. Women have been telling me that they are afraid of me for most of my life. But then they go ahead and do it with me anyway. According to feminuts, if you’re a scary guy, it’s always rape. In a nutshell, you never legally get laid. If a woman is afraid of you because you’re scary, and she has sex with you because she’s afraid to say no to you because you’re a scary dude, well, that’s rape. And that’s about the most BS-ey notion of rape yet!

15 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Man World, Mass Hysterias, Radical Feminists, Scum, Sex

Feminism is Mental Illness: Are You a Rape Supporter?

From an insane feminist blog called Eve Bit First, we have a list to determine whether or not you are a rape supporter. If you check even one of these, you’re a rape supporter. If you check lots and lots of them, like I just did, well, you’re practically the reincarnated ghost of Ted Bundy.

All of this is standard radical feminism or gender feminism. Radical and gender feminism came with the Second Wave. Since then, there have been Third and Fourth Waves of feminist bullshit. Supposedly the 3rd and 4th waves differ somewhat from the lunatic 2nd wavers. Whether they would differ with any of the below is not known, but the author of this post, a femcunt psychobitch named Eve’s Daughter, is an explicit 3rd Waver, so I guess we can write off the 3rd Wave, boys! Also, it’s 3rd Waver nuts who invented the idiotic notion of “rape culture” to describe of all things, US culture.

Gender or radical feminism is deeply invested in hostility, rage, anger, etc. towards men. Many to most females who get involved in this stuff have varying degrees of man-hatred. Within the ranks of this group, you will find many women who are extreme man-haters.

The branch of feminism called lesbian feminism is particularly poisonous. That there are women who are lesbians simply because it is their nature is ok. However, many lesbians are lesbians by choice – political lesbians. A political lesbian is a woman who has become a lesbian because she hates men. In other words, she’s a Nazi. She’s a feminazi, a lesbonazi. If you hate men so much that you turned into a lesbian, then you’re a Nazi, plain and simple.

The Left has fallen head over heels in love with these diabolical man-hating Nazi psychos. Lesbonazis and feminazis are not acceptable anywhere. They are just as bad as misogynists, religious bigots, jingoist nationalists or racists. These are all varying types of Nazis. They hate people based on their gender, their religion, their nation of origin or their race.

Feminazism is wrong! Lesbonazism is wrong!

Bottom line is that modern feminism is poison. It’s a form of evil centering around hatred of men. It’s also a form of mental illness. Its arguments don’t even make sense.

One wonders what type of man would actually go along with this insanity. No real man could possibly agree with the insanity that is modern feminism. Only pussies and fags would ever go along with general feminism, and if you study the movement long enough, you realize that that is exactly what a lot of male gender feminists are!

A man is a rape-supporter if…

  • He has ever sexually engaged with any woman while she was underage, drunk, high, physically restrained, unconscious, or subjected to psychological, physical, economic, or emotional coercion. Underage? Yes. Drunk? Certainly. High? Of course. The rest, no, but I had to think about the coercion thing long and hard.
  • He defends the current legal definition of rape and/or opposes making consent a defense. Yes, I defend the current legal definition of rape.
  • He has accused a rape victim of having “buyer’s remorse” or wanting to get money from the man. No.
  • He has blamed a woman for “putting herself in a situation” where she “could be” attacked. I hate to say so, but yes.
  • He has procured a prostitute. Yes, several times.
  • He characterizes prostitution as a “legitimate” “job” “choice” or defends men who purchase prostitutes. Of course.
  • He has ever revealed he conceives of sex as fundamentally transactional. Surely sex is transactional. Women from Old World cultures understand this truism of human nature very well.
  • He has gone to a strip club. Sure.
  • He is anti-abortion. No way.
  • He is pro-”choice” because he believes abortion access will make women more sexually available. Of course that is why I support abortion silly!
  • He frames discussions of pornography in terms of “freedom of speech.” Sure it is.
  • He watches pornography in which women are depicted. No homo. If there ain’t no women in it, homeboy ain’t watchin’ it!
  • He watches any pornography in which sexual acts are depicted as a struggle for power or domination, regardless of whether women are present. Hmmm, Had to think about this one long and hard, but yes, I have watched porn like that before. Some of it bothers me a lot though. Some of the rest of it, sure it turns me on even though I have to admit it’s awful. But a lot of women like awful, that’s the thing, see?
  • He characterizes the self-sexualizing behavior of some women, such as wearing make-up or high heels, as evidence of women’s desire to “get” a man. Of course that is why women wear stuff like that.
  • He tells or laughs at jokes involving women being attacked, sexually “hoodwinked,” or sexually harassed. Not really. I don’t like such depictions.
  • He expresses enjoyment of movies/musicals/TV shows/plays in which women are sexually demeaned or presented as sexual objects. Presented as sexual objects? Of course!
  • He mocks women who complain about sexual attacks, sexual harassment, street cat-calls, media depictions of women, or other forms of sexual objectification. Not really, but a lot of “sexual harassment” is simply nonsense. All it means is “this beta/omega/zeta guy is acting sexual towards me.” So what! Men have a right to flirt with, try to pick up on and act sexual with whoever they want to!
  • He supports sexual “liberation” and claims women would have more sex with (more) men if society did not “inhibit” them. Obviously this is true, but it’s more true in other countries. I believe it is definitely true in places like the Philippines. Those women are clearly inhibited by their society. And of course I support Sexual Liberation, and it’s capitalized, and there’s no quotes, bitch!
  • He states or implies that women who do not want to have sex with men are “inhibited,” “prudes,” “stuck-up,” “man-haters,” or psychologically ill. Well, many lesbians are simply lesbians by choice. They have chosen to be lesbians due to their extreme, near-Nazi-like hatred of men. Many lesbians hate men the way Nazis hated Jews. This is not acceptable, and it is sick and wrong that society, and especially the Left, has demanded that we respect and give rights to feminazis and lesbonazis. If I want to refuse to hire a lesbonazi due to her insane hatred of men, that’s my choice. As far as the rest of it goes, I am not so sure. But prudishness and inhibition are going to be correlated with lower rates of heterosexual behavior in the female.
  • He argues that certain male behaviors towards women are “cultural” and therefore not legitimate subjects of feminist attention. Male behaviors towards women are indeed cultural, and feminists can work themselves into a tizzy about anything they wish to.
  • He ever subordinates the interests of women in a given population to the interests of the men in that population, or proceeds in discussions as if the interests of the women are the same as the interests of the men. No, women and men have different interests.
  • He promotes religious or philosophical views in which a woman’s physical/psychological/emotional/sexual well-being is subordinated to a man’s. No.
  • He describes female anatomy in terms of penetration, or uses terms referencing the supposed “emptiness” of female anatomy when describing women. Yes, but not the latter clause. I have never heard of anyone referring to women as being empty. A female is anything but empty kiddo.
  • He defends the physical abuse of women on the grounds of “consent.” No, but it’s an odd argument. Who consents to be beaten? Weird.
  • He defends the sexualization or sexual abuse of minor females on the grounds of “consent” or “willingness.” Yes, teenage girls have a right to have sex with teenage boys. I would extend that right all the way up to men aged 18-21 or so, but that’s just me. As far as the rest of it goes, the law is the law and sex with little girls is always wrong.
  • He promotes the idea that women as a class are happier or more fulfilled if they have children, or that they “should” have children. Not sure about this one, but a lot of women want to have kids, bottom line, and they will just about kill to get one if they don’t have one. So obviously there is some biological imperative going on here.
  • He argues that people (or just “men”) have sexual “needs.” We do, in fact. Believe it or not, women do too. Trust me on that one!
  • He discusses the “types” of women he finds sexually appealing and/or attempts to demean women by telling them he does not find them sexually appealing. There are indeed types that I am attracted to. Unfortunately, there have been cases when there were women after me sexually. I had to tell them that I was not attracted to them. Sorry about that! Not really into demeaning people though.
  • He sexually objectifies lesbians or lesbian sexual activity. Of course I do!
  • He defends these actions by saying that some women also engage in them. Yes.

69 Comments

Filed under Culture, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Law, Left, Pornography, Psychology, Psychopathology, Radical Feminists, Scum, Sex

Sweden’s Gender War (Könskriget)

An excellent video titled Könskriget in Swedish or Sweden’s Gender War in English. It’s very long (2 hours), as long as a full-length movie, but it is well worth the watch. The movie is about the women’s shelters that are funded by the Swedish government and how they got taken over by radical feminists.

Young girls were abused by males in their household and were taken in to the shelters. They were brainwashed and told that they had abused by part of a vast Swedish pedophile ring of Satanist rapists and abusers who rape, molest and murder Swedish girls and women. Some of the girls were so upset by the brainwashing that they ran away from the shelters. One girl took off for Norway.

To this date, no evidence at all for this network has emerged. Nevertheless, Sweden’s feminist mafia continues to believe in this nonsense.

The shelters are part of a network of houses that takes it’s name from the heroine of a feminist tract written in Swedish. This heroine goes on a rampage and slaughters many men out of revenge similar to what is advocated in another canonical feminist classic, Valerie Solanas’ SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto.

Solanas, a paranoid schizophrenic, tried to murder Andy Warhol and was sentenced to prison. Warhol suffered ill effects from this attempted homicide for the rest of his life. Solanas is still a huge hero in feminist circles and her tract is still widely read and praised among gender feminists.

Much disturbing and chilling footage is in this video. A woman tells how she went to a rally of gender feminists in Sweden where they started chanting, “Hang the men! Kill the men!” She was so upset that the she left the whole movement and never went to another rally.

These rallies are similar to the idiotic radical feminist “Take Back the Night” rallies staged in the US. I attended one of these rallies, which featured an extremely propagandistic anti-pornography video followed by a stupid march. I was one of the few men there. I got a lot of hostile stares from some of the Stepford Drones.

Many of these Swedish feminists cut their hair short in feminist style. More than a few are apparently lesbians. The short hair style is typical among US feminists also and is apparently designed either to say, “I’m a lesbian” or “I hate men.” It seems to be a deliberate effort to deny the woman’s femininity, make her look unattractive and make her look like a man. Radical feminists are odd in that they hate us men, yet they try to look and act like us!

There is footage of brainwashed young women, now apparently or possibly lesbians, with short, dykey feminist hair styles.

One of the main themes of the movie is that Swedish batterers do not need treatment for their woman-beating, since that would say it is pathological and instead it is simply men being normal everyday men.

The Swedish feminist argument against treatment approaches incoherence, but they seem to be saying that as long as patriarchy exists and men hold all the power in society, there is no point treating male batterers. Apparently as long as women labor under patriarchy, men will always batter.

So men get jail or prison instead of treatment. The Swedish feminazis have opposed all efforts at treatment for male batterers and there is still little or no treatment to this day. Norway next door has instead offered a treatment program which has worked very well. Many studies have shown that treatment works for offenders, but feminist lobbying has prevented the proper analysis of these studies in Swedish academia and politics, both of which are overrun with feminazi idiots.

Radical feminism is the official program of Swedish government which has been run by the Left wing Social Democrats for a long time. Radical feminism was adopted as an official part of the platform about 25 years ago, and it’s only gotten worse since. Swedish feminism has been called “state-sponsored feminism,” and Sweden is thought to be the most advanced feminist state on Earth. Nevertheless, Swedish feminists are angrier than ever.

There was a large split in the Social Democrats recently with many female SD members leaving to form an even more insane feminist political party.

Although early polls showed many Swedish lemmings would vote for the party, the party soon many some proposals that were so radical that they sunk the party.

One of them was for a “man tax” in which all males would be taxed to make up for thousands of years of patriarchy. They also advocated abolishing marriage and getting rid of male and female specific names for babies as inherently oppressive. All of these proposals went over like a lead balloon, and the party sunk in the polls from over 20% to a final tally of ~3%.

However, they did push through the most radical anti-rape laws on Earth. These are the nutty laws under which Julian Assange is being accused by the Swedish state of “raping” two Swedish women. Assange’s behavior was ungentlemanly, but those women would never get a US district attorney to even file their cases in the US, and no US jury would convict him anyway.

This video was shot by a young Kurdish-Swedish woman who has since reportedly received thousands of threats, including death threats, from Swedish feminazis. It is even said that she had to go into hiding due to the threats.

I always thought that the “Nazi” in the word “feminazi” was an overwrought misnomer, but the more I study radical feminists, the more totalitarian they look. Interestingly, other Identity Politics such as gay rights radicals also seem like “Nazis” or totalitarians. PC in general seems to be a fascist-like or totalitarian movement in the constant use of threats and censorship.

What this implies that is Identity Politics is like a substitute for nationalism, which is simply egotism writ large. People identify with their gender, orientation or race in the same way that residents identify with their nation or state. Identity Politics is also egotism-based. You attack my gender, race or orientation, you attack me.

The wild responses of the Identity Politics crowd resemble the fascist-like behavior of the ultranationalists, which at the end of the day, is all down to tribalism anyway. In this sense, Identity Politics has set up new tribes for us based on gender, orientation, race etc. Now one can be a member of the Woman Nation, the Gay Nation, the Black Nation, etc.

Gender feminists, gay militants, etc. are simply the ultranationalist vanguards of the Female and Gay Nations respectively. The same problems and critiques of nationalism and ultranationalism that the Left has long brought up and fleshed out would seem to apply here. An ultranationalist of the Gay Nation or the Female Nation is not so dissimilar to a German, Japanese, Indian, Turkish, Arab, Chinese or other ultranationalist.

The bottom line is that these bitches are simply our enemies. If you’re a man, they’re your enemy. If you’re a man who sides with gender feminism, you’re not only a pussy and a man who won’t fight for himself, but you’re also a traitor to your brothers in lining up with our enemies.

It’s no surprise that male feminists are often the most pussified or unmasculine men out there. Many are gay. Others have renounced masculinity as some sort of oppressive ideology. Truth is that no self respecting man should ever identify with these bitches. Do you think that men are evil and women are the font of all goodness in mankind? If you don’t agree, don’t line up with these shrill shrews.

48 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Europe, Feminism, Gender Studies, Government, Homosexuality, Law, Left, Nationalism, Norway, Political Science, Politics, Radical Feminists, Regional, Scum, Sweden, Ultranationalism, Useless Western Left

Gender Feminist Bingo

Click to enlarge. Let’s play Gender Feminist Bingo! On second thought, let’s not! At the end of the night, nobody wins anyway.

30 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Humor, Radical Feminists, Scum

Thoughts on the MRA/PUA/MGOTOW Sites

Bhabi writes:

Robert, you’re now claiming to be an MRA?

I am an MRA, yes. But I don’t like a lot of them. I do like the posters and commenters on a blog called Antifeminism. The main thing I dislike about the MRA/PUA/MGOTOW sites is that the misogyny is just so extreme in so many cases. I’m actually a guy who loves women, or at least tries my best to, difficult as it can be at times, so blatant misogyny like that really bites me the wrong way. I hate feminists, but I love women. And there’s two kinds of women,  feminists and real women.

Also there is a lot of feminism mirroring and general victim addiction that you see in most nationalist/chauvinist movements – and yes feminism is just female chauvinism.

This is characterized by “They hate us!!!!”  And endless screaming accusations of misandry. For one thing it is mirroring the idiot victim addiction I mentioned in a previous post. Victim addiction is demeaning to men because it depicts men as weak and helpless victims – a bunch of whining bitches.

Mirroring the enemy is not progress, and the proper response to female chauvinism is not male chauvinism. Yes, some radical feminists hate men, but I am not really concerned about that. I’m laffin right now thinking about it. What are these bitches going to do? Come over here and fuck me up? Beat me over the head with their strapons until I die? Big deal.

On the other hand, I am not going to ally with a bunch of haters who hate me and my kind, i.e. feminists. Male feminists are basically pussies who apologize for being men and beg forgiveness from women by claiming they are not like the rest of those evil pigs. In response, feminist women give feminist men what? In many cases, precisely nothing.

Also, I don’t like the whining, screeching tone. “They’re discriminating against us men and boys!” Oh boo hoo! Those mean girls. Didn’t they make a movie about them? Even if these bitches are discriminating against men and boys (and there is little evidence that feminism has gone that insane yet) the proper response would not be crying into our hankies and screeching like a bunch of banshee bitches.

A man doesn’t act that way when challenged. When challenged, threatened or attacked, a man fights back. He goes out and fucks you up.

So I think that the Manosphere ought to be taking a much more aggressive, hostile, menacing and threatening tone towards these feminists. It should be like, “Look bitches. We are at war with you! Got it? And we mean it. You wanted a war with us? Fine. No problem. You got that war. Understand? We are taking you on!”

We should be threatening to fuck people up. I don’t really advocate doing it, and it’s illegal anyway, but it’s the proper male response to feminism. Not wailing, but instead pure macho violent rage complete with bellowing, chest beating and threats. Let them think twice about taking us on. Are we gonna fight back? Damn right, bitches. You want to start a war with us men? No problem, you got one. Are you down?

I don’t really think we live in a misandrous culture, and misandry is not much of a problem nowadays. What is a problems is female thinking ruling society = Female Rule = Feminist Rule = Feminist Totalitarian Dictatorship. Keep in mind that millions of male manginas assist with these women in enforcing female rule.

I don’t really think most women hate us, and I don’t think they are misandrous. Instead, they’re just being cunts. This is what happens when you empower women to the extent where they think they can impose their bullshit thinking on society when male thinking would do a lot better job of it.

Men and women compete and differ in many ways and have opposing interests. So the stuff that female thinking is going to push via feminism is inevitably hostile to men. Most of the feminist women pushing this do not even hate men at all. Many love men.

But it’s not misandry that’s the problem. It’s female thinking and in particular, allowing women to carry out their competitive war of interests with men into the social and especially legal arena.

Men and women struggle for power in various ways even in marriage and loving relationships. This is because they have different interests. When the pro-female agenda is imposed on society, the anti-male effects are obvious. Because what is pro-female is often anti-male. Because females (even feminists) hate us? No, many to most of them love us. What is pro-women is often anti-male due to differing and competing interests, values and agenda among genders.

66 Comments

Filed under Gender Studies, Masculinism, Scum, Radical Feminists, Feminism

Define Gender Feminism and Radical Feminism

William writes:

I’d like to understand these two terms a little better, gender feminism and radical feminism. Can you express and/or define what they represent to you and what you think they might mean to the woman who fit these terms?

For all intents and purposes, radical and gender feminism are the same thing. Looking at it more closely, radical feminism is part of gender feminism, but more the extreme end of it. It’s possible that there are gender feminists who think that some of the radicals just take it too far, but in general, the radicals have a firm and hard place in the world of gender feminism. Surely, in Women’s Studies programs, the radical feminists are an essential part of the canon.

The radicals are quite extreme in their man-hating, and many have abandoned men altogether for a political lesbianism. Many have hatred of men that can only be considered pathological or extreme. They often hate pornography too and want to make it illegal. They are often associated with the left and in particular the Hard Left, but socialist feminism is actually a bit different.

Gender feminists are a different breed, and many are happily heterosexual. If the straights though are extremely pro-gay, which really means pro-lesbian. Lately, transsexuals have gained a hallowed place at the table. The straight gender feminists don’t necessarily hate men, but there is definitely a lot of anti-male bias there. They are mostly at war with the Manosphere types and the Men’s Rights crowd. They have very little sympathy for the concerns of men and they don’t understand men at all.

Gender feminism is in opposition to or an expansion of equity feminism. Equity feminism simply wants equal pay. Gender feminism takes it further into more of an objective war against men in general, who are seen as the enemy. The aspect of men that is defined as the enemy is typically the sexual self – that is, they are really at war with male sexuality itself, which they regard as evil. They also lack a good understanding of male sexuality, which they caricature.

Others take it a lot further into a hatred of masculinity itself, which is defined as evil. Only the wimpiest of men are acceptable to these women, and indeed, many strong male feminists are extremely wimpy men. Quite a few are actually gay men, others cross dress, are “male subs” and engage in other sorts of male femininity. Really male feminists are often men who are strongly opposed to masculinity in general. Logically, quite a few of them are gay or may as well be.

Those who like sex and men a lot are often “ballbreakers” who put down men a lot and insult their masculinity. Hence many men are logically afraid of them.

Also gender feminists tend to think that women and the female nature are simply superior to men and the male nature. They deny any biology of gender and tend to think that all gender is constructed culturally. There is a refusal to look at the downside of women and femininity and to blame everything on some unseen patriarchy which is increasingly irrelevant in modern feminized and feministed America.

Among the more radical ones, there is a bizarre obsession with rape. Obviously rape is a serious crime, but it’s really not very common, and the vast majority of men never rape anyone.

Yet many gender feminists essentially run around yelling rape for dawn to dusk. Males who want to get on board with them are also required to run about hollering about rape all day and night and making it clear to everyone how they are not rapists and how they are fighting the War on Rape (how a man fights this war is not known).

The opposite of gender feminism is equity feminism, which simply wants a place at the economic table. Equity feminists often feel that gender feminists take it too far. They don’t hate men, and many of them love men. They are not on board with a war on men. They think men and women are different, even on a biological level, and don’t think one or the other is superior. They candidly admit to the failings and shortcomings of the female and femininity in general.

4 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Left, Radical Feminists, Scum

EU Makes Flirting Illegal

From a MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) forum. The MGTOW movement is an interesting movement. I’m not sure exactly what it’s all about. Could someone please summarize it for me? Sounds like men deciding to live single lives without women, or at least without marrying them anyway.

Also among the clauses is one that will outlaw ‘unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person, in particular when creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment’.

This whole sexual harassment thing has gone completely insane. What exactly is it anyway? How do I know if I am sexually harassing a woman?

For the record, I’ve already more or less been accused of this a couple of times. Once I asked out a woman at work, and she apparently accused me of sexually harassing her on that basis. For asking her out! Another time, some female employees in a store accused me of looking them in a way that they didn’t like. I shouldn’t go into too much detail about this one because I don’t want my Internet enemies to use this against me (they’ve already tried to).

Sexual harassment is one of the areas in which feminism has gone absolutely berserk. The way I read sexual harassment is it means “some guy I don’t like is showing sexual interest in me.” As a man, how the Hell am I supposed to know whether or not I am sexually harassing a woman? I can’t. What are the rules about it anyway? At what point is a guy sexually harassing a woman? None of this shit is clear in any way.

The EU directive appears to attempt to make sexual harassment, which, incredibly, in this case means even nonverbal behavior, illegal or actionable not just in the workplace but all across society.

The comments on the forum are instructive. Posters note that this essentially makes all flirting, and all of human mating behavior for that matter, illegal:

Now approaching and asking women out will be a potential crime in all areas and contexts, not just in workplaces. No, this is not April’s fools…

Can someone please explain to me how this doesn’t outlaw all of human mating? The way people get together is that the one person takes a risk and makes a move to see if the person responds to it (tries to brush their hair, stares into the person’s eyes, winks, throws an innuendo, tries to step a little closer to the person to test intimate space)…This is how all of human mating works…But now it is illegal.

How are men and women supposed to get together? Write written forms asking for permission to flirt? But actually delivering the written form would itself be a form of harassment.

Others note that women increasingly complain that men won’t approach women anymore.

Wow, so they’re catching up to Canada, where the women now complain about Canadian men and how we never make any moves on them – duh…
…-> Men like approaching and introducing themselves to women, and being the initiator

-> Women bitch, moan, ridicule, mock and shame men who approach them, in many cases no matter how polite the man was

-> Men stop approaching women

-> Women wonder how come men are not approaching any more.

11 Comments

Filed under Britain, Culture, Europe, Feminism, Gender Studies, Law, Radical Feminists, Regional, Scum

Ti-Grace Atkinson – A Typical American Feminist

From the comments section, Comrade Jacob Bauthumley discusses a noted American radical feminist:

The price of clinging to the enemy [a man] is your life. To enter into a relationship with a man who has divested himself as completely and publicly from the male role as much as possible would still be a risk. But to relate to a man who has done any less is suicide. . . . I, personally, have taken the position that I will not appear with any man publicly, where it could possibly be interpreted that we were friends. – Ti-Grace Atkinson

Ti-Grace Atkinson is one of the most famous American feminists. An early feminist, she helped found the National Organization for Women (NOW) and served as director of New York NOW in 1967.

Her fall from grace and sanity began as it does with so many college girls, with a reading of Simone de Beauvoir’s toxic The Second Sex. It’s hard to say what made Beauvoir hate men so much. She was Sartre’s lover, and he didn’t treat her very well. Maybe that’s what did it.

Atkinson contacted Beauvoir, and Beauvoir put her in touch with Betty Friedan. So Atkinson was an intimate of Beauvoir and Friedan, two of the most famous feminists of all time. In 1968, she left NOW because they were not insane enough for her. She then founded The Feminists, a radical feminist (radical feminist means a seriously insane feminist as opposed to a garden variety insane feminist) grouplet.

Typical psychotic radical feminist positions taken by The Feminists included the dissolution of marriage as an institution that enslaved women to men (nowadays it’s more the other way around to be honest), the defining of men as the enemy, the characterization of women falling in love with men as the response of the victim (the woman) to the rapist (the man) and the desire to get rid of the horrors of uterine pregnancy in favor of some other mode of human procreation.

The evil scum traitors known as “women who live with men” were restricted to 1/3 of the membership in order to limit infiltration by enemy spies. Married women, the ultimate traitors to the sisterhood, were banned altogether.

They said that women liked men too much, and this was due to women developing false consciousness via living in a patriarchal society. At first they said that the only way to limit the paralyzing effects of patriarchy was for women to be autonomous of men. Later they said that women needed to separate themselves from us pigs altogether. Whether the members of The Feminists ever all took up residence as the YWCA is not known.

In order not to contaminate their precious pussies with the evil patriarchal cock, they advocated that women practice celibacy. As that was obviously no fun, they soon advocated political lesbianism. It seems radical feminists actually like to get laid too, just not by guys please.

Later they advocated matriarchy, a system that will fail everywhere it will be tried and has probably failed everywhere in the past due to the laws of nature which it violates. They also advocated women’s religion (Goddess worship?) which I suppose is rather harmless. These two silly ideas later morphed something dumb called cultural feminism.

The Feminists played a leading role in separatist feminism (which is really just lesbian separatism) where wymmyn separate themselves from us dirty male dogs in order not to soil their precious and dainty female selves by association with us. They also helped create an abomination called anti-pornography feminism on the grounds that porn is evil because it shows unsullied pussies getting contaminated with diabolical patriarchal cocks.

Thankfully, The Feminists disbanded, probably because God hated them too. Unfortunately, Atkinson is still alive, but lately she has more or less shut her trap, thank God.

A friend of my mother’s named M. was one of the founding members of California NOW if I am not mistaken. She went to a very early California NOW meeting in Laguna Beach, California in the late 1960’s. M. is an evil heterosexual woman. She told us that she was stunned to find that almost the entire founding membership of CA NOW were a bunch of lesbians. She eventually quit going to meetings because the other women wouldn’t stop hitting on her.

Feminism has a longstanding association with political lesbianism, which is truthfully just a lifestyle choice as the rightwingers say – a lifestyle chosen due to extreme hatred of men. There are many more women like this than you might think! All lesbians were not necessarily “born that way.” Don’t swallow the PC Koolaid on that line.

24 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Homosexuality, Politics, Radical Feminists, Scum, Sex

Great Article on Game and the Modern Dating Scene

Here.

It covers all of the stuff we have been talking about on this blog for a long time now. It also uses phrases such as Alpha, Beta and Omega and suggests that those categories are indeed valid. In addition, it analyzes the Game and PUA culture, suggesting once again that these guys are onto something, and that the evidence suggests that Game can in fact work when properly applied. It’s not a joke. This stuff actually works. Reviews Roosh, Roissy, Lady Rayne and some others.

Lady Rayne in particular comes off terribly. If you go to her site, she’s an ultra-feminist, liberally quoting Valerie Solanas’ SCUM Manifesto (which she praises) and other works of ultra-radical feminism. She wants to make it illegal for men to come onto women in public. Instead, there will be certain public spaces set aside (meat markets if you will) where men and women can mingle that way if they wish to. All of this is to protect women from being bothered by horny men all day, which is, like, a crime almost worse than the Holocaust or something.

Her partner in crime is a super-feminist therapist from back East named Denise Romano who rants and rails on and on about men and rape, men and rape. It never ends. She has also accused me of being a rapist due to confessions I made on this blog. I’m actually not a rapist; what I discussed was seduction and not rape.

Fortunately, seduction is still legal; the psycho bitches haven’t made that illegal yet. But in the minds of the nuts like Lady Rayne and her therapist pal, seduction and rape, well, it’s all the same, see. Game is seduction and therefore rape. Screwing a woman who is high or drunk is rape because she can’t consent.

We men are raping women all the time, and women are constantly getting raped, yet no one has a clue that any of this is going on! We think we are just screwing, but really we are raping and getting raped. How stupid we are!

But it’s so much fun…

Anyway, Lady Rayne and her nut friend want to make Game illegal, because it involves men taking advantage of stupid women. The Hell with it. If we’re going to make Game illegal, then let’s make stupid women illegal too. One can’t exist without the other. Making stupid women illegal would be great for the economy. It would open up a lot of jobs for us breadwinner guys, while women could learn the lost ancient arts of cooking and cleaning and whatnot.

Paradoxically, when she’s not quoting Valerie Solanas, Lady Rayne says she hates women, and she spends most of her time around men. She loves men. Except she wants to make most of us illegal and her favorite book is one that lays out the Final Solution for men.

Meanwhile, Lady Rayne acts like a whore. That’s because she is a whore, or she used to be one anyway. Snicker. She used to be a “stripper.” Snicker again. She’s also covered with tatoos. Triple snicker.

Some feminist man-hater. She hates us so much she can’t stop stripping for us, fucking us and covering herself with tramp stamps.

Lady Rayne is also raising her 7 year old son alone, and she is quite proud of this. In fact, she wants to purposely raise him as a single Mom. What an idiot! God knows what anti-male crap Lady Rayne is pumping into that boy’s mind.

The kid’s father was a no-good alcoholic bad boy.

When she is not brainwashing her poor son, Lady Rayne dates an assortment of men, who are invariably bad boy types who screw up in life and screw her around this way and that, leaving her all upset, bitchy and even crazier than she usually is while waiting for the next bad boy to show up.

She wants to make Game illegal, but she only screws Alphas. Uh huh.

For the life of me, I can’t see why any man would date this bitch, except that she’s hot. I personally wouldn’t take her out without a leash, collar and muzzle, and I wouldn’t fuck her unless I could tie her to the bed first. Ah, forget it. She’s too much trouble. Instead of dating her, just get a restraining order.

Lady Rayne and Denise Romano both came to the blog a while back. Lady Rayne was throwing a temper tantrum, and Denise wouldn’t stop screaming about rape. Denise was screaming so loud, I thought maybe she  actually was getting raped. I was about ready to grab these bitches and jolt some sense into them, but they say to never shake a baby, so I decided not to. Instead I just banned the bitches and took a Tylenol.

Meandering around her blog a bit, you get the feeling that she is highly narcissistic.

As you can see above, she is also extremely self-contradictory, and her general philosophy paired with her lifestyle simply makes no sense at all.  Every now and then she ventures into politics, and her politics doesn’t make any sense either. It’s as incoherent and screechy as everything else about her. She’s the prototype for the insensible female.

Lady Rayne got so angry at Roissy that she outed him, along with photographs, as a 40 something guy who works in a cubicle at a government job somewhere in Washington DC. .

And so the Internet Game Scene has its share of drama.

Lady Rayne’s blog is here. Thankfully, it has not been updated since July, so the world can breath a short sigh of relief.

She links favorably to the unfortunate Black woman blogger Jamila Akhil and Chic Noir, who used to hang around her until I drove her off by not showering enough and stinking up the place. She also links to Red-Alerts, one of the worst bloggers on the Internet. He launched a campaign a while back saying I had been arrested for child molestation. He linked to a news article about some freak with my name. She links to In Mala Fide (which links here) and Roissy under “Sleaze, Sexism and Hate.”

The blog is basically endless drama, hysterics, histrionics, rants, drama queen bullshit, insipid gushing, off the cuff emoting, permanent violent mood swings, huge doses of narcissism, endless self-contradiction, stupid misspellings, incoherent punctuation, retarded syntax, first-class bitching and hate-filled  screeching at the “misogynists” in the Men’s Rights Movement and PUA scene.

Oh and did I mention narcissism?

It’s like some woman with permanent PMS. Maybe God got her periods mixed up; she’s on 28 days and off four.

And one more thing, did I point out that her site has a lot of narcissism?

4 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Man World, Psychology, Radical Feminists, Romantic Relationships, Scum

Western Women’s Culture of Meanness

Repost from the old site.

In the comments section, Lafayette Sennacherib says, possibly jokingly:

I’ll go along with feminism this far: it’s ok for women to bring in a wage, as long as they still rear the kids, clean the place, cook, sew, provide regular sex, are totally faithful unless it’s with another woman and we can watch/share, and don’t mind their men having a bit on the side. Fair’s fair! We owe them that much!

I don’t know if he’s joking or not, but I won’t even go that far. I decided to ask Sexmaniacman his opinion of LS’ post, and here is what he said:

Bob, first of all, thanks so much for inviting me over so I can write about this. My complaint, Bob, is that feminism has cultivated a culture of meanness, at least here in the US. I would say that American women have cultivated a culture of meanness, but I think they reason they have is feminism. Feminism makes women pissed off at us men. Period. Full stop.As a het guy who chooses to deal with women as more than platonic friends, I don’t dig being hated on. It sucks, and it feels deflating to my cock.

I’ve gotten to the point now where I can have sex even with a woman who completely hates me and is making that clear as we are engaging in the sex act, but it wasn’t always that way. Angry, bitchy, emasculating women make men impotent. Either physically, psychologically, or spiritually.

I figure even non-feminist women are bitchy enough sometimes. Add feminism into the stew and now they are way bitchier even than they are normally. Fuck that. I hate bitchy women. Nothing worse.

One thing that I have noticed is that a lot of wimpy, leftwing, pro-feminist men love bitchy women. They sit back and cheer them on.

And these bitchy feminists are attracted to wimpy pro-feminist guys, but the truth is that these guys’ wimpiness drives the feminists insane, because even though they are feminists who say they hate macho men and machismo, they are still women, and most women hate wimpy guys and long for a macho man to reduce them to meek, wimpering Southern belles.

That’s why feminism doesn’t work in practice.

It creates what we’ve got in Northern California. The stereotypical Northern California male: so wimpy and/or feminized that a lot of people will think the guy is gay. And it concurrently creates the Northern California female: so butch and/or masculinized that a lot of people will think she’s a dyke.

These two things attract each other. That’s why you will find a fair number of these wimpy-type guys messing around with guys, and you will find quite a few of these dykey women either messing with women or just going full gay either part of full-time.

Macho guys create feminine female counterparts and vice versa. Wimpy guys create bitches at best and vice versa and create macho dykey women at worst and vice versa. At both extremes, normally het people will start moving into homosexuality and bisexuality.

This is another thing I have against feminism: it’s full of lesbians. Now, I have nothing against lesbians and gay men being members of gay rights organizations. But why should feminism, objectively merely pro-women’s rights, be full of a dykes? Reason is that feminism creates lesbians, and for some weird reason, lesbians love feminism.

Have you ever noticed that the women who scream most about rape are lesbians, probably really butch, dykey, homely and living in some gay community, IOW, just about the least likely women to get raped!

The women most likely to get raped are het women, women who are fully involved with men and men’s lives, and who have men in their lives. Straight men, not gay men. Often they are raped by their boyfriends, husbands, dates or just guys they know.

I go to a feminist site and typically it’s swarming with lesbians. My first reaction is why? I went to a feminist site, not a gay rights site. Second reaction is turnoff. I’m here to see what straight women think, not lesbians.

Final thought is even more disturbing. A lot of radical feminists and feminist separatists openly hate men. They’re into misandry. Yep, the very women screaming most about misogyny are often misandrists themselves. It’s it’s bad for the goose, it’s bad for the gander.

As feminism has cultivated misandry (something many feminists now admit), it’s turned lots of feminists into a bunch of lesbians. A family friend was one of the founding members of NOW, and I was a member myself for years. She eventually quit going to the meetings because the feminist women wouldn’t stop hitting on her and propositioning her. Even back then, the movement was swarming with lesbians.

I’m perfectly willing to help raise the kids, clean the house and cook the food, but I am sorry that I cannot sew. I’d be glad to learn if it was easy. I’m not sure I even mind if women cheat. I never used to mind and often had open relationships.

I was raised in the androgynous 1970’s. In part I was never comfortable with the macho man thing, so I rejected it because it just wasn’t me, and though I was always into masculinity deep down inside, I was also influenced by feminism wanting to make us into “New Men” – sensitive, vulnerable, all that.

I turned into a straight Mick Jagger – Steve Tyler – New York Dolls androgynous surfer – rocker – punk rocker – doper – dope dealer – compulsive womanizer.

What did I get for this? Guys tried to beat me up for “being a fag”. I even got beat over the fucking head with a baseball bat once. Nicer people were continuously suggesting that I was gay or bi, much to my consternation. Usually it was guys saying I was gay. Females, being more intelligent, usually thought I was bi, because gay men have no interest in women.

I was attacked by my very own girlfriends, heads full of feminism, for being gay, bi, wimpy or just not much a man. Screw this. What did I get out of going along with this feminist “New Man” shit? Not a damn thing. Hell with it. I’m gonna be a macho pig, and the feminists can fuck off if they don’t like it.

2 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Not Robert Lindsay, Radical Feminists, Reposts From The Old Site, Scum, Sex, Sexmaniacman, Women