Fembot Hunter

Applying logic, facts and accountability to the mindless droning of the feminist hate movement.

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Feminism Is The Opposite of Fun - Again

There is a great article up at 99 Lives taking the piss out of "Girl Gamers" who like to accuse every computer game available of misogyny:

Misogyny has a new game: Bioshock

Funny as hell but not that far from an accurate portrayal.

"Girl gamers" seem to have jumped on the hysterical attention-seeking bandwagon of feminist media criticism and are complaining about every little thing they can find in computer games oblivious to the fact that market forces dictate that their whinging politically correct viewpoints are more or less the opposite of fun.

I don't know what's funnier, this article or the fact that it turns out a search of the net will indeed find examples of "girl gamers" actually complaining about Bioshock, specifically about the killing of "Little Sisters" in the game (ie. even though video game bad guys are usually male, any instance of their being female means it is misogynistic), making it difficult to distinguish them from blatant satirical mockery of them.

Another recent example of this sort of thing was a feminist review of The Bourne Supremacy at The Guardian which deemed the movie misogynistic because the supporting female cast were upstaged by the male lead. My favorite quote from the review is this:

The rule seems to be that the more "realistic" an action film, the more hapless the women.
This has been a trend in fembotism for ages. I remember reading the chapter Fatal and foetal visions in Susan Needsacludi's enormous whinge about everything - Backlash, a chapter which I didn't finish because it went through just about every single movie produced in the entire 80s complaining about sexism:

Pretty woman was anti-feminist because she gave up her career [as a prostitute].

Predator was sexist because there were no female leads. (She missed that the predator's face looked like a vagina).

The director of The Accused with Jodie Foster may have gone out of her way to make the film finally satisfy feminists:

"If anyone thinks this movie is anti-feminist I give up"
- Sherry Lansing

But Ms Needsacludi was not impressed. Feminism says that having to include a brutal gang rape scene in a film in order to be classified as feminist just goes to show how extreme you have to get just to satisfy feminists. Thereby making the film anti-feminist.

Meanwhile recent film efforts which took the neurotic whining of feminists seriously and made statements about female empowerment have been such flops that according to this Hollywood news website:

Warner Bros president of production Jeff Robinov has made a new decree that "We are no longer doing movies with women in the lead". This Neanderthal thinking comes after both Jodie Foster's The Brave One and Nicole Kidman's The Invasion under-performed at the box office recently.
Feminists need to learn that trying so hard to be taken seriously can end up making them parodies of themselves and/or cost businesses who listen to them bags of money.

At any rate I think we can safely say that feminism is the opposite of fun once again.

Friday, October 19, 2007

Shorting Norwegian Stock For Fun And Profit

When Carly Fiorina was appointed CEO of Hewlett Packard a select number of persons with not very PC viewpoints shorted stock in the corporation and made a buttload of cash when the share price predictably went south.

Shorting stock in Lucent and Spherion when Andrea Russo and Cinda Hallman respectively took over didn't net quite as much but there was nevertheless a fair amount of money to be made.

It's happening again. This time more or less the whole Oslo Stock Exchange is prime for selling stock short:

Firms face quota deadline

Norway's center-left government has issued a warning to 140 companies that still don't have enough women on their boards of directors: Appoint more, or be dissolved.

Companies organized as "ASA" corporations are required to meet a state-mandated quota that calls for 40 percent of their directors to be women.

The quota was ushered in during the previous center-right government coalition, and has been enthusiastically embraced by the current Labour Party-led government.

Equality minister Karita Bekkemellem told newspaper Aftenposten on Friday that those companies failing to meet the quota will face involuntary dissolution from January 1.

Many are within traditionally male-oriented branches like the offshore oil industry, shipping and finance.

Among the firms targeted on Bekkemellem's list are some fairly large companies including Det Norske Oljeselskap ASA, securities firm Carnegie ASA, Awilco Offshore and Frontier Drilling. Some of the stocklisted companies have no women at all on their boards of directors, including DNO, Ocean Rig, PetroJack and Teco Maritime.

"My advice to them is that they take responsibility and find the women they need," she said. She called the law "historic and radical," and said it will be enforced.

No shit it's historic and radical. Blatant quotas like this are illegal in countries like the United States. Can't say the law would look too favorably on governments threatening to dissolve their own companies should they not accept quotas in a further plethora of countries either.

Funny that it's the offshore oil industry that isn't complying with this quota considering that a great way to get out of having to comply is by moving the company offshore so it doesn't have to deal with the retarded, feminized Norwegian government.

At any rate it just goes to show how massive fans feminists are of democracy considering how they like to impose quotas on otherwise democratic processes such as exactly who shareholders of corporations are allowed to elect to the board.

The other fact it makes obvious is that women can't get onto boards of companies on the basis of market forces such as merit and need affirmative action to get into these positions. Nevermind that men who could do the job better can (and will) be pushed aside to make way for women who are not as capable because the quota needs to be met. Nevermind that even if the woman does a substandard job in the position, the quota still needs to be filled so companies would be even more apprehensive about removing her from the board than they already are about removing board members; the government dissolves the company if they don't meet the quota.

Sounds economically efficient to me.

The Norwegian government has been threatening to dissolve companies who don't meet this quota for a while. Take this article from September last year:

Since the Norwegian government first issued its mandate, things have improved. The number of companies in compliance has risen from 17.5% to 29.6%. Still, the country’s companies need to get cracking. Nearly 33% of public companies don’t have a single woman board member. And as of July 1, only 151 of 510 firms on the OSE meet the 40% representation rule.
In July 1 last year 359 companies were non-complaint with this quota system. Fifteen and a half months later, with two and a half months until the deadline, 140 companies are still non-compliant. That's about 23 companies meeting the quota per month.

First of all, that is quite a large number of unwanted female hires in a short space of time. Exactly how many of the women appointed in that sort of hurry are going to be as capable as original board members?

Second of all at this rate around 72 companies aren't going to make the deadline and will face dissolution.

I don't suppose that matters to feminists though considering they think money grows on trees.

Those numbers don’t sit well in a country renowned for its progressive policies and its pursuit of egalitarianism.
Apparently the word for discrimination in Norwegian translates to egalitarianism in English. An egalitarian policy means equal rights under the law and equal opportunity. An imposed quota system is neither; that would be described as equal OUTCOME.

But could compliance with the new law spawn tokenism? It shouldn't. Oie points out that more women than men pursue advanced degrees in Norway so there’s no shortage of smart, well trained women. In fact, says Slungard, women now outnumber men at the prestigious Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim.
Uh huh. People are elected to boards of directors of companies straight out of university. No need for things like years of experience in the business, or a proven track record of obtaining results in the company. You know, things which might make shareholders consider someone a decent candidate for the board of directors and elect them voluntarily.

I don't suppose the fact that there are more women than men getting advanced degrees or attending certain universities in Norway has anything to do with discrimination against men in their education system (like in the rest of the western world) does it? Are we going to see quotas on male enrollments in university by any chance seeing as this sort of situation is considered discriminatory if taking place on company boards? Nope. Never mind that the reason this is the situation with their education system is probably due to feminist affirmative action initiatives rather than merit or academic potential. It's used as 'proof' that women should be taking up more positions after they graduate as well.

Shitheads. Suffice it to say, I will be selling OSE listed stock short preferably to female buyers. They can quite literally put their money where their mouth is for a change. As for Norway - they're fucked.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Violence against men is to be approved of, apparently

Ignore the note at the bottom for a moment. What would you say a feminist's reaction to the above image found on a poster would be?

That this image promotes and glorifies violence against women? No wonder there is such a problem of violence against women if misogynist images like this are being bandied about? Do you suppose they might want to tear it down in disgust? In fact if I say I like it, would they say I was promoting violence against women? Does she already have a placard in her hands?

Well our hypothetical feminist can just go fuck herself because this image has never been posted on any walls. A poster with the sexes reversed, on the other hand, has been plastered all over Germany and to the approval of feminists. Turns out the above sort of sentiments may be acceptable to feminists after all. Well, as long as the sexes are reversed, of course. Direct your browser to this entry from a popular feminist blog and you'll find:

Fun with Feminist Flickr (vintage German smack-down edition)

I've posted this before, but it got such a controversial response last time I figured it was worth posting again. Plus, I just like it.


Careful! Women answer back

If you stupidly stare at a woman, talk rubbish or touch her, you have to be aware that she might insult you loudly, a glass of beer is emptied over you or you might be hit in the face. We strongly advise you to refrain from this kind of harrassments.

Women, migrants, homeless people, transgender people, gays and lesbians are often victims of assaults. Don't look away, interfere!

And here:

This may be my favorite feminist Flickr to date.
Yeah! Smack down men! If they talk rubbish hit them in the face! It's all totally justified and we are empowered womyn!

In other unrelated news:

Survey finds male abuse approval

More than half of women questioned at a Glasgow university said they approved of wives hitting their husbands.

The Glasgow Caledonian students were among 6,500 women surveyed from 36 universities for an international study into attitudes on domestic violence.

Of the 200 women, 60% said it was acceptable for women to hit their husbands while 35% admitted assaulting their partner.

Nope. No idea where that came from. What possible advocacy of violence against men could possibly be going on that could cause that?

Feminism is a hate movement.

Saturday, October 6, 2007

When Will Women Stop Raping?

In their never-ending efforts to foist women onto a pedestal, to portray women as victims (who need special treatment) and men as abusers (who need to provide that special treatment) feminists enjoy broadening the definition of acts established as crimes if they can claim only men commit them. Take domestic violence for example, the idea that it was an issue which only women face was founded on men being physically stronger than women.

Once men were blamed, they just ran with it. Made it is vile a crime as possible. "Domestic violence is about power and control, not conflict". "The primary cause of domestic violence is sexism and patriarchal coercion".

Women committing as much domestic violence against men as the reverse was ignored for years on this basis, while feminists broadened the definition of domestic violence to include as many behaviors as possible.

I'll never forget the first time they started complaining about women being "emotionally abused". Men are the ones who emotionally abuse are they? Emotional abuse has nothing to do with physical strength and can be easily committed by a woman for crying out loud, in fact women prefer it.

Likewise with rape, "rape is about power not sex", despite the fact that 80% of rape victims are below the age of 30, when women's looks start going down hill. We're even apparently living in a sexist "rape culture".

"rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men and women keep all women or men in a state of fear"
- Susan Brownmiller

Physically forcing a woman into sex has been replaced by not taking no for an answer, and more recently rape has been more ill defined, unless a woman completely felt like having sex, even if she didn't say no and at some stage said yes.. it could still be rape.

It ends up following then, that seeing as physical force is no longer required to legally rape someone because they don't have to physically resist, simply be in some way coerced, men are raped almost as often as women, because men are often coerced into sex:

Men often coerced into sex: study

The stereotype of the male stud who is always up for sex is being challenged by new research from the University of Guelph showing that men are almost as likely to be coerced in the bedroom as women.

A study of 518 university students found that 38.8% of men and 47.9% of women reported being pressured into a range of sexual activity, from kissing and cuddling to intercourse and oral sex.

But the most surprising finding was the link between popularized notions of the male libido and the susceptibility of both genders to pressure, said Cailey Hartwick, the lead author of the study published in the Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality.

The existence of traditional stereotypes may cause men to engage in sexual activity rather than feel guilty about refusing it. Meanwhile, adherence to such stereotypes by women may fuel the belief "that resistance may be somewhat futile against a man's indomitable desire for sex," the study stated.

It may also in part explain coercive behavior by women toward men.

"I hadn't anticipated that. I thought it would possibly predict men being coerced because of the whole idea that they should want to have sex and feel guilty if they don't," Ms. Hartwick in an interview. "What I thought was interesting was that it put both men and women at risk of sexual coercion."

Of the 251 males and 267 female respondents who completed the anonymous questionnaire, 23.3% of men and 34% of women related being pressed into kissing and fondling, while 18.3% of men and 21.1% of women said they were strong-armed into intercourse and 5.8% of men and 4.2% of women complained of being cajoled into oral sex.

The study defined coercion as everything from mild cajoling to full-blown sexual assault. However, only a tiny fraction of respondents told of being physically forced into sex. The majority reported being seduced by "guilt-tripping" or intoxication.

So basically, women are raping men all the god damn time according to feminist standards. Either they're making a big deal out of something which happens to men and men don't make a big deal out of, or women should start going to jail for date rape.

Frankly I'm not excluding the latter, because while I think defining rape as anything beyond requiring a use of physical restraint is pretty retarded, I think the feminists are not going to be too quick to restore reasonable boundaries to this affair if they have no reason, and there may be cause for concern anyway because according to a similar study from Washington University in 1999, which said more or less the same thing as the recent study:

College men nearly as likely as women to report they are victims of unwanted sexual coercion

The stereotypical picture of men as the perpetrators and women as the victims of acquaintance rape and other forms of unwanted sexual contact appears to be slightly out of focus.

Men are almost as likely as women to report unwanted sexual contact and coercion, according to a new study of college students conducted by researchers from the University of Washington's Addictive Behaviors Research Center. The study, involving nearly 300 students, appears in the current issue of the journal Sex Roles.

Overall, 34 men (21 percent of the male participants) and 36 women (28 percent) reported being recipients of one or more of five types of unwanted sexual contact listed on a gender-neutral questionnaire used by the researchers. The study also showed that men who experienced unwanted sexual contact reported more symptoms of depression than the other males in the study, although none met the criteria for clinical depression. There was no difference in the level of depression symptoms for women who said they were sexually coerced and those who weren't. Women, however, were more likely to be the victims of having physical force used against them.

Men, get depressed from being coerced into sex while women do not. Maybe men are in fact disproportionately mentally affected by rape by comparison to women.

At any rate, we can safely fuck off these retarded feminist theories about rape being about power instead of sex, unless they want to cop to that themselves and we can certainly fuck off blatantly insane ramblings like Ms Brownmiller's incoherence about rape being a method by which men keep women in fear, unless women are keeping men in fear by the same means.

Unless feminists start cleaning up their act about ridiculously exaggerated definitions of rape, maybe it is time they started supporting their supposed belief in equality and send women to jail for date rape as well.

Monday, October 1, 2007

Equality Means Only Help Girls - Says Feminist Report To EOC

More feminists saying equality is the last thing they want and trying to justify making an exception in a case that might require help to be given to males. This time in a report to the United Kingdom's equality watchdog, the Equal Opportunities Commission in relation to boys and their education.

Stop helping boys, says equality watchdog

School strategies to boost boys’ attainment and close the gender divide with girls are “divisive and counterproductive”, according to a report to be published this week by the Government’s equalities watchdog.

Right, so when girls are underachieving it is the end of the world and proof of patriarchal oppression, proof the girls are being kept down from a young age etc etc. but when boys start to fall behind as a result of over-correcting it is "counterproductive" to address that issue.

The underachievement of boys relative to girls at school has become a recurring theme of educational debate and significant resources are invested in raising boys’ achievement.

Although there has been a slight narrowing of the gender gap in this year’s exam results, girls still outperform boys across the board. In primary tests, girls beat boys by ten percentage points in English last year. At A level, 25.1 per cent of girls achieved an A grade compared with 22.8 per cent of boys.

But in a highly provocative assertion, the Equal Opportunities Commission, suggests that “playing up the difference will exacerbate such difference”. While it acknowledges that there is a gender gap in literacy, with boys underperforming in relation to girls, the 80-page document adds: “In other areas, the gap is not significant and certainly the focus on boys’ underachievement detracts from the consideration needed to be given to the larger gaps between groups defined by social class and race.”

The report in question was written by one Becky Francis and one Christine Skelton. Would it surprise you to find interests such as "feminist research methodologies" on their profiles?

If we look at the press release from Roehampton University about this report, it says things like:

Professor of Education, Becky Francis, has warned that embedded attitudes about gender roles has lead to assumptions that boys and girls can be treated as separate, homogenous groups in teaching and learning. Whereas in fact, factors such as social class have a greater impact on achievement and mean that girls from lower socio-economic groups and certain minority ethnic groups are still out-performed by middle-class white boys.
Girls from lower socioeconomic classes are being outperformed by middle class boys?! OMGZ something must be done!@#$#!

Naturally the fact that girls from lower socioeconomic classes are doing better than boys from those classes and that girls from middle classes lord over not only the lower socioeconomic classed boys, but the middle classed boys as well, is completely ignored. The focus must be on girls! This is an excellent example of female supremacist femcunts using whatever shitty logic they can to gain as many advantages that they can.

It concludes: “The strategies recommended have been divisive and often counter-productive in terms of their emphasis on gender differences and give the impression that all that was needed was to treat the two sexes as separate, homogenous groups.”

The report, by academics at Roehampton University, blames gender stereotyping by parents and teachers for exaggerating the gender gap. Entrenched attitudes based on ill-founded assumptions about gender roles mean that perceived differences between supposedly masculine subjects (such as physics) and so-called feminine ones (such as literacy) will increase over time, it cautions. It adds that there is no hard evidence that single-sex teaching improves boys’ results. Instead, the report suggests that schools should challenge stereotypes and encourage boys and girls to diversify their skills and interests.

Initiatives to increase girls' results have focused on making classrooms more girl friendly. You don't go oh we need to find a standard way of treating both sexes then go and base it around a female norm because then boys start doing badly.

If you want things to be standard, base it on a standard in which girls and boys do equally well. The reason people have been treating the sexes differently is because they obviously respond to different schooling approaches. Presumably what is going on here is that when someone suggests making the standard way of approaching things more boy friendly, bitches like the feminist authors of this report start wailing about how this may prevent girls from reaching their full potential.

One way or the other. Either set the standard at the halfway mark, or treat them differently. You don't get equality otherwise, you get female domination (more knowledgeable readers will know this is what feminists mean by equality, anyway).

The report notes that social class and race have a far more significant effect on school results than gender; girls from disadvantaged backgrounds trail far behind middle-class boys from the same ethnic group. There is also a wide variation in performance across black and ethnic minority groups, with a gap of 16 percentage points between the highest and lowest achieving ethnic groups in their English results.

Jenny Watson, who chairs EOC, said that the solution to raising school standards across the board was to adopt a holistic approach that took account of gender, class and race differences together, not in isolation.

So as soon as it becomes apparent that as far as gender is concerned, boys are doing worse, all of a sudden we have to focus on other divisions. Never mind that while the gender gap was considered to be to the disadvantage of girls it was the end of the world.

But John Dunford, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said it was right for schools to invest resources in raising the attainment of boys, just as they had done 20 years ago to raise girls’ achievement: “While it’s right to focus on all other underachieving areas, such as class and race, the focus on boys should not be eased, especially at a time when the gender gap is starting to narrow at GCSE and A level.”

Nick Gibb, the Tory schools spokesman, blamed 40 years of “progressive” teaching methods for the underachievement of boys, disadvantaged children and certain ethnic groups.

Damn straight. Equality means equality. You don't go claiming to be about equality, then go right beyond the pale of equality only to promptly change your mind about whether we should have equality or not. I've said it before, the main focus of feminism these days is - now that they have equality (and more) in areas they previously convinced people they were disadvantaged in - more about making up retarded justifications for retention of traditional female privilege and the privilege that they have gotten by pushing female advocacy beyond any semblance of equality.

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Equal Application Of The Law

Feminists love to make up laws to govern the lives of men when they feel secure that they will never be subject to those laws themselves. In most cases they are not. That's why you get false rape allegations being so easy to make that 40 - 60% of them are false. The newspapers would be overflowing with articles on false rape accusations if there was one every time this happened to a man, but here is how women feel when feminist laws which are supposed to only be applied to men are applied to them:

How could I, a 5ft woman, have possibly raped a strapping, 6ft businessman?

A woman falsely accused of date-raping a wealthy businessman has told for the first time how the ordeal ruined her life.

Tanya Hutchison, a 42-year-old mother of five, was cleared of sexual assault but said the nightmarish police investigation had left her permanently scarred.

"My life is in ruins, all because of a claim that was totally ridiculous and should never have been taken seriously," she said.

When six police officers arrived at her home to arrest her in front of her seven-year-old son, she told them that the man's allegation that she had spiked his drinks with a date-rape drug before forcing him into sex was ludicrous.

That's how a 5ft tall woman can rape a 6ft businessman, with drugs. It was very clear that drugs were involved and that's how it was alleged she did it, so one of the first things you notice when reading this article is how quick she is to crap on about how could she do it, when it has been explained.

But despite her insistence that they had shared an afternoon of consensual sex, she was held in a police cell for four hours.

Then she had to describe every explicit detail of the encounter in a two-hour interview with five officers - four of them men - who she claims treated her as if she were guilty.

"I was stunned and terrified," she said. "I felt as if it was me who had been raped.

"I had to tell the officers every aspect of what I'd done with the man, which was deeply humiliating.

"They ransacked my home and took away my bedsheets, phone and, worst of all, my underwear to carry out forensic tests.

"I was questioned in a manner I felt was unnecessarily aggressive.

"I couldn't understand why I was being made to feel like a criminal over a claim that was so unbelievable.

"I've been taking anti-depressants since it happened and I've lost more than two and a half stone because of the stress.

"I feel petrified when I hear police sirens and my confidence in the legal process is badly shaken."

At the police station, Ms Hutchison says she was searched and kept in a cell without a toilet for four hours.

"I was shaking with nerves and felt sick but there was nowhere to be sick. Then the questioning began and it seemed to last for ever, although I think it was two hours.

"Five officers made me tell them intimate details such as what positions we'd used while having intercourse.

"I was mortified and felt dirty and ashamed. I couldn't understand why they were treating the man's claim seriously.

"I felt as if I was trapped in a bad dream.

Basically her house was searched, personal items of hers were taken for examination, she was held for four hours and questioned by the police and she is acting as if her whole world has coming crashing down around her. What's the bet that if women were the ones falsely accused of rape all the time, filing a false accusation of rape would be seen as the blackest crime imaginable and a profound violation of a woman's dignity which men could never hope to understand and therefore should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

As it stands, considering it is the other way around, we instead have Catherine Comins spouting "sometimes men who are falsely accused of rape can benefit from the experience."

There are probably people reading this who sympathise a great deal with what she went through, considering a woman is being subject to this, and it very well may have been wrong, but I wonder how they and Ms Hutchison would feel if she were actually treated the way men are when falsely accused of rape.

It's not like her name was dragged through the mud, she was even imprisoned for any serious length of time or was threatened with or subjected to violence as revenge by some gullible, benevolently sexist fucktard.

How would being arrested, denied bail, imprisoned for several months - then stabbed in prison like Craig Charles was go down with her?

Do you think she'd appear like more of a victim if she had been doused in kerosene and set alight?

How about if she had received a fractured jaw and eye socket, suffering a collapsed lung, broken ribs, a blood clot on the brain and lost some of her teeth?

What about being imprisoned for, not four hours, but eighteen months and dying of blood cancer before being posthumously cleared?

Or hey how about if she just ended getting straight murdered in a revenge attack? Reckon the feminists would brush that aside as a possible experience she could benefit from?

And anyway, where are the feminists with their insisting that she nevetheless may have still been guilty of rape and the man was just discouraged from pressing charges?

Fair enough, what happened to her was wrong. It is bullshit that people have to go through this sort of thing, but I just don't see how her playing the victim card this much can be acceptable when feminists accept that men who face the same allegations she did are routinely treated the same way or worse and in those cases there is nothing wrong with it.

The man suggested meeting at Ms Hutchison's home in Worthing, West Sussex, and turned up at 11am on a Thursday in June with two bottles of wine.

"I was taken aback because the wine made it very clear he was there for sex," she said.

So if a woman brings wine to a man's house, that means she effectively has consented to sex does it? See, despite the fact that Ms Hutchison has been through a false allegation of rape, she still has a rather flippant attitude towards consent by comparison to the attitude a man is legally obliged to have. Fact is, according to the new British laws if the other party was drunk then decides they may have been raped.. the basis for the "new type of rape; Gray Rape", also known as "the rape you might not know happened", the burden of proof is on the alleged perpetrator to prove that they obtained positive consent in a court of law.

I can't help but think that if she was male and her accuser was female, this is exactly what would have happened, with her being found guilty of rape on the facts we have so far, and thrown in jail.

But no, if you're a woman, then presence of alcohol means an automatic presumption of consent, rather than the automatic presumption of rape if you are a man.

Apparently being all concerned about rape allegations doesn't change this either.

A few days later, police called at her home to tell her that the man had admitted she was telling the truth.

She has struggled to recover from her ordeal and says she has lost faith in a system that has allowed her accuser to go unpunished for his lies.

She said: "It makes me very angry that he has got off scot-free for making up something so evil about me.

"He was not even cautioned for wasting police time and nobody has apologised to me.

"All I wanted was to trust a man again but I can't imagine myself trusting anyone for a long time."

A Sussex police spokesman said: 'We investigated an allegation of sexual assault against Tanya Hutchison but we can confirm there will be no further action taken."

I can already hear the wailing of a thousand feminists and manginas over this demanding that he be publicly humiliated or jailed for a term of rape himself. I mean we can't have people going around making false allegations of rape and getting away with it can we? Justice requires punishment. On the other hand, he got the same punishment a woman would have got for committing this crime - a slap on the wrist - and equal treatment under the law is also justice.

Monday, September 3, 2007


The Men Going Their Own Way blogging network brings you Mancasts, a series of men's rights podcasts. I've added a link to the Mancast site to the right of the blog for future reference. The first is entitled A Woman Against Feminism, by KellyMac. Because she's such a trooper I've added her blog to the blog roll as well. Here it is.