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

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.

Feminists Aren't Too Popular On The Internet

This actually started going on a few weeks ago and I've been reluctant to post about it considering people keep falsely linking it to anti-feminists, but really the statistics that are used in this article badly need some attention, so does what passes for logic that the feminists involved are using in order to make themselves appear like victims, but it does look like feminists are not getting the warmest of welcomes on the Internet

Misogyny Lulz bares its teeth on internet:

A woman's place isn't in the kitchen these days but some malcontents are trying to make sure that it's not on the web either. The internet is proving to be a hostile place for women.

Death threats, rape threats, verbal abuse, condescending and unwelcome comments about looks and intelligence are all par for the course for many female web users.

Last year a University of Maryland study found that web users with female pseudonyms are 25 times more likely to be harassed online than users with male or ambiguous pseudonyms. And, according to, women make up 70 per cent of the victims of cyber harassment and stalking.

This statistic was also used by Jessica Valenti of in a similarly whiny article here. In that particular article Ms Valenti furnishes this exact same study, then details her most horrifying experience of sexism on the Internet, which just happened to be at the hands of another feminist.

Well I downloaded the University of Maryland study, myself and a cohort looked it over and it doesn't exactly say what they say it does.

First of all, death threats, rape threats, verbal abuse, condescending and unwelcome comments about looks and intelligence weren't actually found to have been occurring in the study at all. Ms Greer just happens to be mentioning them before she mentions the study.

Second of all, what both of them say the study concludes it just doesn't. They are utterly full of shit.

Let's start with Ms Greer's claim:

"web users with female pseudonyms are 25 times more likely to be harassed online than users with male or ambiguous pseudonyms"
To pause the article and examine the study she is referencing for a moment, she's said "web" there, which may be technical cluelessness on her part, but the study is called "Assessing the Attack Threat due to IRC Channels" and dealt solely with Internet Relay Chat rather than the actual web.

She's said "users" there and the statistic which showed 25 times more than anything was representative of bots with female names, not real female users.

The male or ambiguous pseudonyms is a distortion as well. The 25 times statistic was 25 times more than male bots, not 25 times more than bots with ambiguous names. It was 4 times more than bots with ambiguous names, making it 14.5 times:

female bots received more than 25 times more private messages than the male bots and 4 more times than the bots with an ambiguous name
Really we'd want to know the statistics for real users instead of fakes, considering they would have more bearing on the matter at hand. The statistic referring to actual users was:

For human users, female users received about 6 times more private messages than the male users and about 3 times more than the users with an ambiguous name.
So right there she should really be saying IRC users with female pseudonyms are 4.5 times more likely to be 'harassed' than users with male or ambiguous pseudonyms. That's a far cry from her 25 times more likely statistic.

But that is nowhere near the end of the misuse of these statistics. What really damns these statistics being used in the way they've been used by feminists is the amount of private messages each user was receiving as opposed to malicious messages:

Among the private messages, on average, we found 30% of malicious ones for the female bots, 24% for the male bots, 23% for the ambiguous bots, 28% for the female human users, 26% for the male human users, and 25% for the ambiguous human users.
So, if the male users received 27.5 malicious private messages, they received 105 polite messages. If the ambiguous users received 65 malicious messages, they received 260 polite messages. And finally, if the female users received 163 malicious private messages, they received 582 polite messages.

Let me reiterate that:

male - 105 polite (not harassing) messages.
ambiguous - 260 polite (not harassing) messages.
female - 582 polite (not harassing) messages.

In other words, if female users received 4.5 times the 'harassment' male or ambiguous users did, female users also received 4.5 times the amount of polite, innocuous private messages.

Here is what the study concludes:

The extra attention the female usernames received and the nature of the messages (i.e., sexually explicit or threatening language) they were bombarded with suggests that male users outnumber females, as it would be difficult for an automated script to filter usernames based on gender when sending messages.
Female users were getting more attention, both regular and malicious. This was because male users outnumbered female users. So, really any conclusion based on the total number of malicious messages is irrelevant. Really the only relevant statistics are the percentage of malicious messages to polite messages they were getting, which when we look at them is only 2% different from that of males. In other words, once we've factored in the amount of attention given, the difference in the way each sex is treated is fuck all.

This study does not conclude women are victims of harassment online more often than men, it concludes that in Internet chatrooms where men outnumber women; women get more attention than men.

That is it. The only relevant thing this study proves is that Anna Greer and Jessica Valenti are whiny, lying bitches who run their mouths. This is what newspapers get when they allow dingbat fembot bloggers to write articles for them. Mountains of fallacious and bigoted crap.

This is another feminist inspired bullshit myth, akin to the wage gap. Get your bullshit political manipulation off my Internet, you dumb bitches.

As for Ms Greer's haltabuse statistic, that is just as laughable. The 70% statistic comes from the 2006 statistics here. The sample used to derive these statistics was 372 people. Those 372 people were the people that, in the whole of 2006, fully filled out their online questionnaire here.

So at the end of the day, 70% of 372 people that bothered to fill out a crappy web based questionnaire in order to complain about online harassment were female. These cases were not substantiated in the slightest. It could simply mean that females complain about it more than males for all we can really tell.

So, BULLSHIT the web is proving a hostile place for women. IRC chat rooms where males outnumber females are proving to be a place where females get 4.5 times more private messages than other types of users, yes.

The Brisbane Times, who also published the article have a nice online contact form which you can use to inquire as to why they are publishing faulty statistics here.

Contact the Sydney Morning Herald here.

And let's not forget about Jessica Valenti's statistical foibles. Contact the Guardian here.

Back to the article:

The internet is looking more and more like the Wild West than the decentralised utopia for which people might have hoped.
It is a decentralised utopia. The fact that there is freedom on the Internet is what makes it that way. This is a pretty typical trend in feminism. Men create something that they love because it is untamed and allows them freedom, feminists barge in insisting on full involvement but also security because they are offended by its untamed nature, thus taking away the freedom that made men love it in the first place and ruining it.

To that I have to say freedom is built into the fundamental framework of the Internet. That's what makes the Internet great. The Internet will always be a free place. If you strong independent womyn can't handle that: fuck off.

An internet war is being fought against the online feminist community by a hive of crackers and tech geeks who call themselves "Anonymous".
It is ironic to me that the hackers causing this problem for feminists are called Anonymous, because as long as there is Internet anonymity the Internet will continue to be free and untamed and there is nothing arsehole, controlling feminists can do about it.

Feminist forums have been hacked, passwords have been stolen, emails have been commandeered and used for whatever nefarious purpose the cyber miscreants wish. Websites such as Women's Space and Gentle Spirit have been forced to shut down. One outspoken woman who blogged anonymously even had her photo put up on the net and a hunt was undertaken by members of "Anonymous" for her place of residence.
Hahahaha :) Now what she is neglecting to mention here is that the entire reason the "outspoken woman" in question has become a target is because, although she is a violently anti-porn radical feminist, she discovered her thirteen year old son was looking at Internet pornography, then became "outspoken" about how she wishes she aborted him because he is probably going to grow up to be a rapist.

Her hysterical reactions to his pornography use such as shouting at him, reading him Andrea Dworkin and informing him of how evil porn have been discussed as probable child abuse here among many other places.

I can't really do the whole story leading up to the attacks from Anonymous as much justice as the Encyclopedia Dramatica entries on the subject can, but basically the reason for the attacks is that she is a male hating cunt who abuses her teenaged son and that feminist sites have been using the steadily mounting criticism of this sort of thing as proof "the enemies of feminism are evil" instead of actually addressing the male hating cunthood and child abuse within their ranks.

What many who engage in online "flamewars" - raids and attacks such as these - fail to see is that they're messing with real people's lives. The internet allows an incredible disconnect between reality and virtuality.

Everything seems to operate on the level of the abstract - it's a game. The language used is militaristic, targets are dubbed "challengers" and the attacks are strategically planned. It's literally revenge of the nihilist nerds.

First of all, I bet calling a feminist a 'nerd' would be counted by her as in a similar vein to "unwanted comments about looks and intelligence". Apparently this sort of thing is okay when she does it. Second of all like feminists aren't pseudo-intellectual dykes with no social skills. Third of all, if you are a part of a movement which has decided that existing social institutions need to be destroyed in order for there to be improvement and that all ethical systems of the past should be repudiated without actually coming up with a decent objective ethical system which would hold you responsible for anything, in other words a nihilistic movement, you don't get to complain when other people behave in a nihilistic manner. The only thing not nihilistic about feminism is that they think other people should remain subject to the ethics that they don't want to be subject to. That's what the problem is here, other people aren't being subject to those ethics. So they can go cry someone else a river, can't they.

Further alienating these people is not going to stop them. Sure these guys may be bored and that is why they look for entertainment like this, but does this stupid bitch realise that alienation of males via the media, removing any positive role models for them to emulate and any positive, socially constructive, role for them to aspire to (thank you feminists) may have had a hand in making them bored in the first place?

This isn't the first co-ordinated attack the group has launched and there doesn't seem to be an ideological pattern to their actions. But it is no coincidence that it was so easy to mobilise Anonymous against women bloggers.

And it's not surprising that those who joined the raids used methods such as vicious hate speech, threats of rape and murder and seeding comment threads with child porn in an attempt to silence women on the web.

For crying out loud. It's not women bloggers, it's radical feminist bloggers. It was no coincidence they were mobilised against people like Hal Turner either. He was nuts and so are radical feminists. I suppose because Hal Turner was male, and he was attacked, men are being silenced on the Internet too? It makes just as much sense.

I don't know why she keeps insisting she is able to read minds and claiming that there can be no other possible reason for the attack other than that they want to silence women. I don't suppose the question of why the women involved in the attacks aren't attacking themselves has factored into her thinking.

Misogyny is quick to surface when there are no rules of social decorum to temper it. People have free rein to be bigoted and badly behaved without fear of real-world social ostracising.

I guess it's not so different to the real world where humanism occasionally gets pushed aside in favour of mob justice and vigilantism.

Or the radical feminists are being bigoted and badly behaved and are being ostracised online. What does she think the feminists on these blogs are saying about men anyway? If they're talking about wishing they aborted their son and telling him he'll grow up to be a rapist if he doesn't take on her lunatic fringe belief system then do you really think they have nothing but good things to say about men on their blogs and websites?

Furthermore could it be that what she refers to as real-world social ostracising is really vicious hate speech, threats of violence and imprisonment in an attempt to silence men and further the feminist agenda?

To show how vile these messages can get, this is an example of a comment left on the blog Women's Space: "I'd like to tie you down, take a knife, and slit your throat. I'd penetrate you over and over in all orifices, and create some of my own to stick myself in." Shocking? Yes. Rare? Not on the internet.
Feminists are targeted with this sort of message specifically because they would find it offensive. Duh.

The culprits can't be traced because they often mask their IP addresses with an anonymiser, which hides their location and their computer information. Internet laws are notoriously fraught and even if you are able to find out who is responsible it's difficult to prosecute.

Often there is little recourse - even though the attacks are clearly illegal - other than to weather the storm.

The forums at my site were once attacked and flooded with offensive images and threads.

I don't know where the culprits came from but it took me hours to restore the forums and get rid of the offensive material. I no longer have forums on the site. Thankfully it was mostly just an annoyance more than a serious threat.

Whether the attacks are for kicks, to get a rise out of feminists or for a more sinister purpose doesn't matter. The outcome is the same: women's voices are silenced and their mobility, visibility and participation on the net is reduced.

The online feminist community will recover, however, and these attacks have given food for thought to women with a presence on the net. A strong supportive community is needed to deal with this issue that just won't go away.

If women and their websites come under attack for their views there needs to be as much support given by other web users to ensure they don't feel so intimidated they stop participating. That the internet also serves to build community means that this will be easy enough to do.

Anna Greer is the editor of the online feminist magazine

Again, bitch. Feminists are not all women. Is this fallacious bollocks the best she can come up with in their defence? Her 'evidence' that all women are being treated any differently to men is a load of bunk and these hackers aren't targeting all women, they're targeting feminists. Sure, there is some evidence that feminists are treated atrociously online, I don't exactly treat them with much respect myself, but when we talk about feminists we're not talking about women who use the Internet like regular human beings, we're talking about a certain type of woman who regrets not aborting her son, who she thinks is going to grow up to be a rapist, and women who use the fact they are being attacked for defending that as "proof" they are big victims. They don't represent all women and they don't make up the number of all women. It's simple set theory. The subset of women, feminists, is not equal to the superset, all women. It's a very simple logical fallacy.

The bitch at the center of this, the child abuser, does not need a strong supportive community. In fact, the reason that people decided to "support" her, despite her reprehensible actions, seems to have been what it was that threw oil on the flames here. What she and her supporters need is a good smack upside the head with justice. Which despite how feminists are generally not held responsible for their reprehensible actions in the real world, is what is being served.

Pass the popcorn.

Saturday, September 1, 2007

More On Sweden's Feminist Nutjobs

Popular Swedish feminist logo which doesn't see much
use in their campaigns against domestic violence.

I received this today from a Swedish reader. It's a translation of the full text of this feminist chant which I wrote about after I saw a youtube video of a shortened version being sung at the opening ceremony of Sweden's feminist political party, Feministiskt initiativ. You can see the video at that post. Turns out to be even more psycho than I thought it would be:

Dude, geezer (sort of, both are slangs in Swedish as well)

Ruin our world without shame

Rape, make war, fight and destroy

Get that you can't nor should

Grab my pussy when you're horny

Or my breasts when you get hot (or "when you feel like it", either way)

I hate you so you fucking man

You think you know, you think you can

All about women, all about our lives

But you don't know anything so take a fucking step

To the side, to the edge, stand at the brink

Fall in, I don't give a shit

Now it's our turn

This is our revenge

We'll show you

This is our chance

You took the role as God, how fucking pathetic

So you have a dick, is that reason enough to force your ideals onto me

For your own sake and your own fucking pleasures

I'll show you that I can, better than you

Even though I am a 'stupid little girl' (funnily this sentence was grammatically incoherent -- although, to be fair, the entire text is riddled with similar faults)

Dude, geezer, fucking man

You better start running

'Cause here you see a woman

That hates you so much

We'll tear you to pieces

Charming isn't it? This sort of misandry strikes a familiar chord as the sort of central beliefs that underlie what I've read of feminist literature the world over. He goes on to write:

There you have it! The feminist mindset as a chant. They are fixated on vulgarities, sex, and men. But I'm not surprised: they are very open about what they're about here; just last year there was a TV documentary about women's shelters, and a prominent feminist said outright and on camera that men are animals. There were protests (weak and feeble but still), and she was genuinely surprised. They even had to get rid of her for embarrassing the feminist cause.

There are stickers all over town where I live, it's of the female symbol (the Venus circle cross) with a clenched fist in its center; a suitably Naziesque thing with the charming slogan "We don't want a piece of the pie, we want the entire fucking bakery". I guess this is what slithers out from under the rocks once they get enough power.

But the fun thing is, regardless of how much power they wield, they've only gotten this far due to their own men's (unfortunately) seemingly endless patience and good will. Now I doubt that'll ever change -- we've been permanently castrated -- but should we ever be invaded in one way or another by people of harsher cultures than our own, our very own feisty warrior women would fall on their backs with their legs in the air faster than a hooker that smells money. Magically they'd forget all about the glorious revolution of the sisterhood. They're all bark. Unfortunately so is politics, and that's where they shine.

At least there's one small spark in the darkness: feminists don't breed, because bearing children is just another aspect of the eternal patriarchal oppression of their womanhood (!). That's an actual argument I've heard.

Sorry about the long post, it's late and I just thought I'd translate that crap for you. Keep up the great blog!

Feminism sounds very popular among the men in Sweden. And why wouldn't it be? They give them more than any other men in the world and are hated the most for it. It sounds like the men practically want the country to be invaded just to escape the feminists. Throughout history matriarchal civilisations have typically been conquered by patriarchal ones, so I guess their hope is not all that misplaced. I felt a bit of a twinge there when he said they've been permanently castrated, but the situation in Sweden really is one of the worst in the world. At least he is man enough to have kept his balls intact and not be taken in by the self-loathing that is all that is acceptable for men these days. I have also seen a few other Swedish guys around who are standing up, the guy who posted the youtube video for example, but they really do have an uphill battle to fight over there by the sounds of things. Sweden is often held up as one of the front runners in what feminists call equality, they like to go on about how we have a lot of work to do to catch up. But if this is what happens when feminists get more of what they want, my resolve is very much hardened to keep on exposing their hate movement and fighting for the cause of men.