Montana Forces Feminist Rape Propaganda on Students

by W.F. Price on August 29, 2012

Due to new rules pushed by the Department of Justice, the University of Montana, situated in the island of political correctness known as Missoula in an otherwise pleasant and sane state, has devised a mandatory test that ensures that students have been properly instructed in the feminist narrative on rape. This is to be accomplished through forcing the students to watch videos that cover the material in the quiz.

I decided to take a look at these videos. It turns out that they are narrated by robots (quite appropriately), who go on to inform us that college campuses are enveloped by a “rape prone culture.” The so-called mythical stereotypes that characterize this alleged culture are called a “kind of violence” that must be fought with propaganda. One of the “myths” cited is the idea that women might lie about rape. Another “myth,” apparently, is that rape is violent. Actually, according to our robot narrator, pressuring and guilt-tripping are just as “forceful” as beating someone into submission.

Additionally, rape can happen at any time during the sex act. When a man is having consensual sex and is on the cusp of orgasm, and the woman says “stop,” he becomes a rapist if he doesn’t pull out immediately. Perhaps most insidious is the idea that men can be held responsible for rape while intoxicated, but women cannot consent while intoxicated. A clear double standard that apparently does not trouble the radical feminists who made the video.

More gems include the idea that silence indicates nonconsent, which I suppose means that if you have sex with a foreigner, and neither of you can understand the other verbally, you have automatically committed rape.

The most ambiguous video concerns the law. Here, the feminists engage in some obfuscation. Nothing in the law says that consent must be verbal or even necessarily positive, but the video claims exactly that. Again, the feminists are conflating consent and assent.

Finally, one video encourages interfering with others, up to the point of deciding for them whether or not they can give or receive consent. This isn’t always a bad idea (sometimes one should warn a friend about sleeping with the wrong woman), but it can have very bad consequences. As police know, getting between lovers can be pretty dangerous, so it’s irresponsible to recommend students behave in this manner.

It’s a shame that gender feminist politics are given a voice in our public universities, forced on them by the federal government. While we don’t want an orgy of rape on college campuses, the idea that campuses are a “rape prone culture” is absurd, and an insult to students, who are generally better-behaved than the population at large.

{ 80 comments… read them below or add one }

Jean Valjean August 29, 2012 at 16:45

I’ve got news for you my friend; they’ve been doing this for more than 20 years. I remember when I was a freshmen in college back in 1988 and they were pulling us out of our dorm room to have a seminar on how to not rape women.

At the time I thought it was funny but mostly awkward. I didn’t yet have the realization that it was sexist and I had never even heard of misandry.

If they had pulled the black students out of their dorms and gave them a lecture on how to not steal from their classmates it would have been denounced as racism (even back then). But clearly, there is no insult given to men that will be deemed inappropriate so long as women are perceived to receive some benefit–no matter how small.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Rebel August 29, 2012 at 16:59

This is brainwshing, pure and simple. I pity those poor little children…

And they call this a university?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
El Bastardo August 29, 2012 at 17:09

Wow, my new favorite line came in video four

“Gender bullying,” I think I will use that in my next family court hearing..

Your honor, you are gender bullying me!
I can’t wait to hear his “sincere apology!”

You know, if he actually replys with anything other than madame, do you want to punish him, or should I do it for you?

LOL

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 29, 2012 at 17:47

Jean Valjean August 29, 2012 at 16:45

I’ve got news for you my friend; they’ve been doing this for more than 20 years. I remember when I was a freshmen in college back in 1988 and they were pulling us out of our dorm room to have a seminar on how to not rape women.

We will see if the list tags work here. Here are portions of the famous “Antioch Rules” from about the same time period that Jean Valjean mentions – this from 1991.

Consent is required each and every time there is sexual activity.
The person(s) who initiate(s) the sexual activity is responsible for asking for consent.
Each new level of sexual activity requires consent.
Consent is required regardless of the parties’ relationship, prior sexual history, or current activity (e.g. grinding on the dance floor is not consent for further sexual activity).
At any and all times when consent is withdrawn or not verbally agreed to, the sexual activity must stop immediately.
Silence is not consent.
Body movements and non-verbal responses such as moans are not consent.

This is, in effect, implementation of Robin Morgan’s famous quote –

I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.

Of course, since women rarely initiate sex, requiring ongoing, explicit, verbal consent is something of a substitute – as well as a complete mood-killer.

Can anyone imagine a sexual scenario which goes like this –
“(Mother) may I touch your breast?”
“(Mother) may I touch your thigh?”
“(Mother) may I put my hand inside your bra?”
“(Mother) may I put my hand inside your panties?”

(“Aw, fuggit, I wonder if there is anything on TV.”)

I think one of the biggest reasons why women seem to gravitate toward men with the dark triad is because any tool who actually followed these rules would leave their panties dryer than Death Valley.

21 years later women are flocking to read 50 shades of gray because any masculinity and sexual desire have been beaten out of the more socialized young men.

Plus, I would like for some woman to explain to me how a man is supposed to become “passionate” toward her while he must maintain enough detachment to cease and desist within 5 seconds if the woman “withdraws her consent.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Geography Bee Finalist himself August 29, 2012 at 17:52

“island of political correctness known as Missoula”

I would replace “island” with “gonorrhea lesion” to describe a politically correct location. Remember, PC can always be cured with the antibiotic known as reality.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader August 29, 2012 at 18:10

Well, that’s Matriarchy A, courtesy of the Obama administration, of Party A. Surely Party B will be different, because it’s made up of Real Men, who are Manly Patriarchs and uphold social conservatism, traditional conservatism, and so forth.

Heh. Meet Matriarchy B, where Rick Santorum and Ann Romney both praise single mothers (unlike SoCon Stanton at “Focus on the Family” Ann didn’t call them “heroes”, not in so many words.

Here is the transcript of Ann Romney’s speech. If you’re a drinking man, I’d pour a shot and leave the bottle nearby before starting to read. Might want to put any bricks or other easily thrown objects out of reach, too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-of-ann-romneys-remarks-at-the-republican-national-convention/2012/08/28/05c01848-f182-11e1-b74c-84ed55e0300b_print.html

Here’s a sample:
Sometimes I think that late at night, if we were all silent for just a few moments and listened carefully, we could hear a great collective sigh from the moms and dads across America who made it through another day, and know that they’ll make it through another one tomorrow. But in that end of the day moment, they just aren’t sure how.

And if you listen carefully, you’ll hear the women sighing a little bit more than the men. It’s how it is, isn’t it?

It’s the moms who always have to work a little harder, to make everything right.

It’s the moms of this nation—single, married, widowed—who really hold this country together. We’re the mothers, we’re the wives, we’re the grandmothers, we’re the big sisters, we’re the little sisters, we’re the daughters.

You know it’s true, don’t you? You’re the ones who always have to do a little more.

So which is it to be, men? Matriarchy A or Matriarchy B? Either way, be prepared to Man Up for babymommas on command…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Rebel August 29, 2012 at 18:35

“Plus, I would like for some woman to explain to me how a man is supposed to become “passionate” toward her while he must maintain enough detachment to cease and desist within 5 seconds if the woman “withdraws her consent.”

My guess is that he is not. The rules have been written by lesbians.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
joeb August 29, 2012 at 18:48

Consent must be obtained in a contract . Something like a marriage contract , Ok they don’t like that contract ether . Will a non-binding verbal donor contract work .
How about a general work contract or Maybe something in the form of payment like housing and utilities .
Ok will that be anal ,No Only if I want ,No No thanks . What ! Im going to have to agree to anal . The court system demands it .
No No Im going to Ohio .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Max August 29, 2012 at 18:58

Don’t worry ladies, you won’t have to “put up” with us men for much longer. Male enrollment in college is on the decline, so you won’t have to worry too much about all the “creeps” during your time at college. Men are choosing to drop out of society or are only looking for a quick lay instead of becoming marriage material, so you won’t have to worry too much about all the “deadbeat” fathers or the husbands who can never do anything right.

Don’t worry ladies, some of us men have been paying attention, unlike a lot of you women. You don’t understand masculinity has become a crime, at least for men, and it is much more safe for men to treat all of you as enemies. You think being a woman is so difficult? How about you try being a man and deal with getting feminism slammed in your face everyday everywhere you turn. You women have no idea how good you have it. Well, one day you are going to fall off your pedestals (or be pushed off) and you will have no one to blame but yourselves. You can point the finger at men all you want, but the smart men will just ignore you.

Don’t worry ladies, some of us have reclaimed the masculinity feminism stole from us in our early years, but you aren’t going to like how we use it. Don’t expect us to use our masculinity to help you out, because you have made it very clear you think all men are pigs and trash and dirt. Have fun dying alone and watching your daughters become washed-up whores.

You wanted a world without men, and you will eventually get a world without men. There will be men in existence, but they won’t lift a finger to help any of you. Be careful what you wish for, ladies, because you are going to get it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
piercedhead August 29, 2012 at 19:05

There is nothing odd about any of this – unless one still clings to the myth that men and women are essentially the same. It is no more than a classic natural pattern reasserting itself, yet again.

The dynamics of the female herd across all species is to kick out the interlopers – the only natural herd members are the females and the young. Men get booted out as soon as they reach sexual maturity.

Female humans can no more help doing this than any other female herd species – it is in their very genes. Feminism is an attempt at intellectualizing what is instinctive – which is why it is so logically nonsensical – but it remains ‘the truth’ to its adherents all the same. They feel it with a certainty that they cannot convey with an equal argument.

As soon as women were admitted above a small presence into universities the herd dynamic would take over, and it was only a small matter of time before men were ejected. We have seen this over and over again everywhere women get a foothold. Arguing that it isn’t fair, and that it makes a mockery of law is asinine. The point is this is how it is – and that another aspect of herd behavior is its desire to eliminate all risk, meaning once a setting becomes dominated by women, it won’t adapt to changing circumstances and is doomed.

Smart men should read these developments for what they are, and heed the warning. Montana universities are now no longer really functional from a man’s point of view. These institutions are living on borrowed time – they are relics of a bygone era. Men need to seek out new ways for themselves and their futures, and avoid these places completely. The future for men is in the same place it has always been – in male spaces, amongst other men. If there are none of these left in obvious places, then men must do what they have always done when a product or service doesn’t exist for a need: make it themselves.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
zed August 29, 2012 at 19:06

Anonymous Reader
Well, that’s Matriarchy A, courtesy of the Obama administration, of Party A.

Not really “courtesy of” the current admin, they are more just the current caretakers. Remember that what Jean Valjean talked about came under Reagan’s watch, and the Antioch Rules came halfway through Bush I’s short reign.

Strangely enough for all the right wingers here griping about left-leaning MRAs, Henry Makow just published an interesting article on Bush I. If it is true, (it does come from Henry Makow, after all – who is either a complete kook, or does the best imitation of one I have ever seen) I think I am probably far to the right of either Bush I or II, as well as Reagan.
http://www.henrymakow.com/the-plan.html

Surely Party B will be different, because it’s made up of Real Men, who are Manly Patriarchs and uphold social conservatism, traditional conservatism, and so forth.

Well, I dunno… Dalrock has somewhat of a different take on Party B, and he is in a much better position to observe them close at hand than I am –

While Paul states in 1 Corinthians 7 that unmarried men are focused on pleasing the Lord and married men tend to fall into the trap of focusing on things of the world (pleasing their wives),
Dr. Mohler knows that the opposite is true:

Consider the fact that a woman has every right to expect that her husband will earn access to the marriage bed.

“I am confident that God’s glory is seen in the fact that a married man, faithful to his wife, who loves her genuinely, will wake up in the morning driven by ambition and passion in order to make his wife proud, confident, and assured in her devotion to her husband.

Dr. Mohler explains that this occurs through the moral wisdom of a woman’s tingle:

Put most bluntly, I believe that God means for a man to be civilized, directed, and stimulated toward marital faithfulness by the fact that his wife will freely give herself to him sexually only when he presents himself as worthy of her attention and desire.

And, then there is Patrick Trueman (a REAL, TRUE, man, for sure) who knows that the breakdown in intimacy between married couples, even younger ones, has nothing to do with slutwalks, women dancing around in vulva costumes, beating young men over the head with “rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, RAPE”, but is in fact all due to that terrible TeH PR0N!!!! (link from a Christian man’s website)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/27/us-usa-campaign-porn-idUSBRE87Q1A620120827
Republicans call for crackdown on pornography

(Reuters) – The Republican Party is calling for a crackdown on pornography in a move that could pit social conservatives against hotel operators, television providers and other businesses that profit from the sale of sexually explicit material.

Anti-pornography activist Patrick Trueman said the language in the Republican platform would bolster a broader push against the type of sexually explicit material that is sold by convenience stores, by hotels via pay-per-view television programming, and satellite and cable TV providers.

The widespread availability of Internet pornography has made it harder for a generation of young men to find intimacy with their wives, he said.

Of course, it couldn’t have anything to do with wives withholding sex from their husbands and using it as “treat” the way the leaders of Party B suggest.

With the deficit out of control, millions of people unable to find jobs, and a national debt which can never be paid off, it is still nice to know that the GOP still has it’s priorities straight – Matriarchy, uber allies!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader August 29, 2012 at 20:04

zed, we don’t call the GOP The Stupid Party for nothing. Calling for yet another anti-pr0n jihad at this time is astoundingly stupid. That horse is out of the barn. Back in the late 90′s early noughts I knew a single man who did some contract work for independent ISP’s – small town sole proprietor operations, with a blade server in a closet hooked to a T-1, that sort of thing. He commented that every where he went on any recent installs, the ISP access logs were pretty much the same – 75% porn sites. This was a true in rural California as it was in rural Idaho or rural Utah. Red state, blue state, no diff.

But, hey, having an anti-pr0n jihad fits the feminine imperative. Saying anything about, oh, DeadBeatDadDebtorsPrison would not go over well with the likes of Ann Romney…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader August 29, 2012 at 20:18

Anonymous Reader
Well, that’s Matriarchy A, courtesy of the Obama administration, of Party A.

Not really “courtesy of” the current admin, they are more just the current caretakers.

No, they are more than the current caretakers, they are the ones mandating this policy for each and every university in the US that takes even one dollar from the Feds. That’s a whole lot more than “caretaking”.

Remember that what Jean Valjean talked about came under Reagan’s watch, and the Antioch Rules came halfway through Bush I’s short reign.

The current push to mandate men-bad-women-good is not the same thing as what Valjean is referring to in that this push is nationwide, using the power of the Federal purse. This push by the Obama administration is more like the way Elizabeth Dole decided as Secretary of Transportation to coerce all 57 states to raise their drinking age to 21. States were free to not comply – and if they didn’t, they gave up every dime of Federal highway funding. Wyoming held out for a while, but in the end they complied as well. (And the baby boomers didn’t even raise a peep, unlike 15 years earlier when drinking ages dropped down to 18, 19, etc. Because it didn’t affect them, they didn’t care.)

I’m pretty sure the Antioch College rules were not the result of a Federal mandate, they were what the local feminists at Antioch put into effect. Would you have had the President of the US demand that they change their rules, because he didn’t like them? Where’s that in the Constitution?

And where is Antioch now, by the way?

These rules will have a chilling effect on men’s enrollment in college. IMO that’s not an accident. Matriarchy A has decided it no longer needs men to be educated. Just trained…

Matriarchy B, of course, may not push for more misandry, but we can all be very sure they won’t roll back any of the existing institutionalized criminalization of manhood.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Keyster August 29, 2012 at 20:55

I present to you Anonymous Reader; the anti-GOP, liberal — except for that pesky Feminist contingent. If the GOP banned women for life and created a MAN’S PARTY, he’d still find something wrong.

Let’s tear down this entire feminist controlled political system of governance and replace it with…with ahh…you know like a bunch of really cool MRA’s or something.

The GOP is obviously pro-feminist, just read Ann Romney’s speech. It’s all in code only girls can understand. I hear Gloria Steinem helped her write it. Miserable GOP women want to just enslave men is all! Republicans are the REAL feminists. Democrats are fairly moderate on the issue by comparison, at least according to Anonymous Reader.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Nemo August 29, 2012 at 20:56

This sort of thing is an excellent reason for men to check out edX and Coursera for online learning. I have taken or am currently taking online courses from both, and so far so good.

The STEM subjects are more interesting to men than to women and also are easier to teach online than art or “softer” sciences that do not have clear-cut right and wrong answers.

If women continue to demonize young men on camous, they just might find that most of the young men will readily switch to virtual learning instead. Thirty years ago it was still common to take a girl to the movies on a date. Today’s young men are much more likely to play video games on a Friday night instead. The same thing could happen with attending university – the real action might be in virtual space instead of on physical campuses in ten years.

The outcome of all of this shaming of innocent young guys gives them even more incentives to avoid interactions with dangerous females. If these women really think that a guy needs to get written consent every time before he makes any sexual move, then they should not be surprised if guys treat them like rabid raccoons instead of teddy bears.

BTW, Antioch shut down, due in large part to their insane rules about sex.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed August 29, 2012 at 21:17

The current push to mandate men-bad-women-good is not the same thing as what Valjean is referring to in that this push is nationwide, using the power of the Federal purse.

I’m pretty sure the Antioch College rules were not the result of a Federal mandate, they were what the local feminists at Antioch put into effect.

OK, I see what you are saying now, AR. However, there was still a lot going on at the Federal level even back in the 1980s and early 1990s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Military_Institute

In 1990 the US Department of Justice filed a discrimination lawsuit against Virginia Military Institute for its all-male admissions policy.

After VMI won its case in US District Court, the case went through several appeals until 26 June 1996, when the US Supreme Court, in a 7–1 decision in United States v. Virginia, found that it was unconstitutional for a school supported by public funds to exclude women. (Justice Clarence Thomas recused himself, presumably because his son was attending VMI at the time.) Following the ruling, VMI contemplated going private to exempt itself from the 14th Amendment, and thus avoid the ruling.[7]

Assistant Secretary of Defense Frederick F.Y. Pang, however, warned the school that the Department of Defense would withdraw ROTC programs from the school if privatization took place.

The power of the Federal purse was used here to break an all-male institution. Then, when they considered an end-run, the top military brass threatened to pull their accreditation. Smaller scale, but same tactics.

Then we can’t forget the famous Meese Commission – ordered by Ronald Reagan.

On January 22, 1986, Andrea Dworkin testified for half an hour before the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography (sometimes referred to as the “Meese Commission”) in New York City, and answered questions from commissioners after completing her testimony.[44] Dworkin’s testimony against pornography was praised and reprinted in the Commission’s final report,[45] and Dworkin and MacKinnon marked its release by holding a joint press conference.[46] Meese Commission subsequently successfully demanded that convenience store chains remove from shelves men’s magazines such as Playboy[46]

Dworkin’s and MacKinnon’s prime thesis was that after seeing copies of Playboy, etc, men would be overcome by an unresistable compulsion to go out and rape women.

In fact, it turned out to be the opposite – that actual rape rates went down, but having too little interest in women is just as bad now as having too much was considered then. Women and SoCons are just so hard to satisfy.

See, men, we will just never get it right. ;)

I don’t see very much difference between the new boss and the old boss.

The thing about what happened at places like Antioch is that the local feminists of the day have become the national feminists of today. Women have received the majority of college degrees for almost 30 years now.
http://fabiusmaximus.com/2009/07/07/women/

The only place men have held an edge was STEM, and Matriarchy A/Party A is going to take care of that real soon.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Rebel August 29, 2012 at 21:50

It seems clear to me that men must stop supporting the government.

I see two important areas where this can done without harm to men:
1-Stop financing the governent by keeping your revenue low with a tight budget.
2-Do not join the militaty under any circumstance.

And a third one:
3-Start your own little ONE MAN business. cutting down your income tax to bare minimum.

And a forth one:
4-Drop out of the brainwashing whorehouse called university.

Of course, no marriage and no kids.
You will get the government paralyzed if men do that.
If men do that, they will hold the govt by the balls.

Maintain the squeeze until total govt surrender.

Let the porridge simmer for a few years.
The empire will likely crumble but what ‘s in it to you anyway?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Whammer August 29, 2012 at 22:03

We will see if the list tags work here. Here are portions of the famous “Antioch Rules” from about the same time period that Jean Valjean mentions – this from 1991. ……………..
OK I won’t repost to save space

The only rules that matter are those rules that we call Laws and Statutes. University committees have no jurisdiction to make up arbitrary rules of comduct for adult students who are really just paying for a service. There are really no totally private colleges today since they all take outside government money to run so in effect cannot be permitted to make up rules or can they enforce those rules by expelling a student who doesn’t comply. These Universities who try this stuff should be sued if they use these made up feminist rules to harass a male student. I think that we are going to see lawsuits and once a few precedents are set the Uni will have to kiss this feminazi crap goodbye.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
walking in hell2 August 29, 2012 at 22:06

This article just adds more proof American men live in the worst country in the world for men. The American man’s existence is now like some demented, existential, nihilistic hell.

The American man is criminalized for basic sexuality, criminalized for fatherhood instincts, and criminalized for not being able to graduate from college and keep a job in a society that despises and hates him.

All this while the creatures that are called American women, are the most physically and mentally revolting women in the world.

For all you men who think the women will miss you once you have gone your own way, think again. The women will have imported a man who still believes in the American dream to replace you. But in the future my bet is that American men will not be allowed to do the same by bringing in a foreign woman.

The nightmare of Stalinism is upon us. But American Stalinism is much longer lasting because America is unopposed in the world. It is going to be a long, unhappy life for men in America.

My advice to young men is to get out while you can.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Rob August 29, 2012 at 22:33

When I was in university in the early 1990′s, the one in four rape lie was on the first or second page of the student handbook and pink rape whistles were handed out to each and every female who was at orientation.

I’ll never forget my first day at that place – boobs and whistles, boobs and whistles…

It’s hard not to look at a young girl’s tits when a rape whistle is bouncing off of them… but, I don’t think Antioch Rules were written just then, so I didn’t have to ask for permission to stare at their rape whistles.

Do I care about rape?

NOPE!

I don’t even care if you were REALLY raped!

There is no law compelling me to give a shit about your rape, and I will exercise that freedom.

Not only do I assume that a woman who claims rape is lying through her teeth, but I also use it as an indicator that she is about to pull some really twisted, fucked up shit on me and use the “I was raped” excuse to make me forgive her upcoming bad behaviour.

Just say no to women who have claimed rape.

Not my problem… unlike her and her upcoming wierdo-ness.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
jaego August 29, 2012 at 23:03

Yes I knew a liberal professor who got a job in Montana just to push poison like this. The Empire has Wyoming and Montana in its sights: far too Conservative and White. Now many Conservatives believe that race doesn’t matter – the Power Elite know that it does. Genes are the natural transmiter of memes via the family process. And what is a Race but a family writ large? And cuture but the expression of this large family in a given environment and time period?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
walking in hell2 August 29, 2012 at 23:38

@Anonymous Reader

The Ann Romney speech is a gem.

Sadly, some of us men still believe we have hope in a political party or presidential candidate to save us. Some of us men still believe the Republican party is better for us than the Democratic party.

The sad truth is we men have no friends in at the federal level in Washington; we have no friends at the state level; we have no friends at the local level.

Many of us who were born just before the 70s when feminism reared its ugly head, may not even have friends among our sisters, mothers, and grandmothers.

Some of us who were victimized by divorce, may not have friends among our own children.

For men there is little hope in America; you will likely work hard, yet be unemployed half of your life; you will try to game or “go your own way” to a pyrrhic victory with the very unattractive American women; you will unlikely be able to retire; you will unlikely be able to work when you are older because of age discrimination.

In the end you will likely be labeled a loser, or you will have to depend on the pity of American society.

Keep in mind that in Turkey men retire at 45 years of age to enjoy a long life with their grandchildren. In most Western European countries men retire between 60 and 65 to enjoy life traveling the globe.

What do we American men have that is good? Do we have stable employment? Do we have good pension systems? Do we have a good health care system? Do we have affordable education? Do we have good prospects for wives and mothers of our children? Do we have fair divorce laws?

We American men have almost nothing. If we have something, it is because of dumb luck.

I hope Ann Romney’s speech clears up any doubt that any American political party gives a rat’s ass at all about men. You can expect conditions to worsen for American men no matter who gets elected.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
walking in hell2 August 29, 2012 at 23:55

All spearhead readers, I would recommend you read Ann Romney’s speech that anonymous posted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-of-ann-romneys-remarks-at-the-republican-national-convention/2012/08/28/05c01848-f182-11e1-b74c-84ed55e0300b_print.html

This speech is probably the biggest piece of garbage I have read in ten years. It uses every trick in the book: the classic American dream, the poverty to riches story, the love for family, the heroic mom, the managing of bad expectations.

The speech sounds like it was written by a naive teenager. This speech is so bad, it might even rival Obama’s “yes we can” speech. One reading of this speech will tell you of how little hope you have that someone in Washington is going to improve your life.

If anyone has a link to the video of Ann Romney giving this speech, I would love to see it. Thanks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
jaego August 30, 2012 at 00:31

Ann Romney was asked what her favorite TV program was: Modern Family in which a gay couple is prominent. How does that square with Mormonism? Do we really know what these people believe?

I think the Mormons are going to cave on Gay marriage – just as they did on Polygamy and an all White Priesthood. A convenient revelation will be forthcoming.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
walking in hell2 August 30, 2012 at 00:53

Here is Ann Romney’s speech on video.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57502218-503544/ann-romney-you-can-trust-mitt/

It’s great to watch. You can see members of the audience mesmerized, similar to Obama’s “yes we can” speech and Hitler’s Munich speeches.

But to me she comes across as fake. She doesn’t really believe what she is saying. I think Hitler really believed his own bullshit. And I think Obama didn’t believe what he was saying; but was just a great actor.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Opus August 30, 2012 at 01:31

It does seem that the more empowered and sexually precocious women become, the more incapable they also become. Time to reintroduce the Chaperone methinks.

I find it rather curious that when I was a Law Student (before women had decided that Law was just the thing) out of a class of forty, only four were girls and as two of the students were married to each other that left three girls for thirty eight hormonal sex-starved boys. Not a single Rape was reported, and neither did we receive lectures thereon, but then the three girls remained (so far as I know) chaste throughout all the semesters.

Rape culture only seems to exist where women are Promiscuous. Hmmm.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
crypter27 August 30, 2012 at 01:45

When theres men left on college campuses,will they still be peddling these bigoted lies about?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ActaNonVerba August 30, 2012 at 02:47

The only way I would watch those videos is if I had a huge incentive. A cage match with 3 or 4 of the campus feminazis would definitely suffice.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X August 30, 2012 at 04:26

@ The Whammer -

“I think that we are going to see lawsuits and once a few precedents are set the Uni will have to kiss this feminazi crap goodbye.”

Lawsuits against the obviously unconstitutional and destructive laws at the federal and state levels didn’t work. Why would they work at the university level?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X August 30, 2012 at 04:34

@ keyster -

“Let’s tear down this entire feminist controlled political system of governance and replace it with…with ahh…you know like a bunch of really cool MRA’s or something.”

How about the Constitution.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
MRA August 30, 2012 at 04:43

“joeb August 29, 2012 at 18:48
Consent must be obtained in a contract . Something like a marriage contract , Ok they don’t like that contract ether . ”

The introduction of “marital rape” into the law was the core to make the last of many safe sex punishable, always excusing the female involved. Lorena Bobbit was the peak into the propaganda for the introduction of “marital rape” into the court system.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Art Vandelay August 30, 2012 at 05:18

that’s the kind of guidelines people who don’t (want to) have sex with men come up with. No surprise there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
interested August 30, 2012 at 05:42

So now in college, it appears that you can be thrown out for pretty much any reason around sex. And the colleges have to do it immediately or the government steps in.

Let’s just say that we have a spike in men getting thrown out of college under these regulations. Men who don’t get charged with any criminal activity because whatever happened doesn’t constitute a crime in our judicial system. So thrown out, but not charged criminally with anything.

There has been a lot of commentary on how this will drive more men to skip college, or take it online, or just start their own businesses or figure out their own way to secure a higher education.

How can this do anything but accelerate the collapse of our current facility based four year model of college? These four year institutions of higher learning need bodies in the seats. State governments are cutting college funding. The student loan system is a bubble waiting to pop. How do you fill the seats if only 20 percent of the students are men?

All it will take is just enough men getting thrown out of college where every family in your neighborhood knows of at least one situation where the guy was thrown out but no CRIMINAL charges were filed.

Most families will ignore it. Or the feminist mothers will say he deserved it no matter what the evidence and the Dad will roll over. But some of them will assess the situation and adapt. They will decide that sending their son to a four year party and hook up school is just too much risk.

Yes, the big state schools and elite private schools won’t likely be affected. But what about all the smaller state and private schools? What happens when more of the average female students can get into big state schools or well known private schools because another 10 percent of male students have opted out for alternative channels? They won’t have the bodies.

Or how about a future where you are a capable, hard working, young man who really scored well on the ACT/SAT? Think of the competition for your attendance. You can almost see a future where scholarship money will be thrown at these men. Just to keep them in that 4 year facility based model of higher education instead of losing them to alternative channels such as online learning or just plain starting their own business and skipping college.

It’s not hard to envision a future filled with class action lawsuits by everyone until it all collapses.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
MRA August 30, 2012 at 06:06

@zed
“21 years later women are flocking to read 50 shades of gray because any masculinity and sexual desire have been beaten out of the more socialized young men.”

Men’s manly behavior has been criminalized at one point when just stereotypical gay, manginas and white knights are tolerated, manginas and WK are the new definition of manhood, making women look for other source of masculinity, romantic novels, thugs etc, the BDSM comunity tend to be the most close thing to male domination women can get, romantics novels are full of BDSM like 50 shades of gray.

While men’s happiness increase women’s decrease, and that started just in the second wave, feminists sold women happiness, the great numbers of women having depression is result of 50 years of toxic indoctrination of hate.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader August 30, 2012 at 06:07

zed, thanks for reminding us all of the persecution of VMI by the Feds. I had forgotten about it, surely others had as well. It’s a pretty classic case of using the Federal hammer to push the feminine imperative where it clearly benefited only a few women at the expense of many men. And if the feminists in the Obama administration pushing this rape propaganda aren’t the same ones who put the Antioch rules in place, they might as well be. They all drank from the same toxic stream. My point, and I’m sure you see it, is that as bad as Antioch was, a man could avoid that garbage by going somewhere else – it was a local issue. Now, Matriarchy A has made it a national issue, and the only way to go to college and avoid this junk is to find a private one that does not accept a single federal dollar. That boils down to Grove City, Hillsdale, and maybe a couple of others.

Keyster, I suggest you read up on the VMI case, it was started under President G.H.W. Bush in 1990 and concluded under President B.J. Clinton in 1997. So it was clearly a bi-partisan beating. Just as VAWA has been, for example; enacted under B.J. Clinton, renewed under G.W. Bush, renewed again under B. Obama. You need to open your eyes, and see how the feminist ratchet has worked over and over again, playing Party A and Party B off against each other. There is no white knight political party for men.

Keyster, I also suggest you go read Ann Romney’s speech. Then explain to yourself just how likely it is that Mitt Romney, if he wins in November, will overturn the executive branch order mandating the misandry Welmer has so clearly documented in the original posting. Do you really believe that will happen? Really? After all that pandering to women, really? I believe that won’t happen. The best, the very best, that can be hoped for is Matriarchy B won’t cram more misandry into the law and regulatory system. So Matriarchy A can do what it wants, secure in the knowledge that Matriarchy B won’t undo any of it.

The Meese commission, man, zed, does that take me back. It is a classic, classic example of the white-knighting social conservative / feminist tag team. The kind of “for the WImmen!” dog-whistling that got Bradley passed in 1986 (When Reagan was President, Keyster) and VAWA enacted. Nowadays, feminists will claim that the Dworkin/McKinnon type of feminism “lost”, and point to 3rd stage sex-pozzies like Amanda Marcotte as proof. What they don’t want to talk about is how much of the “all men are rapists, some haven’t been caught yet” mindset has made its way into law or regulation. Dworkin/McKinnon style thought is embedded into law, and as Welmer ably demonstrates into regulation as well. There’ s no need anymore for McKinnon to give interviews on TV – she got what she wanted, for the most part.

It seems clear that we are indeed seeing the doubling-down of feminists and their white knights that TFH predicted in his work, “The Misandry Bubble”. I look forward to the day when typing “misandry” is accepted by spellcheckers, just for a start.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
MRA August 30, 2012 at 06:32

What amount of alcohol do they have to consume to be considered incapable? you can’t know when you just meet a person in a party how mush they have been drinking, 99% of people attending bars and parties at houses have been drinking, this propaganda fit perfect to the Rosin’s article and the hook up culture.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Wilson August 30, 2012 at 06:37

I only had one awkward rape assembly in college, and I wish I could go back and walk out. I feel bad for the young guys–too inexperienced and unsure of themselves to resist–who are subject to even more aggressive belittlement and disenfranchisement. They’re going to have to grow up fast to avoid being crushed entirely.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Ray August 30, 2012 at 06:54

This example of rape witch-hunting is a segment of a bigger misandry, “Witch-Hunting Males” as shown at Youtube. http://tinyurl.com/65dpzwu

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Keyster August 30, 2012 at 07:33

As a libertarian conservative I’m resigned to the fact that Romney/Ryan is as close as I’ll get to what I really want. MRA’s that fantasize about some kind of Men’s Rights platform being established are delusional…so they dismiss the entire process.

Meanwhile all Democrats want to talk about is women’s health, women’s rights, abortion, contraception, equal pay, etc. While Republicans want to talk about the economy. Watch the Democrat Convention next week. It will be one gigantic feminist pep rally. And yet you Lib MRA’s will remain obsessed with finding some kind of hidden misandry within GOP speeches, by a potential first lady no less. It’s bizarre.

I don’t no what kind of world liberal MRA’s envision. Perhaps total patriarchal dominion over all females? I guess they’ll be kept in special gestation concentration camps or something. The apolitical will get the politics they deserve.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer August 30, 2012 at 09:38

Hilarious; ForbesWoman has an essay on how to conduct “office romances” with accompanying photo essay. I swear this is a photo of Elmer and a hot asian chick :

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mkl45edee/avoid-dating-your-supervisor-or-supervisee/#gallerycontent

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer August 30, 2012 at 09:40

Hysterical. Subtitle “Pause Before You Plunge” with photo of Office Guy roguring her doggie-style :

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mkl45edee/pause-before-you-plunge/#gallerycontent

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Christopher j Thompson August 30, 2012 at 09:49

Here is what we are doing to both inform and protect men on campus… http://www.examiner.com/article/manaissance-the-re-emergence-of-men?cid=db_articles

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 30, 2012 at 10:41

Meet Matriarchy B, where Rick Santorum and Ann Romney both praise single mothers (unlike SoCon Stanton at “Focus on the Family” Ann didn’t call them “heroes”, not in so many words.

Let’s see what that flaming firebrand of left-wing radicalism, Lawrence Auster, had to say about Romney’s speech –

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/023162.html

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/023163.html

ANN ROMNEY’S DISGUSTING APPEAL TO THE FEMALE VOTE

In her speech at the convention, Ann Romney said that women “care” more than men, that society treats women unfairly and forces them to work harder than men, and that “single … mothers hold this country together.”

Mrs. Romney, along with the GOP which approved her speech, has inadvertently demonstrated once again why women should not have the vote and should not have prominent positions in politics. Because once women have the vote, they become a separate constituency with interests separate from those of men. This inevitably results (1) in female emotionalism and female resentment becoming central in politics; (2) in everyone bowing down at the altar of the mistreated, overworked “moms” of America, who are thus turned into a new type of oppressed ubermensch; and (3) in women as a group demanding substantive equality with men as a group. In short, sexual socialism.

(this is what TFH says all the time)

or, his quote from another blog actually does a better job of capturing the the whole scenario –

In the same vein, Kidist Paulos Asrat at Camera Lucida posts a sickening collage of the full-of-herself, red-dressed Mrs. Romney with her nervous, insecure looking husband, and comments:

Ann is a mixture of the exalted female, the hen-pecking wife (at a public, national convention!), an over-emotional presenter, the overwhelming wife ready to hug some sense into her husband, and the demure and pretty housewife.

Mitt isn’t any better. Clutching at his wife in a prolonged hug is embarrassing for a world leader, and he seems to have a slightly apprehensive look when next to his wife, as though he doesn’t know what she’ll do next. Holding hands has now become standard for politicians and their wives, but this is again a degradation of a public political event, where husbands clutch at their wives’ hands at any occasion.

I didn’t watch, but the above description sounds like Al Gore playing tonsil hockey with his (now ex) wife, Tipper, on the podium of the convention. (Bill Maher did a hilarious bit on politicians playing up to the “wife f**ker role.” )

Sure glad those Republicans can be counted on to have men’s backs in this political dogfight – ;)

Speaking of Auster, I wonder if he has been reading MRA’s writings – in 2006 he posted “THOUGHTS ON GYNEOCRACY AND LIBERALISM.” Gynocracy, gynocentrism – Auster really does sound like an MRA.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader August 30, 2012 at 10:57

Opus
Rape culture only seems to exist where women are Promiscuous. Hmmm.

Man, you are just asking for a slutwalk, and a sexual harassment / diversity seminar, maybe at the same time. Some ideas are clearly prohibited in the modern world and this is definitely one of them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader August 30, 2012 at 11:05

Keyster
As a libertarian conservative I’m resigned to the fact that Romney/Ryan is as close as I’ll get to what I really want. MRA’s that fantasize about some kind of Men’s Rights platform being established are delusional…so they dismiss the entire process.

I’m on record as stating that men should consider voting for Romney, as Obama is bad for them. Men just should not expect anything to happen if Romney is elected – they should not expect VAWA or Bradley to be repealed, nor should they expect these DOJ regulations to be rescinded. So tell me how that maps to your statement above, or admit that you prefer bashing strawmen to debating with real men.

It would also be a good thing if you could bring yourself to admit that conservatives have worked with feminists, against men, over and over again. Your pedestalization of “conservatives” and the Republicans is no more useful or interesting than the average “conservative” pedestalization of women.

Have you read Ann Romney’s speech yet? If not, why not? If so, what do you have to say about it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader August 30, 2012 at 11:13

zed, Auster is a big pal of Laura Woods, the emoting housewife. While it is good to see a self-labeled “traditionalist” writing such things, I would not count on him to support men’s rights when they collide with women’s privileges.

It’s kind of amusing, though, to read and compare his text with that of Keyster. Auster has consistency….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Huck Finn August 30, 2012 at 11:47

It would be something to start recording the looks on women’s faces if men first demanded that they read and sign-off on a consent to sex act release form. Imagine compiling the looks and reactions into a 15 minute video featuring numerous women with some good classical music going on in the background. It would make a great youtube video.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Ralph Gorman August 30, 2012 at 11:48

I’ve got a question for the ladies. I’m about to ejaculate so I start to withdraw. The female wants to have a baby so she pulls me back into her vagina. Did the female therefore commit “rape”?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Whammer August 30, 2012 at 11:49

Lawsuits against the obviously unconstitutional and destructive laws at the federal and state levels didn’t work. Why would they work at the university level?

Because it’s a lot easier suing a Uni that the Federal Government.
And btw, I have no idea what you’re talking about where the Fed Gov. was sued. Cite a case.
You can’t sue just because you don’t like a law passed by the Fed or State government.
You would have to prove that it was unconstitutional under either the Fed or State constitution and that your civil rights were violated and that you were adversely effected.
Unis have been sued and a some cases that were not settled in the lower courts went all of the way to the US Supreme Court and won, like Univ of Cal v Bakke and then Gutter v Bollinger.
****************
To those of you complaining about the fact that females outnumber men at Uni all I can say is that there is nothing stopping men from enrolling in Unis. So stop bitching about this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader August 30, 2012 at 12:08

This kind of Animal Farm leftism being imposed on campuses might just be the event that leads to the collapse of the college bubble. The biggest problem I see with alternative ways of learning, such as on line, is accreditation. In tech fields, you have to be certified. Sometimes it is a state test, sometimes it is run by private groups, but you have to have demonstrated competence.

If some group of colleges hard up for cash starts accrediting online degrees, or if some technical group such as the ACM (computer science group) begins issuing credentials based on a combination of tests taken and courses completed online or offline, the the accreditation issue will be solved. And then men will be able to become employable with a minimum, or maybe even zero, exposure to feminist cowshit like this.

I wonder what Montana U would do if most of the STEM students went somewhere else? A drop in enrollment is always cause for concern, and a drop in critical areas like that would be very alarming. The Federal feminists are pushing this to all colleges so that there’s “no where to go”, but accreditation of online courses would be an end run around.

Yes. This could be the beginning of the end of the college bubble.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Keyster August 30, 2012 at 12:38

Men just should not expect anything to happen if Romney is elected – they should not expect VAWA or Bradley to be repealed, nor should they expect these DOJ regulations to be rescinded. So tell me how that maps to your statement above, or admit that you prefer bashing strawmen to debating with real men.

Republicans won’t actively seek to repeal any of those things anymore than they will to repeal legalized abortion. In case you haven’t noticed we’re on the presipice of a major economic crisis. Thankfully they’ll be working on that instead.

As I said, if you’re expecting some kind of spontaneous rising up of awareness to Men’s Rights, that is NEVER going to happen. You see there is no lobby group in Washington DC specifically for men. That’s how the system works, you lobby. It’s not hard to do.

Have you ever tried to organize a group of MRAs to do anything or go anywhere? It’s like herding cats on LSD…and after all the work is put into it everybody bails at the last minute anyway.

You have no room to complain about the political situation and the pandering to women by both parties, if you’re not directly involved in changing the process, and/or using it to grow awareness. Digging up obscure little snippets from people no one’s ever heard of and nuance in words from a speech by a first lady just to prove “they’re just as bad!” serves no purpose, when compared to the Femocratic Party of Women.

You have to align yourself with a political power base. Bashing everyone all the time regardless is not useful. This is what keeps the MRM on the fringe. They’ll carry your water for you, but you’ll be expected to carry theirs too. Feminists figured this out when they embraced the Democrats as their party of choice.

I guarantee you there will be no “President’s Council for Women and Girls” when Romney takes office. As far as the DOJ and ED and all that, I guess if Republicans don’t repeal all these Obama executive orders and such, MRA’s will blame them for not being “on the side of men”. “See they’re not cleaning up the messes left by Democrats, so like they’re just as bad”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Art Vandelay August 30, 2012 at 12:41

Meanwhile all Democrats want to talk about is women’s health, women’s rights, abortion, contraception, equal pay, etc. While Republicans want to talk about the economy. Watch the Democrat Convention next week. It will be one gigantic feminist pep rally. And yet you Lib MRA’s will remain obsessed with finding some kind of hidden misandry within GOP speeches, by a potential first lady no less. It’s bizarre.

We don’t need to look for the hidden misandry, it’s right out there in the open. You seem to have a blind spot for it or just shrug it off. I think we all agree that a Democrat victory will be worse for men in the US.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X August 30, 2012 at 12:56

@ The Whammer -

“To those of you complaining about the fact that females outnumber men at Uni all I can say is that there is nothing stopping men from enrolling in Unis. So stop bitching about this.”

An education is used to impute income for calculating excessive child support. If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn’t have pursued a formal education. If you lose your job or have to take a pay cut, Bradley Amendment prevents downward modification of the order. There are many other practical reasons for men to not matriculate at university. There are many more scholarships available to women than men. For one, when I was researching my opportunities at university twenty-seven or more years ago, I was astonished at the number of scholarships and grants which precluded men and how the scholarships and grants favored women. The number of opportunities for funding of my education were smaller than those for a woman by a multiple of at least two. That hasn’t gotten any better. And after graduation, job opportunities and pay for women are greater. Just to name a couple. The governments have made an education for men not just worthless but actively destructive for men. Do you agree that these developments would present important obstacles to education at university for men?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
ahamkara August 30, 2012 at 13:00

Wow. That Ann Romney speech is really tragic. Just a reminder of how far both major parties are from addressing men’s issues. The fact that they even allowed her to say those things is very telling.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed August 30, 2012 at 13:15

My point, and I’m sure you see it, is that as bad as Antioch was, a man could avoid that garbage by going somewhere else – it was a local issue. Now, Matriarchy A has made it a national issue,

I do see your point, AR, but the point I am making is that it was not as much of a local issue as you portray it to be.

Think of it as being like the recent wildfires near Colorado Springs. In one respect, that was a local issue – Colorado Springs was burning, but Boulder wasn’t. A man could have avoided the garbage of the wildfires by going somewhere else – like Boulder.

But, if the fire was not contained or put out, it was going to spread. That is the point I am making about feminist memes – they have just kept spreading, and spreading, and spreading. While they were fairly small and localized – and could have been put out if men had been aware of how dangerous they were and how they were going to spread – most people pretty much ignored them.

So, they spread to Boulder, and guys just moved north to Ft. Collins. Then, the fires spread to Ft. Collins, so the moved up to Casper Wyoming, and then to Missoula, Montana. And, now the whole western US is being consumed by wildfires and there is nowhere left to go to.

A feminist named Sally Miller Gearhart, in her 1981 (31 years ago) article “The Future—If There Is One—Is Female” writes:

“At least three further requirements supplement the strategies of environmentalists if we were to create and preserve a less violent world.

1) Every culture must begin to affirm the female future.

2) Species responsibility must be returned to women in every culture.

3) The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately ten percent of the human race.

It appears to me that #s 1 and 2 are done deals, and the first phase of number 3 is in its beginning stages – drive men out of teaching, drive young men out of college, put as many men as possible in prison, and make sure the maximum possible number of men are unemployed to make them economically and socially marginalized. I expect them any day to announce that now that people are used to having boys drugged, that they are going to start “chemically castrating” them. Nobody is batting an eye over circumcising Africa.

Legally, two X chromosomes are the equivalent of a 00 number – a license to kill – babies, children, men.

I don’t think they are going to stop until someone stops them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Whammer August 30, 2012 at 13:18

Daryl-I’ve never met anyone who could use so many excuses and rationalisations than you for not doing something. And btw, you attend Uni to become educated not to get some job afterwards.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader August 30, 2012 at 13:20

Keyster
Men just should not expect anything to happen if Romney is elected – they should not expect VAWA or Bradley to be repealed, nor should they expect these DOJ regulations to be rescinded. So tell me how that maps to your statement above, or admit that you prefer bashing strawmen to debating with real men.

I guarantee you there will be no “President’s Council for Women and Girls” when Romney takes office.

Really? Do you want to bet? I very much expect that office to become as permanent as all the special sweetheart set-asides for “women owned businesses” have become, as all the special treatment of women in college has become such as the Clinton interpretation of Title IX. I base this opinion on reality. The reality that GW Bush could have reversed some of this, and chose not to do so.

As far as the DOJ and ED and all that, I guess if Republicans don’t repeal all these Obama executive orders and such, MRA’s will blame them for not being “on the side of men”. “See they’re not cleaning up the messes left by Democrats, so like they’re just as bad”.

Gee, that’s a tough one. The Dems have mandated kangaroo courts in all colleges, where men are guilty until proven innocent, and therefore can be kicked out of college by any female who falsely accuses them of a sexual misdeed. You’re saying that if the GOP refuses to change this, it shouldn’t be regarded as an attack on men. I’m sure that your argument will make a whole lot of sense to the average 20 year old man who has been informed after the fact that he has been convicted of some sexual misdeed, by someone who will remain anonymous, and he has to leave college.

So basically you’re saying that if the Dems abuse men, it’s bad, but if the GOP abuse men, why, it’s good and we should just take it.

Clearly the GOP is more important to you than anything else.
Anything else. Including logic.

Keyster
Republicans won’t actively seek to repeal any of those things anymore than they will to repeal legalized abortion. In case you haven’t noticed we’re on the presipice of a major economic crisis. Thankfully they’ll be working on that instead.

Keyster, the subject of this thread is regulations imposed on all colleges that accept a Federal dollar by the US Dept. of Justice. Unlike VAWA and Bradley, that can be reversed by the next Attorney General. It won’t require any legislation, unlike repealing VAWA, or court decisions, unlike abortion.

And I predict that it will not be reversed, no matter who is sitting in the White House. You can call that progress if you wish.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
MaMu1977 August 30, 2012 at 13:42

I’ve travelled through Missoula and Great Falls. If my memory serves me well (and seeing as how I was at Malmstrom AFB in 2010, I’d say that my memory is pretty accurate), this could be the start of the bursting bubble (re: misandry in America.) It’s hard to push “omnipresent raype” stats in an area in which everyone knows everyone, and there were plenty of Montanan women who had no problem with telling *most* of the claimants to cut the shit. Even the piece on Missoula’s “rape epidemic” in Jezebel had as many defenders as detractors. As a charming young woman from Helena told me, “Girls who yell ‘Rape’ when everyone saw them get drunk, pick a drunk guy and wander off are messing it up for the rest of us.” And when it comes down to it, that’s what the majority of Missoula’s victims are: girls who got drunk, told their friends “where to go” and “what they could ram up their ass” when told not to leave, then they want to “BAWWW!” and complain when things don’t work out as planned. City girls and suburbanites (who live in cotton candy houses) are easily deceived, country girls (and I’ve known my share of Yoopers, to give an excellent example of the type) know what side of their bread is buttered and how to avoid the guys with sharp knives (and how to pick the guys with good-enough knives, incidentally.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 30, 2012 at 13:43

Auster is a big pal of Laura Woods, the emoting housewife. While it is good to see a self-labeled “traditionalist” writing such things, I would not count on him to support men’s rights when they collide with women’s privileges.

Of course they won’t. However, it is really funny to watch people who sit to the right of Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun saying the same thing that MRAs are saying.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X August 30, 2012 at 14:22

@ The Whammer -

“I’ve never met anyone who could use so many excuses and rationalisations than you for not doing something. And btw, you attend Uni to become educated not to get some job afterwards.”

I’m surprised by and disappointed in you.

Rationalization – the most commonly used defense mechanism, in which an individual justifies ideas, actions, or feelings with seemingly acceptable reasons or explanations. It is often used to preserve self-respect, reduce guilt feelings, or obtain social approval or acceptance.

I am not offering up an excuse to preserve self-respect, reduce guilt or obtain social approval. I have no self-respect to preserve. I have nothing to feel guilty about. And I certainly don’t want social approval. (I haven’t achieved all that I have because I seek social approval – just the opposite.)

I am identifying a logical and reasonable explanation why number of men matriculated at university has declined against women so precipitously the past ten or twenty years. It’s not rationalization or an excuse.

The reality is, university educations are extremely and prohibitively expensive. More so for men than women. Especially the Natural Sciences. Unless you are already independently wealthy, that education had better translate into more income or ability to survive without one.

At least you better be able to pay off the cost of the education. Otherwise, it’s wasted. I spent eleven years at university. I make less and have a smaller net-worth than the average Walmart stock boy or bartender. And have been denied any opportunity to do better than I am. It’s systemic. And I wasted my entire youth trying to get out of the street.

A woman with virtually no education and no experience has more opportunities for higher-paying employment than I do. My circumstances in the US are common for men like me with similar education and experience. This country values boobs and vaginas more than it values an education.

I didn’t pursue an education at university so I could learn. I could have done that on my own, except faster and better. I was counseled back when that in order for my extraordinary intellect to translate into a standard of living above poverty, I would need a college degree. Well, that isn’t true. And young men need to understand that. They don’t need to go get an expensive college education to become educated. The whole education system in this country from Kindergardten up to a PhD is nothing but a sham.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X August 30, 2012 at 14:33

@ The Whammer -

And it may not have occurred to you, but do you understand that the governments in the US are deliberately using the education system to persecute systematically men and especially very intelligent men who may pose a threat to it. The way the Germans, Stalinists, Chinese, and C’mer Rouge did. If you do not understand that it is happening, you need to read some more and take a few more red pills.

I do not find excuses or rationalize. You however do have an over-simplified view of the world with too much faith in the way it is supposed to work when it seldom does work that way. If the problems I and other men were as easy to overcome as you frequently portray them, then there would be no problems and no need for the MRM.

We are in serious shit and the only way to get out of it is to identify and understand the problems. The what, how, where, when and particularly the why of them. Most people are still trying to get past the what stage. I graduated to why thirty years ago and am waiting for everyone else to catch up. Steep learning curve for some.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X August 30, 2012 at 14:42

@ The Whammer -

Oh, and if I appeared not to appreciate your thoughts, I apologize. You actually do have a lot of good ideas and understanding of these problems and their solutions. Just that sometimes you can be a bit obtuse in your expectations that they may always be applicable. I really do hope someday that the system will actually work the way you describe and should work. Until then, onward…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
bobsutan August 30, 2012 at 16:15

I was raised in the 80s and 90s where we had a phrase, “just say no”. If you succumbed to peer pressure and smoked, drank booze, did drugs, or in context of this issue… have sex, then you succumbed to peer pressure plain and simple. Hopefully there wouldn’t be any serious consequences and it could be used as a teachable moment about doing the right thing (saying no). This is orders of magnitude away from being held down and having booze poured down your throat, drugs shot into your veins, or someone otherwise forcibly violating you. This rampant false equivalency of being pressured into sex as rape is a gargantuan disservice to victims of actual rape.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous age 70 August 30, 2012 at 18:28

>>and there is nowhere left to go to.

Find yourself a globe. They look like a basketball, with colored things all over them. Those colored things represent different nations on the planet. There are many places to go, and in most where English is not spoken, men are treated much better.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jean Valjean August 30, 2012 at 19:30

“I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.”

Initially I considered this the most impossible idea ever because feminists weren’t actually telling women they should initiate sex.

HOWEVER, can you imagine what would happen if you attempted to implement this mandate. When you aren’t getting the sex you want you act like an ass (like women act when they don’t get what they want). When she doesn’t offer to blow you when you are horny you claim she doesn’t take our relationship seriously. When you pay for dinner but she doesn’t jump your bones afterwards you sulk and give her the silent treatment and when she finally asks you remind her how much you give to the relationship and that she takes you for granted.

Honestly, I think this could be something huge for men if they had the balls to implement it. Women take their privileges from men for granted. They would see things differently if we started acting more like women ie. entitled.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Andrew Richards August 30, 2012 at 19:32

While I agree with most of the points; it seems that too many people here have been too busy kneejerking to factor rape where battered men are concerned, into the equation. There was a study into male victims of domestic violence done by the Mens Advisory Network and their findings were interesting where rape was concerned and which related to my own experience of domestic violence. My ex never physically laid a hand on me. She just pushed exactly the right buttons (which included using the child abuse I endured as a psychological weapon) until I was emasculated enough to copitulate. Anyone here who understands the dynamics of domestic violence, especially where psychological abuse is concerned, will understand why you can’t “just walk away” when they’ve gotten that kind of a hold on you.

I’m not saying that there aren’t loopholes to be tightened, however when combatting the “rape culture” issue; it’s far too easy to forget about issues affecting female-on-male rape, especially as we’re all taught from an early age that there’s an unspoken rule that an erect penis automatically means consent. Let’s not turn this into YET ANOTHER example of the fight for the Alpha male (which is screwed up anyway as our goal should be Zeta masculinity) resulting in raped and battered men being thrown under a bus.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jean Valjean August 30, 2012 at 19:40

@ ZED ” “rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, rape, RAPE”, but is in fact all due to that terrible TeH PR0N!!!! (link from a Christian man’s website) ”

Without bothering to watch that video I will say something interesting about pornography. It does reduce intimacy between men and women.

Sex is an addiction. By puberty we’ve got the itch to get high and we never lose it until we can’t function any more or until we are dead. From the first time we rub one out or have sex we are chasing that dragon all our lives. Porn is nothing more than a sex delivery system.

Porn is to sex as Crack is to Cocaine. It gives us every imaginable woman in every imaginable position saying and doing every imaginable thing. And the average slutwalker can’t compete against it.

As the saying goes, “All things in moderation” and you can manage your porn habit and a relationship with a woman, but you can also go crazy with porn and watch it all the time and wear yourself out. Eventually, sex won’t be that interesting to you. That is my experience and I don’t mind saying that it scared me at first.

Now I love it. I love the fact that there is absolutely nothing a woman has to offer me and I love how it bothers them when a 41 year old man doesn’t give them a second look. I’ve got female friends and a few of them keep wanting to have sex with me. I keep saying no and they keep coming back. I’m what they can’t get and they don’t know that they never will. I just don’t want them.

Loss of attraction to women has been the best thing that has ever happened to me. Between listening to women bitch about men for the last 40 years to just not caring about sex it has made me more free and given me more choice and happiness than all the years before it.

Male libido is slavery. It’s the shackle that keeps men enslaved to the interests of women and the state. Once its broken they can’t own you anymore.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader August 30, 2012 at 21:38

zed
Think of it as being like the recent wildfires near Colorado Springs. In one respect, that was a local issue – Colorado Springs was burning, but Boulder wasn’t. A man could have avoided the garbage of the wildfires by going somewhere else – like Boulder.

But, if the fire was not contained or put out, it was going to spread. That is the point I am making about feminist memes – they have just kept spreading, and spreading, and spreading. While they were fairly small and localized – and could have been put out if men had been aware of how dangerous they were and how they were going to spread – most people pretty much ignored them.

Yes, I see that. But you are missing something else.

So, they spread to Boulder, and guys just moved north to Ft. Collins. Then, the fires spread to Ft. Collins, so the moved up to Casper Wyoming, and then to Missoula, Montana. And, now the whole western US is being consumed by wildfires and there is nowhere left to go to.

Don’t forget that at some point, this stopped being a wild fire. The day the Feds showed up over the front range, deploying a fleet of aircraft that dropped incendiary bombs from Trinidad to Virginia Dale in one afternoon. That’s what we are dealing with. It’s deliberate firebombing.

So in one sense, yes, Antioch and this are the same. In another sense, though, we’ve gone from a wildfire that could be contained, to a firestorm that is being dropped on our head by explicit government plan.

And if the GOP wins the White House, the incendiaries will continue to drop.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ode August 30, 2012 at 23:58

Jean

Porn is to sex as Crack is to Cocaine. It gives us every imaginable woman in every imaginable position saying and doing every imaginable thing. And the average slutwalker can’t compete against it.

There’s a branch of feminism that is against porn precisely for this reason. Not because porn turns men into sex maniacs who will uncontrollably attack women but the exact opposite. Porn calms men and makes men uninterested in women, at least real women.

This is why I’m a strong supporter of porn. If you spend your time looking at porn princesses who are 9′s doing what every man wants to see you are less likely to put up with crap from a real woman who is a 6 acting like an entitlement princesses.

I have a theory that 1 out of 2 feminists are smart enough to understand that women have naturally inferior capabilities to men. The only real leverage point a woman has is against a man’s achilles heel which is his libido. However they don’t want to lose face so they’ll never openly admit to it. It is women who are on the left hand side of the IQ beel curve that believe
“…women can do anything that the boys can do — and do it better, and do it in heels….”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X August 31, 2012 at 05:53

@ anonymous age 70 -

“Find yourself a globe. They look like a basketball, with colored things all over them. Those colored things represent different nations on the planet. There are many places to go, and in most where English is not spoken, men are treated much better.”

LOL

This is great advice. But a little outdated. It was much more applicable to someone in your generation than someone in a more recent one. If you can afford to retire someplace other than the US, great. But most can’t. And I’m not trying to rationalize or make excuses. Just explaining why leaving the US has become much more difficult than it used to be. Advice to men.

First, cost of living abroad in most countries is not as cheap as it used to be. In Costa Rica, for instance, cost of a minimal subsistence life style is about what it is in the US. Same with Nicaragua. Certain items and their catagories may vary in price from one country to the next, but in general cost is about the same.

In many other place like Canada, Europe and Australia, cost of living is much greater than the US. India and China may still be a bargain (although that is changing fast too), but you have to put up with 1-1.5-billion people in an area one-third the size of the US. If you’re not a people person, those aren’t great destinations.

Second, you need a passport to do anything in any country anymore. Without a passport, you can’t get ex-pat status. You can’t do any banking (in most countries, you must present a passport to use a bank, even to simply exchange currency). Without a passport, you are an illegal immigrant.

While an American used to be able to stay in a country illegally with little problem or in fact welcomed and in luxury, most countries have become very aggressive at pursuing and deporting illegal immigrants, even ones from the US. Even staying in these countries legally has become so complicated and taken over by bureaucracy that legal residency even if you could get it is an important obstacle to staying.

Which brings me to number three. Most countries are extensions of the US. As we’ve seen recently with the US gaining access to private Swiss bank accounts. If you are living abroad, even if you were able to get an account in a foreign bank, the US all but has access to it. So if your account was vulnerable to seizure here in the US, it’s just as vulnerable abroad anymore.

Number four. The US is a police state to extremes and most people are habituated and blind to it. They’re sheep. But even countries like Costa Rica and Nicaragua and Puerto Rico (to the extent it is independent of the US) are police states. And feminist police states at that.

Costa Rica has a female president and she is a feminist lunatic. Puerto Rico is nothing but a playground for feminists. As big as it is, India is run by its women. Which explains why everything is so fucked up (that’s how I envision the US someday – we’re using India as our model).

Many countries are small relative to the US. Living in the US has one big advantage. We are geographically a big country. It’s not easy to escape in the US, but easier to escape problems if you were in a tiny country like Costa Rica and without a passport.

I don’t know what Mexico is like. My examination of it from a financial perspective suggests that it’s less expensive than places like Costa Rica (but still expenses are rising rapidly). And less prone to feminism. So maybe you got while the gettin’s good and landed in the right place at the right time. Getting out of the US is a good idea.

But where to go will depend upon a very thorough evaluation of many criteria. But then you must be committed to going. As wicked as the US is, leaving it is still very hard for someone born and raised here. Not just practically, but because it’s home. I often struggle with my mind divided between leaving and fighting. I wouldn’t blame any man for wanting to get out.

All I’m writing is that things have changed a lot. Certainly since 9/11 but also since the economic collapse five years ago. Both these events changed the nature of escaping to the frontier dramatically. It’s still possible, but much harder than it used to be and has ever been.

It used to be that for most places, the biggest obstacle to escaping to the frontier was a man’s will to do it. To leave his family. His home. Today, while those are still obstacles, there are many more and important practical ones that a man needs to consider. The least of which is the countries to which a man may escape are declining in number and their distinction from the US isn’t what it used to be.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous August 31, 2012 at 06:37

I’m glad that universities are educating students on prison rape, where most rapes happen. They aren’t? Oh. Well at least they are talking about age of consent laws. No? Hmmm.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed August 31, 2012 at 08:05

Yes, I see that. But you are missing something else.

Don’t forget that at some point, this stopped being a wild fire. The day the Feds showed up over the front range, deploying a fleet of aircraft that dropped incendiary bombs from Trinidad to Virginia Dale in one afternoon. That’s what we are dealing with. It’s deliberate firebombing.

So in one sense, yes, Antioch and this are the same. In another sense, though, we’ve gone from a wildfire that could be contained, to a firestorm that is being dropped on our head by explicit government plan.

And if the GOP wins the White House, the incendiaries will continue to drop.

And, the local water supplies will be cut off, and snipers and swat teams will be deployed to take down anyone who even tries to fight the fires.

Those planes did not get built, the incendiary bombs did not get manufactured, the supply lines did not get built, and the pilots did not get trained all in one afternoon. They did not suddenly spring into being as if by magic. Someone could not wake up in the morning, say “Hey, I have a great idea, let’s launch a blitzkrieg this afternoon. Wave your magic wand and make a bunch of tanks, artillery, and trained soldiers appear.”

Antioch and Jean Valjean’s college classes on “rayyyypppppeeee” were training exercises – testing out new weapons and figuring out how far people could be pushed without waking up and fighting back.

Anyone ever wonder where all these “Wimminzes Studdees” majors go? They don’t just evaporate as soon as they graduate. The get make-work jobs in government, implementing their PhDs in hating men.

Small skirmishes like Antioch teach the pilots how to avoid the anti-aircraft guns, and give the artillery the chance to practice laying down covering bombardment.

Then, 20-30 years down the line, Rip Man Winkle wakes up and figures out where all these airplanes that the factory next door has been churning out are going to be used for.

“How did this happen?” he asks himself.

I believe that things are going to keep getting worse until the average man wakes up and starts to defend himself and his sons – no matter which party is in charge at the moment.

Both sides are doing the same thing the commanders did in WW I – saying “Once more boys, ‘man up’ and over the top” and watching “the boys” get moved down by the machine guns of the enemy.

Not to worry, “boys”, dead heroes always get posthumously “honored for their ultimate sacrifice.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader August 31, 2012 at 13:11

Yes, zed. Yes, indeed. Or to put it another way:

http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2012/08/whats-in-name-civil-unions-and-shared.html

This is how it is done when you implement Marxism via gradualism – while Lenin did it fast and encouraged people to go along with him via threats of violence, gradualism does it by slowing things down so that people forget. If you study a little closer, you will discover that we have, indeed, spent the past forty years implementing the exact same types of social changes that Lenin did in his first four years of rule. The amount of time is the only difference. Lenin used violence within four years, and our system of Marxism is using forgetfulness/the generation gap over a longer period of time. The ultimate result is still the same, however.

(This is a classical brainwashing technique, btw – 1- “un-freeze” from current acceptance levels, 2 – Move the subject to a new level, 3 – “Re-Freeze” at the new level until the change has become normalized/accepted, 4 – Repeat the process until the proper amount of “movement” has taken place).

When the GOP wins an election, it’s stage 3 of the above…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Thos August 31, 2012 at 16:02

Each new level of sexual activity requires consent.

Wasn’t there a Satuday Night Live sketch parodying this?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
walking in hell2 September 1, 2012 at 00:27

“that’s how I envision the US someday – we’re using India as our model”

I envision the future America as a combination of India, Palestine, and Mexico.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
nugganu September 1, 2012 at 08:04

Is this shit the feminist equivalent of teasing and foreplay?

Seriously, all this is going to accomplish is it will make girls ravenously horney.

Is it consent when she’s yelling at you to “Please F*ck her now?”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader September 1, 2012 at 20:37

nugganu, it’s to enable women to spread her legs for a man they believe to be Alpha and still have the option a day or more later to cry “Raaaaayyyyppppe” if he turns out to be less of a may-un than they thought.

See “Eating your cake and having it too”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
American September 2, 2012 at 06:57

The White Gender, Gender-Raunch community doesn’t want equality based socialism for all, they want state and federal sustained pork bloating to fund “their equality” only, the rest of us will have to work for a living.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gamerp4 September 3, 2012 at 09:42

“More gems include the idea that silence indicates nonconsent, which I suppose means that if you have sex with a foreigner, and neither of you can understand the other verbally, you have automatically committed rape.”

Lolz Your Kidding Right? I even didn’t saw any of the videos (Because i dont want a stomach ache) but truly is this what feminist have stooped too Wow this seems to be a clause of IMBRA because it smells like it, BOYS you cannot have sex with an Asian, Russian, Brazilian or any other IAN and if you cannot understand their language and have sex with them it might be considered RAPEEEEEEE, Oh Boy Are these lunatic for real i mean dont they know that SEX is a 2 way street and every girl who is having sex is not blind and could see a man putting his penis in her vay jay jay so how come language barrier is the reason to call it a RAPEEEE.

I hate feminism really i do, with it Many Men are trying hard NOT TO HATE WOMEN but it seems hard not too. FUCK MEN lead me to a different world i Hate this one GOD.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bharatiyaa September 9, 2012 at 12:27

“As big as it is, India is run by its women. Which explains why everything is so fucked up (that’s how I envision the US someday – we’re using India as our model).”

I’m Indian and you are absolutely wrong about this.

“that’s how I envision the US someday – we’re using India as our model”

I envision the future America as a combination of India, Palestine, and Mexico.”

As an Indian I see you Americans take the good stuff from my culture; our philosophy, yoga, meditation, aesthetics like music and dance, and our holistic medicine like Ayurveda – but you don’t adopt our bad stuff.

And that’s a good thing!

I can enjoy all the positive aspects of my culture in the US without the bullshit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: