Where Are All the Men’s Organizations?

September 15th, 2009 by Pelle Billing

This question is something I’ve been thinking about lately. Considering that half the population is male, it would make sense for any country to have lots of men’s organizations. Still, I don’t seem to be able to find them. Now, it’s not that we don’t have any men’s organizations of course, because we do, for example the following kinds:

  • Father’s rights organizations
  • Organizations where men practise commitment and accountability (à la Promise Keepers)
  • Ethnic organizations for men (Million Man March)

But these aren’t really the kind of men’s organizations I’m looking for. Where are the large, coherent organizations that stand up for men’s rights, and speak up about how the male gender role affects men negatively? Wikipedia has a list of women’s organizations, but the list of men’s organizations is conspicuously absent.

The absence of strong men’s organizations became painfully evident recently in Sweden when there was a prominent debate in the media about male circumcision (there is no Swedish tradition to circumcise men, but we have lots of Muslim immigrants and also a small Jewish community that practise circumcision). The only ones who spoke up against male circumcision were a few male surgeons who refused to perform the procedure, even though the Swedish government has ordered hospitals to offer this service to those who want it. A survey later showed that two thirds of surgeons were reluctant to circumcise healthy boys.

Anyhow, the main point is that no men’s organization spoke up because there are no men’s organizations in Sweden that could speak up. Where the men’s groups should have been, was only a compact vacuum.

This is a stark contrast to the numerous women’s organizations that exist in Sweden, feminist or otherwise. The end result is that male circumcision is still allowed in Sweden, even though female circumcision has been banned for almost three decades (Swedish people don’t practise that either, but some African immigrants do).

The more I work with men’s issues and issues of gender equality, the more I realize that no substantial progress will be made until men self-organize in larger units that can then speak out for men’s rights. Individual efforts are great, but in the long run organizations have more staying power than any one individual.

48 Responses to “Where Are All the Men’s Organizations?”

  1. Danny Says:

    I agree. One of the problems is the generalizing lie that the organizations that are in place are “men’s” organizations be default when they only represent Elite Joe and in no way represent Average Joe. Whenever an Average Joe speaks up he is silenced by people who, instead of actually interacting with him, elevate him to Elite Joe status for the sake of their generalizations and rants just to drop him back down to his Average status once said Joe has been silenced.

    Those men’s organizations need to headed by Average Joes that don’t live the life of luxury that people like to assume he lives.

  2. Feckless Says:

    From another European country, Germany, I slowly see a strong MRM forming.

    Recently a large magazine featured Men´s Rights on the front page and a TV series was shot down because of anti-male sexism.

    Times are slowly changing. Is there really no movement in Sweden?

  3. Pelle Billing Says:

    The movement in Sweden so far is a small group of bloggers, and one man who wrote a book that got some attention. But for the most part it’s still being ridiculed and there’s no organization yet.

    It seems that Germany is a bit ahead of us.

  4. Jim Says:

    In the US the men’s organizations that used to exist have either withered – the Elk’s Club/Masonic Lodges/Oddfellows/Moose Lodge – or else been forcibly integrated with women and thus do not count as men’s groups. No big loss when it comes to men’s rights activism, because these groups would have advocated for traditional norms rather than men’s rights.

  5. Jay R Says:

    Where are MRA organizations? I know you are not kidding, so I will answer seriously:

    Any HINT of “male only” or “male-centric” organization is routinely and successfully characterized as the efforts of chauvinistic “misogynists,” upset by their loss of “privilege,” to drag women by the hair back to the kitchen, and is swiftly attacked and actively suppressed by the existing feminist organizations.

    The few remaining male bastions (e.g. Augusta Golf Club) are relentlessly attacked as unfair and “hostile” to women, who, of course, expect at the same time that they will have the “safety” and refuge of female-only clubs and organizations. I understand that in Canada an effort was made to officially suppress anti-feminist and pro-male views as “hate speech.” The same thing happens in U.S. colleges and universities.

    The modern women’s rights movement (as it was fraudulently represented) succeeded because women and men generally supported it. There was virtually no organized opposition to it (so much for the myth of feminists’ heroic battles). It turns out that the goal of equal rights and opportunities for both sexes was the Trojan Horse by which radical gender (“equal results”) feminism infiltrated educational, business, and government institutions. Proper “due diligence” by society was effectively thwarted — it wouldn’t have been chivalrous, after all, to demand rigorous analysis and truthful exposition of the amazing claims being made by women’s self-appointed “representatives” in the process of rescuing women from the oppression of home, husband and family obligations.

    The entrenched, well-funded Feminist organizations’ reflexive and active hostility to MRA organizing just shows that their ideology has nothing to do with “equality,” and everything to do with bringing men down, and keeping them divided — and conquered. They are doing a GREAT job so far. (The fact that feminism is also bringing most non-elite women down is just so much collateral damage, right?)

    Remember, it’s one of the male “privileges” that neither men nor women care much at all when a man suffers. It’s expected of him, after all, as a member of the disposable sex.

  6. unomi Says:

    I agree, but would like to point out that Jewish people can be, and are, Swedish too. After 500 years in the country you have to give them that.

    I think what you’re referring to is Swedish Christians versus Swedish Jews.

  7. Danny Says:

    Jay R:
    Remember, it’s one of the male “privileges” that neither men nor women care much at all when a man suffers. It’s expected of him, after all, as a member of the disposable sex.
    And for a man to complain when he is being wronged is whining because as you say the male gender role teaches us that suffering in silence for the sake of others is a mark of being “a real man”.

    I recently looked at a post in which a feminist was trying to prove that misandry does not exist and is only a made up term by men are upset that their privileges are being challened (her proof was that since men have some privileges all unfair disadvantages that harm men are negated and don’t count). As soon as she read my post she comments on her blog that I was an MRA and said my blog roll was full of MRA fail (I better tell Womanist Musings, Shakesville, Random Babble, and Portly Dyke that they have been reclassified as MRA blogs. I’m sure they be happy to know). That’s a problem for 2 reasons:

    1. I have never identified as an MRA. For the same reason that I don’t take the title of feminist there is way too much arguing over the MRA label. Mind you all the “arguing” is from:

    2. There are a lot of feminists who are actively trying to define what a men’s right activist is. Why do this? For the sake of controlling the discourse. You notice how feminists will attack anyone who misuses the feminist label? Well they are misusing the MRA label in an intentional effort to dirty it. Yes they may try to say that they are only pointing out what is obvious. This is a smokescreen. Plain and simple feminists want, no need, the MRA title to be as dirtied as possible in the eyes of the public in order to insure that men are not able to help themselves in positive ways that are not approved by them first.

    If MRA organizations are going to rise and do good things for men one of the most important things that needs to be done is the very label MRA has to be reclaimed as the label of a person who wants to make the world a better place for men and taken away from feminists who want to make it as dirty as possible for their own greedy needs. Feminists need the MRA title to remain an insult so that they can make sure men’s concerns stay on the back burner.

  8. Jim Says:

    “Any HINT of “male only” or “male-centric” organization is routinely and successfully characterized as the efforts of chauvinistic “misogynists,” upset by their loss of “privilege,”

    Well, Jay, maybe the time is finally ripe for men to rally other men to just stare this one down at last. We’ll get a lot of help from women this time, I think.

    God knows the old-time men’s organizations were worse than useless in this regard.

    “The modern women’s rights movement (as it was fraudulently represented) succeeded because women and men generally supported it.”

    You’re talking about the male-dominated patriarchal power structures, aren’t you?

    “it wouldn’t have been chivalrous, after all, to demand rigorous analysis and truthful exposition of the amazing claims being made by women’s self-appointed “representatives” in the process of rescuing women from the oppression of home, husband and family obligations. ”

    Translation: it wouldn’t have been chivalrous to treat women as equals and expect the same treatment in return.

  9. harry Says:

    1. Talking to feminists on the internet is a complete waste of time.

    You might as well pop along and chat to a group of soldiers of an invading army.

    MRAs need to do at the least the following.

    a. Attack those at the top who are funding and encouraging feminism.

    b. Alert more men.

    c. Reduce the power of government.

    2. There are no strong men’s rights organisations for a number of reasons.

    a. Governments benefit by funding feminism, but they would not benefit by funding men’s groups – except those that will do what government wants them to do.

    b. Female histrionics is a well-organised enterprise – mostly funded by government. The result is that the media are terrified of upsetting women.

    c. The abuse industry consists of millions of people who want jobs. These people need to demonise men in order to make a living. As such, they support the feminist agenda.

    d. The powerful tabloid media make millions from abuse hysteria – which is mostly directed against men.

    e. Breaking down families and nations is a major goal of the governing elite, who want to aim for one-world government. Those who actively support this aim are promoted up a very profitable career ladder. And there are thousands of them.

    f. Large companies make their profits at the margins. For many of these companies, therefore, promoting feminism (e.g. through advertising) and the consequent breaking down of relationships, means that they can sell more products and increase VASTLY their profits.

    g. As a result of all the above – amongst other things – no-one cares about men.

    In other words, the forces promoting feminism and the undermining of men are, absolutely enormous. They are colossal.

    And they will not be countered with polite discussion, mild complaints or facts.

  10. Pelle Billing Says:

    I agree that it’s a waste of time to talk to online feminists. It’s ordinary men and women that need to be reached by a more constructive message about gender issues.

    “a. Governments benefit by funding feminism, but they would not benefit by funding men’s groups – except those that will do what government wants them to do.”

    Can you say more about how governments benefit from funding feminism?

  11. Danny Says:

    Pelle:
    Can you say more about how governments benefit from funding feminism?

    Political brownie points. I’m now sure how it is in your country Pelle but in the States when lawyer, judges, District Attorneys, etc… go overboard with some bill, law, measure, or criminal/civil trial in order to show that they are acting in the “best interests of the children” they are often taking that posture because they know everyone cares about children so its a good way to muster support for their campaigns.

    Same thing with feminism. Contrary to what feminists there are a lot of politicians in highend places that are concerned about women. Now just like the politicians that do things for “the best interests of the children” they know that expressing concern for women is a great way to get support for their campaigns. However like those politicians that are acting in “the best interests of the chidren they know that all they really have to do is pretend to care about women in order to get that support and in some cases can actually push for things that will hurt children and men if they put it under the guise of looking out for women.

    Example: Domestic Violence.
    Over the last few decades a massive support system has come up to help women who are abused. We all know its a good thing because there are women out there who are abused and they need help and at face value there is nothing wrong with this. Problem is there are those out there who benefit from the current understanding of DV which is that DV is pretty much understood as something that only men commit and only women are victims of. This is what allows judges to rubberstamp protection orders against men by literally nothing more than a woman saying “I’m scared of him.” (that’s right not even a chance for that man to defend himself against the accusation). This is what allows for the media to portray a man as guilty of a crime against a woman as soon as the charges are announced but scrap up ever iota of doubt when its a woman commiting a crime against a man (and espcially against children, look up Melissa Huckaby and Sandra Cantu). This is what allowed for Mary Winkler to kill her husband (at night, while he was sleep, with a shotgun to the back, and watch him die) and then go on Oprah crying about being abused by the man she killed and no one question her story (BTW she got next to no time in prison and retained custody of the kids).

    Actual concern for women is a good thing but there are people out there that know good and hell well that pretending to care about women is a surefire way to gain some political brownie points.

  12. harry Says:

    @Pelle

    “Can you say more about how governments benefit from funding feminism?”

    Read this! …

    http://www.angryharry.com/esWhyGovernmentsLoveFeminism.htm

  13. Jay R Says:

    How does government benefit from feminism?

    – Gov’t. can tax women’s paid work outside the home (at the highest marginal rate when added to husband’s income), but can’t tax women’s work inside the home.

    – Gov’t. can also tax the work of other women (and some men) who fill the vacuum left by working mom: housekeepers, nannies, daycare workers, etc.

    – Gov’t. loves the additional sales taxes generated by the additional consumption that comes with women’s forced march into the workplace.

    – Gov’t. can better gain control of individuals when traditional family structure is destroyed: the State has inserted itself (via feminism’s effort to “protect” women) into the formerly private relationships between husband and wife, and between parents and children. Remember, the “Village” is raising your kids, not you. Many women (who are not part of the mostly-white feminist elite) and their kids are now largely dependent on the State, rather than on individual men. Those displaced men are relegated to paying the bulk of the taxes used to support these “heroic single mothers” — at least when they are not incarcerated.

    – Feminism is just a form of communism/socialism, as has readily been admitted by influential feminists (e.g., Betty Friedan, Catherine McKinnon, Simone de Bouvoir, et al.). Thus, feminism seeks to expand the power of the State at the expense of individual liberty, equal protection of the law, and personal responsibility.

    The State LOVES anything which 1) increases its scope and power, and 2) makes it richer at taxpayers’ expense.

    I could go on, but I’m getting ill just thinking about it — and the passive pussification of the Western male that made it all possible. Women in effect have said to men, “We are going to rape you, but at least you’ll get sex out of it.” And men have said, “Ok.”

    Pathetic.

  14. Jay R Says:

    Harry,

    I could have saved myself some typing and just posted, “What Harry said!”

    Keep up the good work. I think I shall call you “Mr. Asskicker”!

  15. George Says:

    The Men’s Movement is alive and well but it does not function well as organisations. Instead it is an organism. I will post an email I got that tells the story better than I can.

    The leaders of the Men’s Movement around the world have made two huge errors in the past and that is because of the way they think this fight should be conducted. The first error is in trying to build an army by building an organisation and the second error is in trying to take the feminists on in head on battles. Both are serious errors.

    By the time men started to wake up to the danger of feminism and realise it was much more than just a political club for disaffected girls, those girls were already close to the main power structures in the western political world and had already done terrible damage to the foundations of our society. They had a huge head start and had succeeded in convincing those in power that they really were only interested in “women’s rights” and nothing but those rights. Those of us who knew better were a tiny minority, because we were the only ones who had studied them and knew what their real aims were.

    As we started to sound alarm bells (and I am talking about 25 years ago) gradually, more and more people started to listen and the fledgling Men’s Movement took off. It was still pathetically small but it was healthy. At least, it was for a while! The problem was, that inside it, people soaked in intellectual arrogance (often a totally unwarranted arrogance because they were as intellectual as dead bugs on a windscreen) began to want to run things in their own way. These wannabe Napoleons rose up and the only thing they had going for them as leaders was that they were good with words (and sometimes not even that) and they had good powers of persuasion.

    Everyone of these people tried to form an organisation that would eventually govern a national or world wide movement. Everyone of them failed and they failed for the same reason that Men’s News Daily failed. The moment the feminists (who as you know, are really run by powerful and very clever political and economical forces behind the scenes) saw an organisation forming they infiltrated it and took it over by spreading dissent, fear, false accusations, confusion and all of the other stuff they did to get power in the country in the first place. It is classic Marxism at work, but for some reason, “leaders” in the Men’s Movement convinced themselves that they and their organisations would be immune from these attacks. I think, because most of them had no real idea who and what they were fighting.

    Sun Tzu “Know your enemy” From the Art of War.

    I watched all of this down the years and learnt from it. They did not! Instead they became filled with despair and gave up. One after another I saw very clever men burn out or walk away. Some, incredibly, tried to do the same things again because they convinced themselves that it was an organisational/personnel problem and once again they failed. The truth was, that they had not grasped some very simple principles and for those reasons they were doomed to fail from the start but did not know it. When I tried to tell these people why they were failing I was either ignored or dismissed. Intellectual arrogance will do that. I left them to it. These “genius’s” were learning quickly that they were not as smart as they thought.

    The biggest danger to any nation is not the enemy outside the walls. You can see them and work out their tactics. You can learn from what you see and fight to win. It is the traitor within you must fear. They infiltrate and inform on all of your tactics and preparations. Your strengths and weaknesses. These so-called “organisations” were quickly riddled with traitors just as M.N.D is now.

    Mistake number one is trying to form a large organisation to fight head on, a force three times as powerful as your own. It will never be allowed to gain strength because the moment it becomes high profile it will be infiltrated and sabotaged and end up working for the enemy. They (the enemy) love us to make organisations because it saves them the trouble. We do the work and spend the money, they steal the results. It fails, yet again! This will go on happening until men (all the men in the organisation) learn to recognise the infiltrators and they will not do that until they know their enemy inside out and have learned to become vigilant and police their ranks. In other words: any organisation MUST have its own intelligence force within it. The problem is, that before enough really trusted men and women have been recruited, they are taken over and destroyed. So, another way has to be found.

    First some realities must be understood. This war is just that… a war! It is total war and it is mainly a political war. It is a battle for the hearts and minds of the people and the enemy is cultural Marxism. What is more, many politicians and reporters are stupid. REALLY stupid and so cannot see the enemy they are having dinner with. We have to educate them.

    Second. This war is being fought by powerful people with almost unlimited economic resources.

    Third. This is a dirty war. It is not a battle to be fought on just an intellectual level but every single possible resource has to be used carefully and has to strike at the right targets. That means that intelligent leaders who know how to fight are VITAL!

    Fourth. It is a guerrilla war from our point of view. We cannot win (and should not even try) by head on attacks or by forming high profile organisations. We must strike in places we are not expected; with weapons they do not know we have; in ways they cannot defend against; from bases they cannot find. We must be an organism rather than an organisation.

    Fifth. We must look out for and train people who are totally committed and who have been vetted by the wisest of minds we have among us.

    Sixth. We must capitalise on victories, however small, by using them to recruit others and those others should first and foremost come from the youth.

    Seventh. We must inspire those around us.

    Eighth. We must NEVER disclose our strength or weakness in any area to the enemy. NEVER! We must always leave them guessing.

    Ninth. We must be flexible and ready to use other organisations not connected with our fight (even if they have no idea we are using them) to fight with us. This has been done successfully here in the UK and it shook the political establishment all the way up to the prime ministers office. So we know it works.

    Tenth. We must learn to be cunning and to deceive our enemy whenever we can. They are big and slow to react, we are small and light on our feet, so out maneuvering them is not difficult providing we do it well.

    Eleventh. We must refrain from boasting about victories unless it will demoralise the enemy, or discussing fears that will demoralise our own fighters. However, sometimes we must claim a victory we have not had to destabilise the enemy and put them on the defensive and to promote our counter propaganda. When our fighters understand that our enemy is unstable in mind, we can use that instability against the enemy by promoting it. (As was done with Harriet Harman here in the UK)

    Twelfth. Every member of our forces MUST be aware of the nature of the war and must be committed to it. However, that will not be possible all of the time. Therefore, until it is, we must make the best use of what we have by not expecting barely committed men and women to do big tasks. They must be fed small jobs they can do and when they do them well, they need praise. In this way, their confidence grows and they are inspired to fight better in more committed ways.

    Thirteenth. We must become aware of what our men and women are good at. What skills they have, however trivial those skills are, and how we can best use them.

    Fourteenth. The ordinary fighter has no need to know what the generals plans are until the day of battle. The less they know the less they can talk about. Security in small groups is just as important as in large groups.

    These guerrilla tactics will succeed where no large organisation can. When the forces are large enough and the men and women within them have been proved by intelligence, willingness to fight and by understanding. That is the time to organise them into a large organisation because, by then, they will be intimately acquainted with the forces against them and their tactics and will be ready to put in place the intelligence forces the organisation will need to keep out infiltrators.

    Finally. This was how the Americans decimated the superior British forces in the war of independence. They did not “stand and fight” they hit and ran. Refusing to fight on the battlefield. The same is true in Afghanistan and has been shown to be effective countless times around the world in history. We have to learn these tactics and deploy and adapt them, flexibly, in our war. To do that, we have to get serious about the war itself and understand the nature and tactics of our enemy as well as our own strengths and weaknesses. The only intellectuals we really need are generals and advisers. Cromwell, for example, was an expert fighter but he was not the smartest cookie off the battlefield. His advisers though were loyal and true. If any were found who were not, they got shot. We can’t shoot people but we can and must be ruthless and kick them out if we have too.

    Only people who need to know, need to know!

  16. james Says:

    @George

    You seem to be living in a fantasy world.

  17. George Says:

    @ james

    If you say so it must be true.

  18. james Says:

    Well, since you claim to know what to do, George, then why don’t you do it?

  19. George Says:

    I claim to know what to do?

    Hmmm.

    Any men come to this place at all?

  20. Jim Says:

    “Well, since you claim to know what to do, George, then why don’t you do it?”

    Because that would be the opposite of what George is advising. He is advising against individuals standing out in the fight where they can be identified to be either neutralized or used as rallying points. He is advising against solid organizations that can be cited as rallying points and propaganda markers, and then infiltrated and neutralized. He is calling for a movment rather than a structure.

  21. Danny Says:

    Have to admit what George says makes sense. I do think that one thing that men’s organizations are doing in error is that they think they can rise up in the same manner women’s organizations did. The landscape is VERY different from 40 some odd years ago. A perfect example is Glenn Sacks. Bless his heart for what is doing but feminists have locked in on him and have qualms about attacking him.

    When up against a larger power straight forward tactics will not work.

  22. Harry Says:

    Well, I understand what George is saying.

  23. George Says:

    Bingo!

    Nuff said.

  24. George Says:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/6196220/Paternity-leave-Its-not-natural.html?state=target#postComment

    Nice discussion going on here. The usual Ad Hominem attacks of course from the feministas but all in all a great stage to make points on. See, Dangerous Dan McGrews comments. I like Dan. I almost feel like I know him.

  25. Jerry Says:

    All very good points. After over 25 years as a men’s-rights activist, I offer this list of reasons men shy away from matters of gender:

    Why Few Men Protest Anti-male Sexism
    http://battlinbog.blog-city.com/why_so_few_men_protest_antimale_sexism.htm

  26. Chris Marshall Says:

    George:

    Third. This is a dirty war. It is not a battle to be fought on just an intellectual level but every single possible resource has to be used carefully and has to strike at the right targets. That means that intelligent leaders who know how to fight are VITAL!

    I’ve started to actively explore this concept. I am a strong believer in honesty-is-the-best-policy and have a hard time entertaining dirty tactics. On the other hand, I am beginning to think that they are so successful that to turn your back on them is to accept defeat.

    Above, you also talk about not trying to build a coordinated movement. Don’t dirty tactics almost require a coordinated movement?

    What dirty tactics make sense?

    It occurs to me that an arsenal of one-way hash arguments might be a valid dirty tactic to use.

    For example Warren Ferrel’s quip that “Women are the only oppressed class in all of history whose oppressors go out in the fields and work for them” is a pretty powerful one. I’ve tossed that one out at a few dinner parties to derail feminist jam sessions from time to time.

    I am struggling with your point about secrecy. How could you really employ secrecy among a diffuse movement over the internet?

  27. Pelle Billing Says:

    “Women are the only oppressed class in all of history whose oppressors go out in the fields and work for them”

    I don’t like dirty tactics, but I don’t think that the statement above is a dirty tactic. I think it’s a brilliant way to get people to start thinking about gender roles in a new way.

  28. Chris Marshall Says:

    “Dirty” is a spectrum, I suppose ;-)

    I agree it’s brilliant.

    I think of it as a real in-your-face challenge which glosses over the fact that both men and women can be used quite harshly by society to further its drive to expand its power, putting the focus squarely on how men get the shaft.

    It’s perfectly fair to hit someone with who is trying to imply that historically, women have gotten the shaft and men have not, or that the average man has even benefited from the oppression of women.

    You could certainly use that statement to imply that women don’t have much to complain about historically. And I think that would be untrue/unfair.

  29. Danny Says:

    I would also say that one vital tactic that would help would be to open men’s eyes and help them realize that the things they call themselves taking on as “part of being a real man” are indeed hurting them with the heavy emphasis on them.

    Its all fine well and good for feminists to talk about how women have had a limited presence in the workforce but there is not much discussion on how men literally work their lives away and don’t devote much time to their families because they think that to be considered a “real man” one has to engage in such activities. There is a belief (and men AND women are responsible for upholding it) that to not take on all the burdens of work and outside the home requirements for raising a family is to fail at being a man. Men need to learn that providing for the family is a partnership and the burden of working outside the home doesn’t have to fall completely on the man at all times for all times. But not just for the sake of women who are fully capable of taking on a fair share of that burden but the sake of letting men know that they don’t have to do just to prove that they are a real man.

    And that is just one example of several in which men need to start looking out for themselves not just for the sake of other people (which is a good reason mind just not the only reason) but for their own sake and wellbeing as well.

  30. Jim Says:

    “…on how men literally work their lives away and don’t devote much time to their families because they think that to be considered a “real man” one has to engage in such activities. ”

    True, but there was a protracted debate on the female equivalent, called the “Mommy Wars”. One side held that women who chose to stay home were subvertng the feminist project. The standard explanation was that these women were victims of their false consciousness.

    “Men need to learn that providing for the family is a partnership and the burden of working outside the home doesn’t have to fall completely on the man at all times for all times. ”

    My son is 22. He just had a romantic brush with a woman a year or so older, 8-month old child, stuck in Jacksonville, FL, etc. She was a semester away from a law degre supposedly, and then it turned out she had been a semester short for many more than one semester. He was a sailor and he was her way out. She may actually have had real feelings for him, but the facts of the situation make it impossible to say for sure. The kicker was when she told him she would really just like to be a housewife, and stay home to take care of him. yeah right, and thejn forever yammer at him about the career she gave up for him, that never had gotten started. He managed to get out of it.

    And now later he tells me he is interested in no one who doesn’t have pretty close to his same level of career ambition. It helps that that is exactly what his mother and sister have done with thier lives. If he wants someone to feed and have lie around the house, he can get a cat.

    So there’s hope for the next generation.

  31. Danny Says:

    True, but there was a protracted debate on the female equivalent, called the “Mommy Wars”. One side held that women who chose to stay home were subvertng the feminist project. The standard explanation was that these women were victims of their false consciousness.
    Yes I do agree with the notion of being a victim of false consciousness in fact that is what I’m saying is happening to men. Most gender debate centers around the notion that men are always on top and women are always on the bottom and anything bad that happens to men and women (at the top, middle, bottoms, etc…) must be the responsibility of men. This is the wrong way to go about making changes. How can you expect men to take responsibility for making changes by holding them responsible for everything including the things beyond their control?

    And Jim I’m glad your son got out of that relationship. It should not all fall on him to be the provider nor should it all fall on her to be the caretaker. Even if one of them appears to want it they could be blind to their own situation or are trying to take advantage of their partner as in the case of your son.

  32. Dangerous Dan McGrew Says:

    Groan! I think all of you boys and men must have grown up under feminism and now you cannot think outside of the Marxist thought patterns you have been fed. Please, go do some research and then THINK about it.

    The false consciousness is the feminist idea that men should stay home and look after the kids while mummy goes to work. THAT IS THE LIE. It was when that lie was accepted that the whole family unit began to fall apart. It was then also that the war between the sexes took a nasty turn. It was then the whole ides of family courts taking fathers out of the equasion was born. It was then that abortion became legal and has resulted in 50 MILLION (think about that) dead babies in the States alone! It was then that the feral child became a reality in a big way with an explosion of kids into drugs, violence and so on not seen since the 18th century.

    Business interests working alongside feminists wanted women out of the home but for different reasons. Business wanted a another huge raft of greedy consumers to sell things too and feminists wanted to destroy the family and marriage. They also want what they call “Village care for children.” This is the idea that neither men nor women should take care of the kids but that the State should rear them.

    Once you have grasped the idea that feminists REALLY DO want to destroy the family and marriage, everything they are now doing makes total sence. Until then, you are just confused and grasping at straws.

    AngryHarry gets it. His web site is filled with examples of what feminists are doing and why. Go take a look. The trouble is, often there is so much description and not enough explanation.

    All men and women under forty have been brought up this plan and many, many of them cannot see it. They are too close. For them, this all seems natural because it is what they were taught at school and by their parents often. It is NOT natural at all. Nature has provided the perfect solution to child rearing. Mummy raises the kids and daddy goes out and gets the food. Feminism broke into that process and the results have been a complete mess.

    This is pure feminist thought. “And Jim I’m glad your son got out of that relationship. It should not all fall on him to be the provider nor should it all fall on her to be the caretaker.” It is the result of years of subtle brainwashing. It is also a total and complete lie. It is RUBBISH and until that is seen, both this generation and the next is royally screwed.

    Don’t take my word for this. Go check out what happened in Russia where feminist politics were in place for seventy years until Gorbachev repealed it. Go see what happened to them and to the children.

    Go read the poem “The Ballard Of Dan McGrew.” While the men fight the woman steals the gold. Exactly that is happening all around you guys. WAKE UP!

  33. George Says:

    Chris Marshall Says:

    September 21st, 2009 at 3:55 pm
    George:

    “Third. This is a dirty war. It is not a battle to be fought on just an intellectual level but every single possible resource has to be used carefully and has to strike at the right targets. That means that intelligent leaders who know how to fight are VITAL!

    I’ve started to actively explore this concept. I am a strong believer in honesty-is-the-best-policy and have a hard time entertaining dirty tactics. On the other hand, I am beginning to think that they are so successful that to turn your back on them is to accept defeat.

    Above, you also talk about not trying to build a coordinated movement. Don’t dirty tactics almost require a coordinated movement?

    What dirty tactics make sense?

    It occurs to me that an arsenal of one-way hash arguments might be a valid dirty tactic to use.

    For example Warren Ferrel’s quip that “Women are the only oppressed class in all of history whose oppressors go out in the fields and work for them” is a pretty powerful one. I’ve tossed that one out at a few dinner parties to derail feminist jam sessions from time to time.

    I am struggling with your point about secrecy. How could you really employ secrecy among a diffuse movement over the internet?”

    Let me take each point in turn Chris and thank you for your comments.

    When a dirty war is mentioned it means that this is a war in which the opposition rely upon lies and exaggerations. They twist statistics or invent their own. The only “studies” they are interested in are studies they have done and fixed to get the results they want and so on. At the same time, men are demonised in every medium possible. You probably know all of this so I have no need to repeat it. However, we have a weapon they do not have and it is the most powerful weapon of all…..It is the truth. Now, making that truth into slogans, as you suggest, is a superb idea. It is the opposite of the enemy tactics of making lies into slogans. We have to take the truth and use it effectively but not just on the Internet. We have to become kind of, Men’s Movement evangelists at home, like you at dinner parties, at work, on the streets, in buses, in bars, in fact, anywhere that we meet other people. Then, when we start our discussions we need the facts ready to hand and the slogans that will drive those facts into the minds of the hearers. In doing this, we take our fight OUT of the virtual world (but not completely) and into the real world also.

    Do you see? You are already doing it Chris!

    The next point is this. The piece said, “This is a dirty war.” It did not say, “We must fight dirty.” Yes we will have to decieve our enemy because fighting a war without the art of deception is dumb and I think you would agree. However, that applies to the tactical part of the fight and not to the weapons.

    Misdirection, for example, is an excellent tool. Suppose, just for an example, that a demonstration was being planned in Badgirl city. If the opposition got to hear about it, (and we make sure they do) they would be ready and waiting with a counter attack. So, if the Internet buzz said that a demo was taking place and it was hinted at that it might be going to happen in BadBOY city, the enemy will go to the wrong place. The leaders of our men know where it is going to happen and only the leaders. They dribble out the misinformation and the enemy goes to the wrong place. It is a dirty TACTIC that wrong foots the opposition and shows them we are smart after all. That eats away at their moral which is what we want to happen. That is just one example. A little creative thinking can prioduce many, many more. The joy that comes with minor siccesses like these boast our own moral and increases confidence in the leadership and among the troops.

    A coordinated movement is not the same as a coordinated organisation, remember that. Also, the Men’s Movement is world wide. It is not possible to coordinate men in diverse countries on a large scale without a large organisational structure that is then open to infiltration. Therefore, small scale coordination among leaders only is the key.

    One or two groups at a time are used in hit and run operations against selected targets. This can work in real life and as well as on the net. For example. Imagine a university that constantly pumps out anti male hatred in various ways. Now, these places rely upon their reputation in order to attact paying students….Right? So, that is where they are weak. A punishing email campaign aimed at teachers, the school board, the local press, the students, (male and female) and their parents is launched. These emails list the lies, the exagerations and so on, counters them with true facts and then asks a simple question. Why should parents send their children to educated at a place that sanctions lies against fifty percent of the population? Those who are responcible are named and shamed on temporary, locally set up, Internet sites and bulletin boards. Free ones if possible. If this were happening in the State of say, California then only groups in California will be involved in the fight. However, if things get nasty (and they often do) an S.O.S is sent out to all leaders of all local groups world wide. Now all groups can join the fight and flood the protaginists mail boxes with protests of many and varied kinds. Try to imagine their reaction when they discover that their university is being derided the world over and their reputation is in grave danger! What is more, these groups around the world can be tiny or huge, it does not matter. The key is the RESPONCE comes from all over the world. If each member of every group has six or seven different free email addresses he or she can use the enemy will never know how big or small any one group is. Think about the impact of that!

    As suddenly as the attack by us began, it is ended. The sites are removed all contact with them stops and we watch to see what they do next. If they put it right, we leave them alone. If not, we come back stronger than ever and this time we also target the local business community and politicians. Then we vanish again and on and on it goes. Country by country, state by state, town by town.

    The real world application of this kind of hit and run battle can easily take place by putting voluteeres into the audiences of chat shows on local TV and onto the air waves on the phone in shows. These volunteers make it plain that we are sick of what is going on and we are going to stop it. Not with violence but with brains. Each volunteer is trained in what to say and how to say it. Everyone knows their jobs. When it is done, they vanish again to be debriefed later.

    Secrecy over the Internet is actually easy to achieve. Don’t use it in conventional ways. Think about that.
    Remember, only those who need to know, need to know and they are a small group themselves.

    Go here for just one example: https://www.gold-lock.com/app/en/Home

    I think I have covered everything Chris. If not, just post another question or two. Remember, our enemy used a lot of violence to get where they are. We will never do that. Instead we will show the watching public that it is US who are the responcible ones but, we can use what the enemy did to our advantage. In the end, their dirty tactics and lies become OUR wepaons against them. It is hard for decent people to support liars so in the end, we get the support back. IF we handle it right.

    Sorry for any spelling or grammatical errors. I am tired, the text is small for my poor eyesight and I am too lazy to check it all right now.

  34. Chris Marshall Says:

    George:

    Thanks for all the detail in your response. I think I get what you are talking about now. I couldn’t agree more.

    Your description of a successful campaign reminds me of Glenn Sack’s DART campaign. I thought it was masterfully handled.

    Would you agree with that assessment?

  35. George Rolph Says:

    Yes. I agree the DART capmpaign was and is a great project.

  36. Jim Says:

    “This is pure feminist thought. “And Jim I’m glad your son got out of that relationship. It should not all fall on him to be the provider nor should it all fall on her to be the caretaker.” It is the result of years of subtle brainwashing. It is also a total and complete lie.”

    You’re full of shit. It is no man’s responsibility to feed, house and clothe a parasite. A wife who isn’t bringing her share of income into the house is a parasite. Period.

    Because she can’t bake bread, much less grind the garin for it. So she uses her husband’s money for it. She can’t sew, much less spin and weave, so she uses her husband’s money for that. These days half of them can’t even cook, much less start a fire, so they buy take-out and feed that crap to his children.

    Parasites.

    You want to talk about saving the family? Then restore the legal protections for the parent-child relationship, because that is the basis of the family. The basis iof the family is NOT the bond between a man and whatever women hooked him. Family names are passed from father to son to grandson, on and on, NOT invented by a married couple. What a bunch of brain-dead romantic bullshit.

    That means getting rid of “tender years” doctrines and the general thinking that children are the purview of women. This means getting rid of thinking that womnen conrtrol the house, and are owed it, whether they put a dime into buying it or not

  37. Dangerous Dan McGrew Says:

    Yep! Usual Ad Hominem attacks from the male “sisters.” No counter thought contemplated. No knowledge expressed. Just the usual feminist rhetoric from the local mangina trying to sound revolutionary and ending up sounding like a fool.

    Waste of space. No brains. No knowlege just theory.

    YOU Jim are what we are fighting. Glad you emerged from the shadows.

  38. Dangerous Dan McGrew Says:

    Law, Jim, is a result of culture not the other way around.

    When cultures change the laws reflect that change. Therefore, whoever leads the way culturally has the law behind them. In the nineteen sixties and seventies, feminism was the cultural leader. The laws changed rapidly to reflect their cultural position. Divorce became easier. Family law became ever more intrusive and anti father. Statutory legislation flooded out of government to make single parenthood financially rewarding. Huge benefits were given to single mothers while tax laws were altered to mitigate against the traditional two parent, married family. All of this and much more, began to have huge and damaging effects. Not just upon families but upon children. Particularly male children. Girls were given huge aid in schools, work, business and so on. The boys began to fall back. In schools, boys behaviour was discouraged under a deluge of politically correct nonsense that said men and women were conditioned not by natural processes but by their environment.

    Massive efforts around the western world were put into projects designed to turn boys into good little females and girls into boys. The whole nature versus nurture debate raged even while this was happening. Because of these stupid ideological ideas from the Marxist Feminist left, an entire generation of confused boys emerged. These boys were torn between their true nature and the false, imposed and unnatural pseudo-nature they had drummed into them. The confusion in them led them to into not knowing how they should react in any given situation. Their real nature told them one thing. Their imposed nature another. Many of those boys have no grown into adults and still have no idea how to be their natural selves. Of this group, many of them are the so-called “new-men.” They are a pathetic shadow of what they should have been and resemble real men only in physical appearance most of the time. These are the girly boys of today.

    When these boys were growing up they doing it in an environment hostile to their fathers and to men in general. This hostility gave them no where to look for role models for their gender. The nearest thing they could find to a real man (as opposed to a fake “new-man” was on the movie and TV screens but even these characters were under attack for being, “too macho.” So hostile was their environment that in many countries traditional boys toys in stores were no longer offered for sale. Toy guns were out. Adventure story books all had girls in the starring role. Girls were starved of fairy tale books because princes coming to rescue them were deemed to play up to natural stereotypes which were now deemed “evil” and were therefore, not a part of the nurture ideology. It was from these ideas that the whole aggressive “girl power” ethos emerged. Aggression was fostered and encouraged in female children and suppressed in male children. This meant that neither gender was behaving according to their natural inclinations. At one point, medical experiments on a few boys were carried out with terrible results. Boys were dressed in pink from birth and raised as if they were a girl. This was done to show that there was no such thing as a “natural boy.” These boys invariably killed themselves later on. Their lives made a misery of confusion, fear and massive internal pain.

    This is the danger of ideology running rampant in a society given no choice but to accept it. The laws, of course, followed and upheld the new culture, as I said.

    During this pogrom of what was natural, girls lost skills that had been handed down from mother to daughter for thousands of years within the natural family unit. All of those things you mentioned and many more Jim, were lost along the way. Technological advances and access to virtually throw away cheap clothing for just one example, made the ability to sew almost unnecessary in any case. If your jeans or shirt got torn, they were no longer patched because they were cheap enough to buy more and toss the damaged items into the garbage. Grinding corn in the home kinda went out of general use in the west a couple of hundred years ago Jim.

    Feminists had sworn to destroy the family unit and bring up children in the community using what is termed, “Village Parenting.” In their Utopian fantasy, fatherhood and motherhood would become a thing of the past. Adults would have children which would then be raised by us all through the welfare state. In other words. Communism. To achieve this aim, attacks on men, masculinity, family and marriage were vital. The bond between a man and woman in the home had to be broken. The bond between parent and child also had to be smashed. Hostility had be engendered against those who resisted these plans while making those who cooperated look good. The brainwashing of children in schools, as described above, created the generation in favour. The demonization of marriage, family, real men and stubborn housewives who valued family values was begun in earnest. Anything or anyone that stood for the “old” way had to be shot down. Only the new ideology could be tolerated. Part of that demonisation process involved calling men who in favour of the family, slavers of women and oppressors in the home. Part of it involved calling women parasites of such men. Now you know where your thinking comes from Jim! Brainwashing works….Huh?

    The war between the genders is a carefully stoked war. Every wedge that can be driven between men and women; men and children; married and unmarried etc, must and will be hammered into place for the purposes of attaining the Marxist utopia of smashing capitalism by smashing the western family unit.

    None of this is new. It was first tried out in Russia under the soviets. For seventy years, Russian families endured massive feminist attacks that brought ruin to men, women and children alike. The devastation was terrible. Women became robotic imitations of men and slaved away in factories. Their children were abandoned to the streets. Fathers became indolent, drunken, drugged up shadows of the men they had been. The countries productivity suffered so badly that often there was no food in the stores and huge queues of grandparents looking for bread would form outside of bakeries every morning. So bad did the situation become that when Gorbachev came to power one of his first acts was to repeal all feminist laws and encourage marriage and the return to the family unit. Gradually the healing has begun in Russia and the old values are returning. Though there is a long way still to go. In the west however, politicians have been far more stupid.

    All of this and more that I do not have time to write here, is what you are supporting Jim.

    The shit, lies in your head pal. Not mine. You spout it having no idea what you are talking about and you are a danger to the men’s movement until your head gets into gear. You, are what that excellent email reproduced above by Geroge is all about.

  39. Dangerous Dan McGrew Says:

    This is what feminism does…..

    The Shooting of Dan McGrew
    A bunch of the boys were whooping it up in the Malamute saloon;
    The kid that handles the music-box was hitting a jag-time tune;
    Back of the bar, in a solo game, sat Dangerous Dan McGrew,
    And watching his luck was his light-o’-love, the lady that’s known as Lou.
    When out of the night, which was fifty below, and into the din and glare,
    There stumbled a miner fresh from the creeks, dog-dirty, and loaded for bear.
    He looked like a man with a foot in the grave and scarcely the strength of a louse,
    Yet he tilted a poke of dust on the bar, and he called for drinks for the house.
    There was none could place the stranger’s face, though we searched ourselves for a clue;
    But we drank his health, and the last to drink was Dangerous Dan McGrew.

    There’s men that somehow just grip your eyes, and hold them hard like a spell;
    And such was he, and he looked to me like a man who had lived in hell;
    With a face most hair, and the dreary stare of a dog whose day is done,
    As he watered the green stuff in his glass, and the drops fell one by one.
    Then I got to figgering who he was, and wondering what he’d do,
    And I turned my head–and there watching him was the lady that’s known as Lou.

    His eyes went rubbering round the room, and he seemed in a kind of daze,
    Till at last that old piano fell in the way of his wandering gaze.
    The rag-time kid was having a drink; there was no one else on the stool,
    So the stranger stumbles across the room, and flops down there like a fool.
    In a buckskin shirt that was glazed with dirt he sat, and I saw him sway,
    Then he clutched the keys with his talon hands–my God! but that man could play.

    Were you ever out in the Great Alone, when the moon was awful clear,
    And the icy mountains hemmed you in with a silence you most could hear;
    With only the howl of a timber wolf, and you camped there in the cold,
    A helf-dead thing in a stark, dead world, clean mad for the muck called gold;
    While high overhead, green, yellow, and red, the North Lights swept in bars?–
    Then you’ve a hunch what the music meant…hunger and might and the stars.

    And hunger not of the belly kind, that’s banished with bacon and beans,
    But the gnawing hunger of lonely men for a home and all that it means;
    For a fireside far from the cares that are, four walls and a roof above;
    But oh! so cramful of cosy joy, and crowded with a woman’s love–
    A woman dearer than all the world, and true as Heaven is true–
    (God! how ghastly she looks through her rouge,–the lady that’s known as Lou.)

    Then on a sudden the music changed, so soft that you scarce could hear;
    But you felt that your life had been looted clean of all that it once held dear;
    That someone had stolen the woman you loved; that her love was a devil’s lie;
    That your guts were gone, and the best for you was to crawl away and die.
    ‘Twas the crowning cry of a heart’s despair, and it thrilled you through and through–
    “I guess I’ll make it a spread misere,” said Dangerous Dan McGrew.

    The music almost dies away…then it burst like a pent-up flood;
    And it seemed to say, “Repay, repay,” and my eyes were blind with blood.
    The thought came back of an ancient wrong, and it stung like a frozen lash,
    And the lust awoke to kill, to kill…then the music stopped with a crash,
    And the stranger turned, and his eyes they burned in a most peculiar way;

    In a buckskin shirt that was glazed with dirt he sat, and I saw him sway;
    Then his lips went in in a kind of grin, and he spoke, and his voice was calm,
    And “Boys,” says he, “you don’t know me, and none of you care a damn;
    But I want to state, and my words are straight, and I’ll bet my poke they’re true,
    That one of you is a hound of hell…and that one is Dan McGrew.”

    Then I ducked my head and the lights went out, and two guns blazed in the dark;
    And a woman screamed, and the lights went up, and two men lay stiff and stark.
    Pitched on his head, and pumped full of lead, was Dangerous Dan McGrew,
    While the man from the creeks lay clutched to the breast of the lady that’s known as Lou.

    These are the simple facts of the case, and I guess I ought to know.
    They say that the stranger was crazed with “hooch,” and I’m not denying it’s so.
    I’m not so wise as the lawyer guys, but strictly between us two–
    The woman that kissed him and–pinched his poke–was the lady known as Lou.

  40. Jim Says:

    “YOU Jim are what we are fighting. Glad you emerged from the shadows.”

    YOU Dan are a waste of cum. Do you seriously think I am going to let my son sacrifice himself to a lazy, worthless little white bitch just to resurrect your failed vision of society? He is not grist for you or your social agenda.

    Your pussy-pandering chivalry is the enemy here. Men feeding, housing and clothing stay at home breeders is the enemy here. They can get their asses a job or they can peddle pussy on the street. What else are they good for?

    And if they can’t do their share raising the kids – their share, not all of it, because God help a child raised by a woman with a man gone all the time – then dump them in the street. The prisons are full of men raised by women, losers raised by wolves. But you think that’s just the way it ought to be

    You can make a fool calling everyone else a mangina all you want, but we can all see which side you’re on. The feminists like men who stick up for women no matter how useless and irresponsible they are. Congratulations; now slither back to your handlers.

    And please spare us your sophomoric attempts at history. It’s just pathetic. If you knew anything at all about this, you’d know that decent women used to come into marriages with dowries commensurate with the earning potential of their husbands and now they don’t, that “marrying for love” used to be for whores and no decent woman did that kind of thing. All that is feminst too -feminist icons like Jane Austen thought oh so highly of that. Do you condemn that too?

  41. Dangerous Dan McGrew Says:

    Well. These are thoughts Jim, but not as we know them.

  42. Pelle Billing Says:

    Dan McGrew and Jim,

    Please maintain a respectful tone when you write here. This is my blog, and my home on the internet. Would you have that tone if you were visiting my home?

    I don’t have time to delete posts at the moment, but please know that I will delete any posts that do not maintain a respectful tone, and I will err on the side of deleting too many.

    Let’s be sharp and aggressive when discussing ideas, but civilized towards one another.

  43. Jim Says:

    Got it Pelle. I have a hard time recognizing mumblers on the net.

  44. Danerous Dan McGrew Says:

    Fine Pelle. Your house your rules. However, don’t expect your guests to just sit back and let the mangy mutt you keep as a pet savage his legs. Get the dog under control and there will no need to kick it when it bites.

  45. George Rolph Says:

    A success for British MRA’s!
    Please see article below (my remarks) from the Herald Scotland web site.

    For many years British MRA’s have been tirelessly bombarding various MP’s, Journalists, police officers and TV stations about female paedophiles and being ignored. The news, when it reported paedophile activity, focused exclusively on the role of male offenders for years. The impression given was that only men did this horrible crime and when women were involved it was only because nasty men made them do it. Thus, “it was all his fault, your honour.” became the standard get out for the women who abused children, as with almost every other crime they are accused of. Being thought of as a victim has its benefits if you are female and a criminal!

    This situation continued year after year but brave MRA’s, who shall remain nameless, began collecting evidence that female paedophiles were alive and well and doing what they do for nothing other than the thrill of it. Nauseating photographs and movies were collected and were stored in a secret database out of the country at great risk to the men and women who collected the data. At any moment they could be arrested and labeled a pervert for even daring to download the filth. Ending up on some lefty database somewhere and marked for life. One female member who expressed an interest in gathering the data told me that if she and the others were caught and added to a list, “at least the police and everyone else would be forced to admit that women downloaded this stuff too.”

    Once the evidence was gathered, along with the few studies that have been done into the problem of female paedophiles and copies of a BBC Panorama program, for example, that looked into this phenomena years ago and was then buried out of sight, a warning was sent out that if the media, the government, and the police continued to ignore the truth, the Men’s Rights Movement would publish the films and pictures along with all of the other evidence in a very public and open way. The outcry from the public would have been huge and would have made headlines around the world. Chief among the questions asked would have been, ‘why have the establishment so obviously and deliberately ignored the female side of this issue for so long?’ They can get away with that when it comes to domestic violence, but not when it comes to the sexual abuse of children. We knew that, and so did they. Thankfully, they caved in and although they will seek to downplay female involvement in this crime as much as they can, because to do otherwise would ruin their anti family plans, at least we forced them to admit it exists!.

    Of course, they caved in without admitting just how sick they remain on the other issues such as domestic abuse, forced male castration; the massive violence perpetrated against men and boys world wide; the refusal to action male homelessness in the same manner that female homelessness is addressed; the stark differences in the way male prisoners and housed and treated compared to females; the crisis in male education; the anti male discrimination within the medical profession; the outrageous discrimination males are facing in the family and criminal courts in terms of lack of access to their own flesh and blood and huge disparities in sentences handed out by judges in the courts and the hateful attacks on men by the advertising industry and so on.

    This was a success but we have a long way to go. However, for those men and women committed to fighting for men, family and boys in this world, a well deserved glass of something soothing is in order. We made the deaf and the ignorant listen. That does not happen every day.

    Th evidence gathered and the identities of those who gathered it are secret and will not be disclosed so please do not ask. If you are reading this in a different country and you are also an MRA then please note that everything was gathered from the Internet and in one or two cases, paper evidence (studies) were obtained from sympathetic people inside various Universities. That means you can do it too if this is still a problem in your country. The reason for the secrecy should be obvious as computer trails can be traced back to source. Sorry, but at least we have shown it can be done.

    We do not mind that the BBC have chosen to paint themselves as brave pioneers leading the way on this matter. We know better but we will let them steal the glory. The truth is important, not which lying sods inside the establishment have an ego trip while covering up the fact that they have lied about this and stalled on the subject for years because they did not want to upset the feminists and ruin their ‘only men are evil’ propaganda.

    Keep fighting.

    George Rolph
    London

    Further reading:

    Note: Some links may have to be cut and pasted into browsers.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8022861.stm

    http://hereticalsex.blogspot.com/2007/01/female-paedophile-parade-of-shame.html#

    http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53859#
    http://www.damsels.org/forum/showthread.php?t=173025
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=521_1243423440

    http://therightsofman.typepad.co.uk/the_rights_of_man/2009/05/female-paedophilia-tackled-by-the-bbc.html

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crime-courts/facing-up-to-the-evil-that-woman-do-1.923820

    Facing up to the evil that woman do.

    Angela Allen
    Rachelle Money
    0 comments
    Published on 3 Oct 2009
    Female paedophila.

    It is society’s last taboo – the very antithesis of our perception of women. Women are meant to be the nurturers, mothers, carers and protectors of children, not predators. None of the parents at Little Ted’s Day Nursery in Plymouth suspected Vanessa George was abusing their young children.

    She was a woman, after all. How could anyone imagine that this seemingly bubbly nursery worker, described by one mother as “an angel”, could be sexually assaulting babies, taking photographs on her mobile phone and then exchanging them over the internet with her accomplices, Angela Allen and Colin Blanchard?
    Society has come to accept that male paedophiles like Blanchard exist, but what makes a woman commit such heinous crimes against children?

    Renowned forensic psychologist Dr Ian Stephen – the man who inspired the TV series Cracker – is one of the few experts who understand the profiles of sexually abusive women and why they are driven to molest children.
    They feel it’s the victim’s fault for being a sexual being

    Both Allen and George were mothers. George lived an outwardly respectable life in Plymouth with her two teenage daughters and her husband of 20 years. She had worked with children since 1998 and passed criminal record checks to work with infants. Allen, a single mother from Nottingham, led a far more depraved existence. Described as “sinister and totally evil” by Detective Superintendent Adrian Pearson, head of Nottingham’s public protection unit, Allen was said to have offered a three-year-old child to men as a sexual “trophy”.

    Stephen says these women are unusual in that they were “involved in the sharp end of paedophilia” – the actual abuse. “You are more likely to find a woman procuring children for the sexual gratification of a male partner,” he explains. “The woman in the nursery had a far more active role because she was taking photographs and distributing them over the internet.”

    The horror of the case has centred particularly on George as she facilitated the abuse and reproduced images for the sexual gratification of both Allen and Blanchard. Stephen describes her as the “linchpin” between the other culprits, whom she met on the social networking website Facebook.

    It was only after George’s marriage started to break down in 2008 that she began using the internet to initiate relationships with other men. Between December 2008 and June of this year, more than 10,000 emails, text messages and phone calls were made between George and Blanchard.

    One of the thrills for George, Stephen believes, is in her ability to then control those fellow perpetrators. “In a sense it’s less about the control over the victim for this woman and more about control over Colin Blanchard and Angela Allen,” Stephen says. “She’s got the fodder for them, she controls what is going on and she can dominate the activities of the group. She is the one abusing children while changing their nappies, photographing it and then emailing those images, so she certainly has a great deal of power in this group.”

    Stephen believes George’s use of the internet may have unlocked her darkest fantasies and allowed her to live out a monstrous alternative persona. “It’s possible her behaviour didn’t evolve until she began using the internet. It allows people to take on a different identity and they can develop a persona that may be different from what people see on the outside.

    “I would ask – why was her relationship breaking down? For vulnerable people the internet can be a very threatening place, particularly for those who are undergoing crises in their lives like a relationship breaking down. They become stuck on a different need in their lives – irrespective if that need is good or bad. The moral bit of it goes out of the window.”

    All three offenders met online and only saw one another for the first time when they were standing in the dock at Bristol Crown Court. Online, their relationships developed to a point where each was goading the others into increasingly depraved sexual fantasies.

    Stephen says he was involved in a similar case in Scotland where the internet was used to share images of children being abused. “I would read what they were communicating in chatrooms and it’s appalling to see this relationship developing. They start checking each other out and then that moves to heavy sexual discussion to fantasy, but you never know at what point that fantasy turns into reality.
    “They begin gradually: how they feel and what they feel like doing, and that moves on to more serious stuff. Having looked at the relationships started by paedophiles on the internet, this group are very skilled in seducing others into their way of thinking. They will test parts of communication and see what they respond to and that quickly evolves into sexual language and then sharing fantasies.”
    On April 21, Allen sent Blanchard an image of her abusing a three-year-old, which he then forwarded to George.

    The next day George sent Blanchard 10 images of abuse at the nursery. These were then forwarded to Allen. The trio began to drive each other to increasingly severe acts of abuse. On one occasion, Blanchard suggested that George drug some children and photograph them while they slept. She replied: “When ive met you properly then I’ll do things like that ok xxx.” This progression, from exchanging fantasies with strangers online to sexual assaults on babies, is beyond comprehension. Some have accused Blanchard, whom police labelled a ‘Walter Mitty’ character, of pushing the two women into these crimes. But police say all three were equal partners.

    Historically, female offenders against children have often accused men of bullying them into deviant behaviour. “I think the women in this case have to take responsibility,” says Stephen. “They were explicit in terms of access to children and photographs of abuse. Women like Rose West and Myra Hindley were in relationships, often sexual, and used children as stimulants.

    Stephen is reminded of a case in 2007 where Caroline Dunsmore, of Newhaven, Edinburgh, pleaded guilty to five offences of being involved in the rape of a child, molesting her, and having sex with various men in front of the girl. Last month, Dunsmore was in court again, this time to testify that she had watched television as two Edinburgh men abused her daughter, Dana Fowley (who has waived her right to anonymity), when she was 10 years old. However, she later told the High Court in Dunfermline that she was “mistaken” and withdrew her evidence. The two accused men were then freed. “She procured her daughter for others, which is similar in this case. She [Dunsmore] was liaising with them and made her daughter available to them,” says Stephen. “It’s very un-maternal. These women see children as commodities who can be used to satisfy someone else’s needs.”
    Police suspect up to 30 children, mostly girls aged between 12 and 18 months, were victims in Plymouth, but they admit they don’t know the true number as George has yet to reveal their identities, dealing another cruel blow to the parents. This “continuation of the abuse”, as Stephen describes it, is part of George’s lust for control.

    For outsiders, the fact George, Allen and Blanchard all pleaded guilty to numerous charges of sexual assault, and making and distributing indecent images of children, would suggest they accept their wrongdoing, but this is not necessarily the case, as Stephen explains. “In pleading guilty they don’t have to go through it all in court, no one will know the true extent of it, so they don’t have to reveal anything.”
    He recalls interviewing a “serious paedophile” who had a total lack of feeling that he had done anything wrong. “They feel it’s the victim’s fault for being a sexual being. They have a total lack or remorse or empathy … In this sense they can say: ‘I did it but I don’t feel sorry for doing it.’ They don’t feel they’ve done anything wrong but they feel guilt for getting caught. It’s a strange childlike sense of morality these individuals have, where the getting caught part is what they feel remorseful for rather than the offence itself.”

    The number of female paedophiles is very low, but Stephen says he feels it is on the rise. “More cases are being followed up by police and there’s more recognition that women can be involved in cases like this one.

    Parents of the suspected victims wept in Bristol Crown Court as the charges were read out. In contrast, George, Blanchard and Allen appeared to show no emotion.
    Detective Superintendent Pearson says the case was “absolutely unique in many ways … These people appeared to be entirely normal. But all of them were absolutely focused on their own sexual gratification. The number of victims, the scale of their deceit, the way that they manipulated relationships and the cunning they have all used for their own ends is really, really shocking.”
    Dr Ian Stephen, renowned forensic psychologist

    “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is
    striking at the root.” — Henry David Thoreau

  46. George Says:

    Insurgency.

    T. E. Lawrence wrote a great piece on it:
    “Insurgency must have an unassailable base, something guarded not merely from attack, but from the fear of it: such a base as the Arab revolt had in the Red Sea ports, the desert, or in the minds of men converted to its creed. It must have a sophisticated alien enemy, in the form of a disciplined army of occupation too small to fulfill the doctrine of acreage: too few to adjust number to space, in order to dominate the whole area effectively from fortified posts. It must have a friendly population, not actively friendly, but sympathetic to the point of not betraying rebel movements to the enemy. Insurgencies can be made by 2% active in a striking force, and 98% passively sympathetic. The few active rebels must have the qualities of speed and endurance, ubiquity and independence of arteries of supply. They must have the technical equipment to destroy or paralyze the enemy’s organized communications, for irregular war is fairly Willisen’s definition of strategy, “the study of communication,” in its extreme degree, of attack where the enemy is not. In 50 words: Granted mobility, security (in the form of denying targets to the enemy), time, and doctrine (the idea to convert every subject to friendliness), victory will rest with the insurgents, for the algebraical factors are in the end decisive, and against them perfections of means and spirit struggle quite in vain.”

  47. Hausfrau Says:

    Pelle asked why are men not organised?

    1) Men tend to organise in hierarchical structures, amongst themselves, they don’t do equality well, which is the modern main structure that is centered around everyone being ‘equal’ (whether they are or not). People so expect it, but it always grates, when it’s absent and when it’s there. Also compare what happens in student groups who are assigned to group tasks — leadership no longer is all that acceptable, and accepting a leader is even harder.

    2) Women are just the better organisers socially, for the usual sexist reasons. Women, whilst having an idea of hierarchy to some extend find it more natural to be equals, there is competition, but it generally focuses on preening, not on achievements.

    3) The vast majority of males who live nowadays have been raised to be honorary females, and as such find it difficult to question whether equality is really equality, it feels like treason.

    4) Men doing manly things with other men is either football or hard sports, all other spheres have been ‘liberated’ by wimmen. If not, then those remaining places are fair game for ridicule and no modern women will tolerate any patriarchal nonsense from her ‘partner’ lest it gives him ‘ideas’. Also compare how much competitiveness has been removed from life — how can men learn to compete nowadays if they don’t learn how to win and lose gracefully before they are 10?

    5) The current generation of men have not been raised classically, most have no idea what ‘maleness’ is, other than some nebulous concept they pick up from boys mags. It’s hard to demand/achieve something you don’t know exactly what it is.

    6) Men don’t do waffling about feelings and emotions so well, and Men’s Rights orgs are attempting to do just that.

    7) I looked around for a good MRA/site, but they always seem to be magnets for angry modern men who never gotten over their traumatic and expensive divorce/relationship and like to share their bitterness with the rest of the world.

    What I think would work well is a MRA that doesn’t tolerate people haters and that has a good amount of women as members.

    Because men alone can’t repair the damage that has been done, nor can women alone(ever wondered why so many people as of late convert to fundamentalist religions that have a magic cookbook approach?), and most people no longer have first hand knowledge of normal, non-neurotic gender specific behaviour and society around us doesn’t accept this kind of thing either, and so it’s very difficult for the individual(s) to bootstrap normality.

  48. Pelle Billing Says:

    From George, who couldn’t get this comment to post:

    @Hausfrau

    “The current generation of men have not been raised classically, most have no idea what ‘maleness’ is, other than some nebulous concept they pick up from boys mags. It’s hard to demand/achieve something you don’t know exactly what it is.”

    Agreed. Check this out: http://justamanwriting.blogspot.com/2011/07/dont-wear-yellow-star.html

    “…most people no longer have first hand knowledge of normal, non-neurotic gender specific behaviour and society around us doesn’t accept this kind of thing either, and so it’s very difficult for the individual(s) to bootstrap normality.”

    Which is why Cultural Marxism maintains that normal is a relative concept!

    “I looked around for a good MRA/site, but they always seem to be magnets for angry modern men who never gotten over their traumatic and expensive divorce/relationship and like to share their bitterness with the rest of the world.”

    Anger is a normal reaction towards those who have betrayed and hurt us. However, remaining angry to no purpose is unhealthy and destructive to the individual. The key then is to turn that anger into something positive. In other words, to fight back with a positive purpose and clearly defined aims. Do you agree?

    I think that in order to attract others to the cause it is VITAL that we present the cause in ways that those people can identify with. Calling all housewives, “parasites” is a great way to alienate 50% of the population at least, to say nothing of their husbands and children. It is counter productive and destructive.

    Another problem emerging from a section of the MRM is that idea that chivalry is bad. It is not. What is bad is the modern perversion of chivalry. True chivalry is about looking after the weak, not just females. It was based upon the Christian ideals of taking care of the less fortunate. A great example of which can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9906mDprd_k (6 part film worth watch even if a non Christian). The ‘less fortunate’ could be men, women and/or children. That has been perverted into taking care of women and children only. Men are left to fend for themselves. This has bred the hatred of the new chivalry today because it is seen as unjust…and it is!

    “Men don’t do waffling about feelings and emotions so well, and Men’s Rights orgs are attempting to do just that.”

    EXACTLY! All of this is not only a distraction that breeds confusion, it is playing directly into the enemies hands. It has happened because of your points 3 and 5 above. Men are at their strongest when they hide their emotions. This does not, as has been alleged by feminists, make them ‘emotional cripples’ but instead, it makes them difficult to attack. Exactly the reason why feminists want them to talk about their feelings. It opens them up to a gender skilled in the arts of emotional manipulation and the men that do this find themselves out gunned and vulnerable. Fighting back on the ground the enemy has chosen, with the weapons the enemy knows how to use, but without any shields. All the talk about “getting in touch with your feminine side” is designed to trap men in revealing their weaknesses by talking about things that they know little about. A little like Delilah famously did to Samson. A man’s strength lies in his ability to control his emotions and letting reason rule, not in waffling and venting about them. Contrary to what men and boys today are being taught, it is by exposing their emotions that they are being crippled emotionally!

    It is easy to view all of this and think that there is no way back to sanity. That the damage done is too great and the odds stacked against us are too great. However, we have been in a worse state than this before now and recovered. Study the pictures and history surrounding Hogarth in the 18th in Britain. His was a society that was literally falling apart. Violence, theft, immoral behaviour, child cruelty, male and female indolence, ignorance and neglect and so on, saturated the society he lived in. Yet it was all turned around and it can be done again. When men and women agree to fight together nothing will stop that turn around happening.


Google