@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.

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.

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.”

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

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.

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?

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.