{Examples} - Bigots

{Examples} - Bigots

This page lists some of the feminist bigots. (The underlined terms can be looked up in the glossary. Updated: 2013/09/11.)

  • The Duluth Model of DV is bigoted. The feminists promoting it first use the manipulated and distorted statistics to paint the men as an insignificant minority in the DV victimization cases, and then have everyone believe that men's victimization at the hand of women should be acceptable and nothing to be worried about or cared for. They state this for why they take a feminist (gynocentric) approach rather than a gender-neutral one: "The battering of women by men continues to be a significant social problem–men commit over 85% of all criminal assaults [while this is completely false as it has been shown that the two genders perpetrate DV at equal rates, even if we do assume that it's true for a moment, the feminists claim that the 15% of the perpetrators who are women should get a pass] and women are killed 3.5 times more often than men in domestic homicides. Not naming this gender disparity, and the continued underlying social, cultural, and institutional structures that support it, keeps us from naming the social problem for what it is [i.e., the maleness, of course, who knew what a feminist is going to propose as the cause of all evils?]. While we do recognize there are cases of domestic violence other than male perpetrated violence against women, even in those cases the perpetrator's sense of entitlement to control or dominate another remains the predominant cause of violence [that is, we blame maleness. Again. In the true bigoted fashion]." They also believe that women abusing men is nothing to be concerned about at all: "When women use violence in an intimate relationship, the circumstances of that violence tends to differ from when men use violence. Men's use of violence against women is learned and reinforced through many social, cultural, and institutional experiences. Women's use of violence does not have the same kind of societal support. [The reality is, as always, the exact opposite. What does society has to do with violence happening between a couple in the present times? It's the legal and police power only that has any impact, and as we all know, they provide women with financial incentives to be violent against men because on separation/divorce, it's the men that get robbed off his assets and wealth.] Many women who do use violence against their male partners are being battered [as are just as many, if not more, men, because men cannot even complain of the DV happening against them for the fear of being arrested themselves]. Their violence is used primarily to respond to and resist the violence used against them. [This is patently a lie because it has been shown that most of the DV is reciprocal, and "when it comes to nonreciprocal violence between intimate partners, women are more often the perpetrators". According to study funded by CDC, "in non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases". So this is your Duluth Model wheel punctured right here.] On the societal level, women's violence against men has a trivial effect on men compared to the devastating effect of men's violence against women. [Yeah right, the society secretly admires and awards the wife-beaters. Fact is, it's the female perpetrator that gets the victim card from the society even when she kills her man. And what does that "effect" of the said violence have to do with anything when it comes to determining who the perpetrator is in the first place, unless you're searching for any lame excuse you can find for your favorited gender's behavior?]"
  • In countries like Sweden, the ideology of feminism is quite close to be deemed the State truth. In the University of Uppsala from Sweden, for instance, the "gender power structure perspective" (konskraft perspektiv) is deemed as absolute binding truth, contesting which means the end of one's academic career.
  • The UN (United Nations) is a feminist organization which is blatantly pro-female and anti-male. It doesn't at all mention men and boys except for using them as tools for female service and empowerment. It employs feminist strategies to counter anti-feminist groups within the UN. Here are some other misandric UN treats for the men:
    ~ UN creates UN Women, no 'UN Men' in sight so far.
    ~ UN is infamous for its feminist stance against the male victims of any crime, and regularly discriminates against the males, even boy children.
    ~ UN has ignored sexual violence against male victims on a worldwide level.
  • Indian government's Food Security Bill will provide free or subsidized food to the eldest woman in the household as the only official recipient. She is free to decide how the food is shared in the family, with no means put in place to ensure that she is distributing the food appropriately to every member of the family without discrimination or blackmailing (in fact, she is free to sell the received food, and no man in her family has the right to question her). Effectively, this makes the men totally dependent upon the goodwill of the women. This kind of discrimination is also at the core of certain international relief programs (such as the WFP - World Food Program) run with support from the UN, Red Cross, and such (which otherwise used to be extremely good and reputable before their feminist hijacking). For example, deliberate denial of food aid to men during the Haitian earthquake (the false excuse, based on an unrelated report, being that all the men are selfish, and so only the women should get the food packets - This with no policies or punishments imposed to make women responsible with the food distribution to their families); and later, the men were engaged in building houses that were delivered in the names of women only (this time with no need for providing even an excuse). Similarly, international groups organize men's sports events (only because they are more popular and raise more money; otherwise their focus would only be on the women's events) and regardless, send the gathered money to the feminist causes (women's health, girls' empowerment, etc). In Srebrenica, and generally at the Bosnian and/or Kosovo war, the UN was eager to move out the "women and children" (that is to say, female children, because 12-year-old boys were left behind) and turned a blind eye to the decimation of the male population. Fact is, this kind of discrimination is part of a global level feminist Social Engineering, wherein, (ab)using the crisis caused by the natural disasters (and other factors such as poverty etc), a global matriarchy (the earlier stage of a feminist utopia) will slowly be established. Under that, men are made to be dependent upon women, be obedient to them (as the women get to decide whether the men will be kept alive or be starved), and silently submit to the violence and abuse perpetrated by the women on them (or face eviction from house, punishment by authorities, or death from starvation). In other words, under the imposed matriarchy men are the slaves and women their owners.
  • Aminata Toure (51, feminist) has been appointed as the new Prime Minister of the francophone African republic - Senegal, to "ensure greater efficiency in the government". After graduating, she had engaged in "gender activism" in her country and the neighboring ones, and she ended up at the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) where she was chief of the gender, human rights, and culture branch. At UNFPA she was credited by other gender ideologues for her work on the concept of "gender mainstreaming", which is essentially a version of "let's feminize everything". During her work for UNFPA, she worked for further dehumanization and demonization of men in the eyes of the UN and the thousands of NGO's that gravitate around this international body. One of her most remarkable considerations with regards to the humanity of men came in the context of migration with men going in other places to find work and send money home to support the family, where she essentially treated men as commodities/resources to the women. She takes pride in her stance according to which access to health is a human right and human rights are first and foremost women's rights. (In other words, men are not human beings, but just disposable commodities for serving the women.)
    And this type of bigots are Prime Ministers.
  • European Union tries to demand fishermen to get more women on their boats, because a Spanish woman from the Party of European Socialists says so and the Maoist leader Jose Barroso seems to agree. According to a recently issued EU report, men's role in gender equality is to be good feminists, otherwise they are deemed supporters of "hegemonic masculinity" and will be thrown under the proverbial bus. In other words, men must be manginas or they'll have to face the consequences.
    European Union stamps out the economic freedom of even the privately owned companies by enforcing female-quotas in their boardrooms. Viviane Reding basically states that the EU should have the right to sanction private companies if they don't have at least 40% women in their boardrooms. The final form which will reach to a vote in the European Parliament openly states that women must be preferred over men, even if the objective reality suggests otherwise.
    The vice-president of the European Commission and the first EU Commissioner for justice, fundamental rights, and citizenship, Viviane Reding, has spearheaded the EU's efforts to bring in mandatory quotas for women on boards. The crux of her argument was that "three-quarters of Europeans are in favor of legislation on gender-balanced company boards", referring to a Eurobarometer survey. However, that's a lie. In fact, when respondents were asked: "What is the best way to achieve a more balanced representation of men and women on company boards?", 40% favored self-regulation and 26% favored voluntary measures such as corporate governance codes. Only 34% were in favor of binding legal measures. The "three-quarters" didn't actually answer a question about fixed quotas at all. Instead, that question was about support for legal measures provided that ability was taken into account and that neither gender gained automatic preference.
    Stupid incoherent bigot Dr Gerada told the BBC News channel that she did not agree with quotas but said "we certainly need to have more women in senior roles", not citing a reason as to why.
  • Kevin Rudd denies refugee men entry into Australia forever. They will never be allowed to come in, even legally, and will all be sent to another - 'Third-World' - poor country having massive problems of its own. They will be dumped into canvas camps in thousands in a small town which has only a few thousand inhabitants itself. It is a recipe for disaster. Women and children will not be sent there, however. They will be placed 'in the community' - In Australia. Families will be permanently broken up by this evil and inhumane separation of men, fathers, and boys from their wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters.
  • David Cameron and Nick Clegg stepped up government pressure on Muirfield golf club to end its ban on women members. As the prestigious Open Championship began at the historic course, the Prime Minister condemned policies which "look more to the past than they do to the future" (apparently, the future is the feminist utopia), while his deputy tore into the "inexplicable" and "anachronistic" rules. Culture Secretary Maria Miller is boycotting the Open in protest. And her Labour opponent Harriet Harman called for male-only (but not female-only) clubs to be banned by law. So why is banning the male-only spaces bigotry? Because the bigots are not proposing ban on the female-only spaces (like Lundin Ladies Golf Club in Scotland), even though there are more women-only clubs in England than men. The Cancer Research UK's "Race for Life" also bans men from participating.
  • The feminists' RedStockings Manifesto present women as an oppressed class, and men as the oppresser class - no matter who oppresses whom (only the 'class' matters - "Our chief task at present is to develop female class consciousness" - in other words, indoctrination into a herd mentality). It uses extreme generalizations - 'Oppressive' ones about the men: "All men have oppressed women", and 'victimhood' ones about the women: "We identify with all women. We define our best interest as that of the poorest, most brutally exploited woman". It also treats men as the owned slaves or objects of the women (who have been assumed to be perfect human beings): "We do not need to change ourselves, but to change men". It refuses to acknowledge the women as oppressors, "The most slanderous evasion of all is that women can oppress men". It refuses to be objective and rational, and derives its analysis of any situation from the subjective feelings, "We regard our personal experience, and our feelings about that experience, as the basis for an analysis of our common situation". It talks of the myth of the male privilege and expects sacrifice from them while doing nothing in return (as always) by shaming them as being inhumane if they object to discrimination against themselves, "We call on all men to give up their male privilege and support women’s liberation in the interest of our humanity and their own". And finally the bigotry is complete and clear: "We will always take the side of women against their oppressors. We will not ask what is 'revolutionary' or 'reformist', only what is good for women". And that was in the 1969. You can easily imagine the feminists' intentions as of now.
  • In her book "Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape", Susan Brownmiller claims that the use of force is a defining characteristic of men, that men own women instead of having relationships, and that men are naturally predisposed to abuse those viewed as subordinates (so if society treats the wife as a subordinate, the wife will be abused). In the US, during hearings before the House of Representatives subcommittee on select education, 95th congress, 2nd session, on HR 7927 & 8948, the feminists submitted the feminist writing as evidence in order to persuade congress to treat violence in general as a male perpetrated, female suffered behavior, attributable to masculine characteristics, the pressure of traditional gender roles, and social structure. The feminist advocates also offered a case for ignoring male victims, submitted in the form of a resolution from "Sociologists for Women in Society" (SWS), stating support for "the overall concept of these bills" with the position that the funds to be distributed should be reserved for women only, "We are concerned that the limited funds allocated should not be siphoned from services for female victims and their children, and misplaced into services for a relatively miniscule and questionable number of male victims". Whereas in the very next paragraph, advocates admitted that there was not enough information on which to base their assumptions.The feminist advocates had made and were making deliberate efforts to suppress evidence of gender symmetry in intimate partner violence. (Well, who knew?) Strauss, in his publication "Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence: Evidence and Implications for Prevention and Treatment" had pointed out that evidence of gender symmetry has been available for more than 25 years. So the advocates who have continued to adhere to the male perpetrator/female victim model of partner violence during the last 25 years have done so with the knowledge that they were presenting a false picture of the issue. When Strauss' work could be used in support of their agenda, women's advocates cited it. When it couldn't, they rejected it and continued to base their advocacy on outdated and biased materials. Similar effort to suppress evidence of female perpetration has also been used by the feminist-influenced researchers in the cases of sexual violence. Another bigot and rape apologist, Mary P. Koss, defines male victims of rape out of existence. In both Canada and the US, the feminist advocacy has led to withholding of funds from efforts to remedy the lack of resources for abused men. The UN has on a worldwide level ignored sexual violence against male victims until recently. In the ongoing discussion on discrimination against men and boys who are hurt by domestic and sexual violence, the feminist groups have attempted to blame everything but themselves. They have argued that "Patriarchy" is to blame for everything. Truth is, it's fully intentional, just as desired by the feminists, in order to secure and maintain preferential treatment for women.
  • Tax-payer funded feminist organizations like NOW, SOW, and the Elizabeth Fry Societies are promoting the 'men bad, women good' narrative. The "E-Fryers" believe that women cannot be criminals, but that they are "criminalized". It goes even further, stating that "women who are criminalized should not be imprisoned; all efforts will be made to prevent women from being incarcerated". This along with this: "Women are entitled to substantive equality; that is, the right of access to equal opportunities and programs in the justice system". So all rights but no corresponding responsibilities or facing consequences. This is how the feminists define equality. (All animals are equal but some are more equal than the others.)
  • Human Rights Watch (HRW) (which in reality should be named Woman Rights Watch) is a group of bigots, who use flawed sexual assault reports full of discrepancies, lies, half-truths, and omissions. The Crowell and Moring report, which while brings forth their lies, is also bigoted in an 'end-justify-the-means' kind of way, because the report, rather than holding HRW accountable for what is obviously a tragically flawed report whose purpose was almost definitely to impact the outcome of the debate over VAWA raging in Congress at the time, is instead generous to the HRW in its analysis, calling it a "catalyst for positive change" in its executive summary, and also stating that the report is intended to be "forward looking".
  • Surveys done among students at the University of Florida found higher perpetration of female abuse of male partners, including stalking. So what did the researchers do? Well, they seem to have assumed the relationships in which the abuse took place were all heterosexual, and have concluded that some of the female violence must have been perpetrated in self-defense or against non-students. While those theories could account for some female violence, so could same-sex relationships, and it's impossible to know the role of any factor without further study. This is a good example of researchers taking data that doesn't fit the feminist agenda and trying to make it fit, rather than looking at it as a reason for further investigation into female behavior.
  • Ontario schools to offer Gender Studies, which is nothing but indoctrinating the kids with the feminist message (i.e., men are the problem/enemy that must be eliminated). The feminists in Ontario have pushed Gender Studies into high schools. And the UK is in danger of having the same thing happen. More indoctrination:
    ~ Soapbox Inc, a "women's rights" organization, brings you the Feminist Camp.
    ~ In Germany, school children are being taught that men are evil and are the cause of all of the world's problems, whereas women are compassionate and care for all.
    ~ Male students are forced to attend feminist programs in which they're told that they're rapists and abusers, and it's justified in the name of the "greater good" (which is matriarchy - female supremacy).
    ~ Little girls are being taught about the myths of male privilege, patriarchy, etc, and are being trained to hate the boys and see everything (including the girls' own actions and choices) as the boys' fault.
    ~ Jessica Valenti teaching women how to manipulate their men into accepting that feminism is important.
  • Under matriarchy, no male is tolerated excelling at anything, even if he manages this despite facing constant put-downs, hatred, and discrimination. Any of his hard-won achievements are labeled as something negative for the society (read, females), his wings are cut down, and he is actively discouraged and put in his place by the feminist authority. Tyler Weaver (9) won the 6-week-long "Dig into Reading" event run by Hudson Falls Public Library in upstate New York by completing 63 books from 2013/06/24 to 2013/08/03, averaging more than 10 a week. He has consistently been the top reader since kindergarten, devouring 373 books over the 5 contests. This became impossible to tolerate for the library director Marie Gandron, who said Tyler "hogs" the contest every year and he should "step aside". She plans to change the rules of the contest so that instead of giving prizes to the children who read the most books, she would draw names out of a hat and declare winners that way. She then made her rationalization hamster work hard by giving a 'reason' for making the contest a non-contest (draw of lots), saying that several years ago a little girl came in claiming she had read more than 200 books and she was lying. It makes no sense but to a feminist everything is fair in war against boys. Predictably, Tyler's mom Katie Weaver said if Ms Gandron takes an alternate approach to the contest next year, neither of her sons will participate. Mission accomplished.
  • The marathon "game jam" seeks to challenge male-centric views in the video games. A new group, "I am a gamer", is bringing together developers, designers, and artists to create a video game with a strong female protagonist. It's hosting a 48-hour event at Vancouver's Centre for Digital Media where 150 developers have been tasked with creating a new video game. The goal, said the organizer Kimberly Voll, is to send a message that male-centric views in the gaming industry have a negative impact not only on gamers but on society as a whole. (Apparently, to this disgusting, sexist, and hateful bigot, the female-centric views in gaming is inherently good.) Voll says that popular video games often reinforce harmful stereotypes by portraying females as over-sexualized, one-dimensional characters. (As if the male characters aren't portrayed as hyper-masculine disposable fighters.) She says, "We should celebrate all great games, regardless of the gender of the lead character [and then goes on to do exactly that, as is so typical of bigots]. But what we have right now is a great imbalance [typical example of hamsterbatics]."
  • Mary Kellet, the prosecutor who relentlessly pursued Vladek Filler (a father engaged in a child custody dispute for his 2 children) for allegations of sexual assault made by his estranged wife, Ligia. Kellett got a conviction in the case but it was set aside and overturned by the State Supreme Court due to prosecutorial misconduct on her part. Subsequently, Filler filed a Bar complaint against Kellett, where a 3-member bar panel ultimately found her guilty of 9 instances of misconduct and conduct unbecoming an attorney, resulting in the historic move of Kellett being the first prosecutor in the history of Maine to be referred to the State Supreme Court for disciplinary hearings that could result in the suspension of her license to practice law. Kellett instructed law enforcement officers not to comply with valid subpoenas from Filler's attorney to produce evidence (such as a withheld witness statement written by Ligia Filler, 911 tapes of her calls, and video and audio recordings of Ligia Filler making statements and threats against Vladek Filler and police officials) held by the police departments relevant to Ligia Filler's credibility as a witness. Those records were repeatedly requested and eventually the Court had to Order Kellett to turn them over to defense, which she ignored and refused to turn over the material to defense. The Disciplinary Panel also found Kellett guilty of suppressing and not providing exculpatory evidence. A crucial video and audio recording (of a 2007/04/24 incident where 2 Washington County Sheriff's Deputies apprehended Ligia Filler and secured her in the back of a cruiser which had a video camera running) that was Court Ordered was later destroyed without any chance of ever being produced to defense. (Initially, Kellett did not even disclose the April 24 incident to the defense.) Nothing of what Kellett represented to Filler's attorney regarding the recording was true. Now Kellett says that the Court Ordered 911 tapes and video/audio recordings were not provided because of Washington County Sheriff's Department's insubordination to DA office's requests for all the material. The Deputy Travis Willey testified that almost immediately after the April 24 incident, he quickly acted to preserve all audio and video recordings he made. He wrote up his report and made copies of his digital audio recording from his pocket recorder on to a CD, and then hand-delivered his report to Mary Kellett's office, where it was stamped "Received May 29, 2007". Kellet has prosecuted 1100 cases in just 10 years, practicing her ideological interpretations of criminal rules, court rulings, orders, and high court decisions. She has consistently refused to take any responsibility whatsoever for her own conduct which has been substantiated by the Supreme Judicial Court and the Board of Overseers of the Bar. Kellett told the Disciplinary Panel she would not do anything differently in the future as she has a philosophical disagreement with the trial Court and the Supreme Court judgment concerning her conduct!
  • Army Private First Class Jessica Dawn Lynch made the most famous wartime false rape claim in the recent history. From 2003/03/23 to 2003/04/01, Lynch was a captive of Iraqi forces after her convoy was ambushed until she was rescued by US Special Operations Forces. It was said that she battled fiercely, and was raped by the enemy, that she was rescued under dire circumstances. None of this was true. According to Lynch's official biography, for which Lynch and Pulitzer Prize winner Rick Bragg split a $1 million advance, Lynch was raped by her captors. Rick Bragg writes that scars on Lynch's body and medical records indicate she was sodomized, but that Lynch recalls nothing. According to feminist Susan Faludi in "The Terror Dream: Myth and Misogyny in an Insecure America" (which is nothing but an unvarnished male bashing), Lynch "was adamantly opposed to including the rape claim in the book... But, she said, Bragg eventually wore her down. 'He told me that people need to know that this was what can happen to women soldiers.'" In fact, the rape was pure speculation, and the doctors and nurses who treated Lynch denied it. So Ms Lynch apparently knew that a crucial claim about her life was false, yet she allowed it to be included in a biography about her, and then she tried to blame someone else. Another bigot, conservative activist Elaine Donnelly wrote: "Advocates of women in combat often talk about 'sharing the risk' of war, but the truth is that women face unequal and greater risks. The vulnerabilities unique to women can and probably will be exploited by enemy captors." Yet another bigot, Rich Lowry wrote in "Townhall.com": "Male prisoners can be abused, but aren't vulnerable in the way women are. Women get raped, a crime that any civilized society considers particularly horrific... There is something odd about the same feminists who, rightly, make campaigning against rape one of their highest priorities applauding the fact that American women - who might... have no idea of what they were signing up for - have been put in danger of terrible abuse in Iraq." As if men were not in danger of terrible abuse in Iraq? 30 men in a village might be killed in a raid, but if 2 women were raped, the rapes are the headline, and we worry what’s being done to protect THE WOMEN.
  • Sheboygan girl Norma J Guthrie (17, of 1034-A Michigan Ave.) was charged with misdemeanor sexual assault for raping her boyfriend (14) multiple (10 to 15) times. Under a charge of fourth-degree sexual assault, if convicted, she faces a maximum of just 9 months in jail. In a very similar case of the sexes reversed that happened on the same day, Sheboygan boy Alan J Jepsen (17, of 1416 New York Ave.) unknowingly 'raped' his girlfriend (14) who had lied to him that she was 16. He is facing a count of felony second-degree sexual assault, which carries a maximum prison term of 25 years. Assistant District Attorney Jim Haasch, who filed both complaints, is a bigot who lied that the misdemeanor charge was filed in part because Guthrie has no prior criminal record. But online court records show Guthrie has a pending charge of misdemeanor battery, filed in October. Haasch would not say whether Jepsen has a prior juvenile record - which is typically sealed - but the boy has no adult charges listed in online court records. Haasch also used hamsterbatics to rationalize the double standards, saying the cases are different because Guthrie's victim is "almost 15" with birthday in February while Jepsen's turns 15 in April! What do you call this blatantly dishonest attempt at granting a pussy pass to the female rapist? Given that a boy can be arrested on the rape charges even when the girl is older and is making a false rape claim?
  • While giving judgement in the case of Courtney Sue Reschke (woman who raped 8 teenage boys), the judge Ronald Wilper gave her a partial pussy pass based on irrational feelings, saying, "I think that the state believes there should be some measure of equality or parity when a judge sentences a male sex offender who violates little girls versus a female sex offender who violates young boys. There is a difference. I have a difficult time articulating precisely what that difference is. It's difficult to try to explain what that difference is, but nevertheless I think we know there's a difference".
  • Barb McCormick Somerville, manager of sexual violence and support services at the YWCA South Suburban Center in Chicago Heights believes 2 to 8% of rape reports are false. "Without empirically sound information, false reporting and making comments about it feed into stereotypes about sexual assault in the first place”, she says. Yet, contrary to what Somerville claims, there is no evidence demonstrating that women are any less inclined to report their assaults simply because women who lie receive media attention and are charged and prosecuted. There is not one study, one statistic, or any substantive research that shows anything of the sort. Victims advocates (often feminist bigots) are in no position to speak about empirically unsound information, false reporting, or making comments that feed into stereotypes - Given that a large portion of their advocacy relies on such misleading and far too often fictional statistics. The notion that discussing false reports and their devastating impact on the people (mostly men) somehow silences real victims is both ludicrous and unfounded. Far too many times when false rape claims are discovered, the bigots make this accusation, effectively silencing another group of victims (the falsely accused) by implying that just speaking about their experiences somehow leads to women being raped.
  • Leanne Black (32) has made 5 false rape allegations against her ex-boyfriends in 8 years after rowing or breaking up with them, and is finally given just 2 years in prison. (She will serve half her sentence before being released on licence.) And the only false concern the judge has is that she has harmed genuine rape victims with her lies! (Which is not at all true because no matter how many false accusations have been made, the law always believes a woman at her word alone. So yep, the judge said that only because the women somehow always have to be painted as victims no matter what. No word about the very real damage done to the actual victims, i.e., the men who were falsely accused.) The lying bigot Siobhan Blake, Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor, said: "False allegations of rape are extremely uncommon", which is patently false and is a lie because, as another judge has said in a separate case, the false rape allegations are not uncommon. Blake also said, "Such cases will be dealt with robustly [proved false right there, read the punishment received by Black] and those falsely accused should feel confident [because they're arrested without reason?] that we will prosecute these cases [like you've done 4 times earlier in just Black's case?] wherever there is sufficient evidence [you need evidence of innocence? Because you certainly do not need the evidence of crime as you've proved] and it is in the public interest to do so [supposedly, 'public' only means women, of course; men don't count]. We must not allow these cases to undermine our work to support victims of rape and domestic violence [translation: 'Guilty until proven innocent' will be held up for men because... they're just men, duh]. We want victims [this now refers to women - who else can be a victim? - not the actual victims in the case at hand: The falsely accused men] to feel able to report the abuse they have suffered and we are working hard to dispel the myths and stereotypes [so the false accusations will always be ignored as myths and stereotypes - They're working hard on that] that can be associated with these cases. One such misplaced belief is that false allegations of rape and domestic violence are widespread. We know that is not the case. [Repeating a lie should make it sound true.]" It's amazing how these hypocrites speak totally incoherently and do not even feel how ridiculously stupid they sound.
  • Ontario sisters Patricia (AKA Tricia) and Sarah Vanderkooy were ordered to pay their uncle $125000 in libel damages for falsely accusing him of sexually assaulting them in a rural farmhouse when they were children. The false accusations ripped apart the Vanderkooy family. Uncle denied allegations. The judge also dismissed a counterclaim for sexual battery filed by the sisters after Vanderkooy sued for defamation, because their memories of the alleged incidents weren't "of the clear and cogent nature required" to back up their claims.
    Predictably, the feminist false accusation apologist bigots and lawyers Elizabeth Grace, Loretta Merritt, and Susan Vella (of Rochon Genova LLP) said that the fair decisions like these can be harmful to the victims ('victims' being the false accusers here and not the falsely accused, as is always the case with the feminists). So according to them, when a woman falsely accuses someone to ruin his life, and is by-chance caught lying, she should always get the pussy pass, the encouragement this provides to the other women for making false accusations be damned. That is, whether the case is one of rape or a false rape accusation, the only victim that has to be considered is the woman, and never a man.
    By the way, while in therapy with Jessie Cooper, Sarah had begun to read a book "The Courage To Heal", which is nothing but feminist filth about rape and evil men. Maybe this is what prompted her to feel that her uncle might molest others and so she made those allegations. This shows how the feminist dogma can poison people's minds, especially of those who are already mentally disturbed, creating a recipe for disaster either for the others or themselves.
  • "Wicked liar" Sally Henderson (40) falsely claimed that her ex-husband Richard Cooke had repeatedly raped her during their year-long marriage. But her claims were a repetition of false accusations she made 5 years earlier against a previous partner Mark Rowe (42). She is jailed for a year. During her trial a court order protected her anonymity, but once she was convicted the judge allowed her to be named, to the concern of some women's groups. These women's groups mostly consist of hateful feminist bigots, who are nothing but false accusation apologists. The bigot Lisa Longstaff of 'Women against Rape' said that she was concerned at a trend of women being prosecuted and identified after making allegations of rape. (She conveniently forgot to add "false" to the 'allegations'.) Even though the victim in the present case is Henderson's ex-husband, Longstaff, following the true bigoted manner, said, "We think there is a concerted witchhunt at the moment. It's a new trend which will stop women from coming forward and making rape complaints." (no citation was given as to why; in fact, there's no such evidence proving this lie). She expressed no concern about giving anonymity to the accused men before conviction. Margaret Gardener, director of the 'False Allegations Support Organisation', said, "The worst thing about this case is it could put genuine rape victims off coming forward". (This actually is not the 'worst thing', because this is nothing but a lie. The worst thing in a false accusation case actually happens to the accused man, not to the imaginary women in completely unrelated cases.)
  • Juanita Broaddrick explosively charged President Clinton of raping her 21 years ago. Predictably, the National Organization for Women (NOW) president Patricia Ireland issued a statement that essentially forbade Clinton to defend himself, denouncing in advance as a "nuts and sluts" tactic any claim that Broaddrick made the story up or was depicting consensual sex as assault. However, the feminists have to remain loyal to Clinton for their... ahm... financial needs, so she also urged the country to move on and just tolerate a 'rapist' in the White House. Thing is, the dishonest ideologues cannot accept that women lie about rape, and at the same time, cannot cut off their source of pork just for their 'principles' (which they had manufactured for that pork in the first place) either. Legal theorist Catharine MacKinnon asserts that "feminism is built on believing women's accounts of sexual use and abuse by men". Some colleges with speech codes have equated talk of false rape allegations with "discriminatory harassment". Activists may even refuse to believe "victims" who admit that they lied, suggesting that women recant out of fear or denial, and many bristle when the media publicize stories of falsely accused men.
  • Professor Lise Gotell (chair of the Department of Women's and Gender Studies, University of Alberta), on seeing the "Don't be that girl" posters (which tell the false rape accusers that their actions are wrong), promptly alerted the campus police, who in an act of brazen censorship started taking down the posters, and contacted the local media. Immediately, a large nuber of major national and local sources started reporting on the issue, causing a big uproar (postergate). Gotell says, "These posters, I think, are quite troubling... What's been done to transform an anti-sexual-assault campaign into a rape-apologist campaign is just deeply offensive." She did not explain how the poster was "manipulated" in an attempt to create a "rape apologist" campaign, nor why the posters were offensive. The only reason she finds the posters offensive is her feminist bigotry. By the way, she rejected the invitation to the feminists for debating with Men's Rights Edmonton (the organizer of the poster campaign). In fact, Lise Gotell would prefer that no MRA speak to the media, ever. Here's an excerpt from her interview, notice the true bigoted fashion in which she speaks:
    Lise Gotell: One problem with the media attention to these, you know, men's rights posters [...] is that it might give this message too much of a platform. Everything that I know about this group Men's Rights Edmonton suggests that it is a very small group of people.
    Question: Have you actually spoken with them?
    Lise Gotell: No, I haven't spoken with them. They have claimed responsibility as a group but they have refused to identify themselves.
    Question: Does it warrant a public debate? Would you be prepared to sit down and engage them in a...
    Lise Gotell: There's no basis to debate. I have, you know, I have published research studies that can fill several rooms in back of me. There aren't two sides on this issue, right? We have very clear research showing first of all [...] that sexual violence is a pervasive problem in Canada; secondly showing that there's low conviction rate - sorry low reporting rates; and thirdly showing that there's low conviction rates. These are the issues we need to be concerned about. [... Rehtaeh Parsons...] There's no need to debate these people.
    Here are some other bigots that came out of the woodwork to attack anything that does not confirm to their sacred beliefs:
    ~ The Alberta Town Council member and Mayoral Candidate Don Iveson, condemned the "Don't be that girl" messages, "It's not funny and it's cowardly... If there's someone who wants to debate these issues - a real person who wants to debate these issues - they should come out and we should be talking about sexual assault in Edmonton, because it's a real issue. It's one of our crime indicators that's rising, and it's very troubling. The tactics are cowardly and the issue is not a laughing matter". Except that it's Iveson who is a coward because Iveson is afraid of the feminist backlash and therefore cannot talk coherently. Fact is, contrary to Ivenson's assertions, Men's Rights Edmonton has been frantically at work talking to news sources hungry for information about the group. Also notice how the idiot totally turns the posters' message and manipulates it into talking about sexual assaults (rather than the false accusations of sexual assaults), because Iveson simply cannot deny that the false accusations of sexual assaults are too common. Like Gotell, the coward Iveson also refused the invitation for the debate. And no other feminist showed up for the debate either, even though it was an open invitation and the feminists were being specially invited.
    ~ Other groups were also very quick to make statements to the press as well. Karen Smith, executive director of the Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton, lied through her teeth, "I want to make it clear that that is so inaccurate. It [the phenomenon of false rape accusations] just doesn't happen. Nobody would report sexual assault needlessly because it is a grueling process to go through."
    ~ Louise McEwan misquotes Lise Gotell and then accuses the MRA's of misquoting her. On getting caught, the editors of Troy Media start employing their pet dishonest and feminist tactics, like deleting parts of the MRA's comments exposing the lies of their feminist writer.
    ~ Michael Laxer, a false rape accusation apologist, says that calling out of false rape accusers is a toxic message of misogyny and rape apologism. (Note that in case of a false accusation of rape, no rape has actually happened, but that fact doesn't matter to a bigot.) He says that it's a grotesque and entirely false narrative that men are the victims of systemic violence and injustice. Actually he is just a mangina who is not ready to accept that feminism should ever be criticized. Like the typical feminist, he views the sexual violence from a gendered perspective, regardless whether it has actually occurred or not (hint: In the cases of false accusations of rape, it has not). He then goes on to speak about the sexual assaults, violence, and etc but never bothers to address the actual message he was supposed to tear apart: That of the false accusations. Even then, he says that violence against men doesn't matter because of their gender, and nothing needs to be done for the male victims of violence because they're different from (read, inferior to, or second-class to) the female victims of violence (that is, only addressing the one side of violence, male-on-female, would fix everything up). Again, typical feminist. He then proves that he is a complete and utter idiot when he quote mines from Paul Elam's satire (which was meant to expose the hypocrisy of the feminists) and paints it as his real message.
    ~ The Calgary Committee Against Sexual Abuse said the men’s campaign was "100% incorrect". Twitter came alive with assertions that the posters proved the existence of a “rape culture” in Canada, and the bigot Anu Dugal, the Director of Violence Prevention at the Canadian Women's Foundation, denounced the posters' putative suggestion "that women are responsible for sexual assault". Even the police department joined in the righteous chorus, with one officer, Acting Inspector Sean Armstrong, coming forward to dismiss the concerns of the men's organization by noting that after 4.5 years of working as a sexual assault detective, he had seen only one false report out of numerous files (as if that, if even true, supercedes all other stats on the false sexual assaults allegations). This makes it clear that under the reign of feminist orthodoxy, it is not enough to agree that sexual assault is wrong; everyone (including the supposedly impartial departments like the police) must also commit to the doctrine that women never lie about it. Acting Inspector Sean Armstrong’s proclaimed trust in women's word about sexual assault is likely the outcome of years of feminist advocacy and training within the force. A man getting a knock at the door over a false allegation, would predictably dread to have Armstrong, or anyone like him, investigate his case. In other words, the feminist trained police results in an environment of terror for the innocent men.
    ~ The folks at CIActivist (who followed around the Men's Rights Edmonton guys recently at a Slutwalk) spent a huge amount of time lecturing them, mostly with non-sequiturs and nonsense, including a suggestion (or maybe a hidden warning) by a mangina Ryjin Vander Hoek to soften their tone. This clueless know-it-all idiot has absolutely no idea about what he is talking about (hint: totally illogical, without any facts, filled with emotional appeal), because he didn't bother to read or listen to the MRA stance on the matter at all, and is spewing out his indoctination at the hands of feminists. (Update: Later he acknowledges his mistakes but essentially says they should not be called mistakes anyway because his Holy Feminism and his cult gurus cannot be wrong, ever. More of his bigotry.)
  • PZ Meyers accused Michael Shermer (nearly 60), one of the very big names in skepticism/atheism, of being a rapist based on the story told by a friend of a friend (all anonymous, as supposedly, the falsely accused men have no right to question their accusers). In essence, PZ Meyers' position is that since women have reason/s to be afraid, they should be allowed to make their accusations anonymously by "Chinese Telephone" (hearsay in the n-th degree), no questions asked - and the rapists must be tried and punished in the court of public opinion. Not to make these accusations known is, according to PZ, extremely harmful since it shields the rapists and allows them to rape forever with abandon. So Meyers outed Shermer as a rapist on third-hand anonymous evidence. This is another way of purporting the feminist bigotry that women never lie and the accused men must be witch hunted.
  • Before answering critical questions, Humboldt University Berlin gender researchers at Research Centre of the Network Women's and Gender Studies North Rhine-Westphalia issued an un urgent warning to avoid questions from people associated with the online groups Cuncti and Genderama. So, while they say they welcome questions, they imply that there will be no replies to people who are skeptical of their religion (feminism). In the typical feminist fashion, they want their question-answer session to be an echo chamber of consenting voices (circle-fingering, if you will). What kind of discussion is that to expect from a university?
  • Andrea Sands calls MRA's (who are in support of the rights of men falsely accused of rape) rape apologists, and tries to silence them by shaming them.
  • Maclean's Magazine writer Mika Rekai employs the common bigotry tactic, quote mining, to paint the MRA's as (verbally) angry, misogynists, and woman-beaters. She also protects the bigots of her ilk who had intimidated the people attending a lecture on the issues being faced by the men and boys (like their higher college drop-out rates, suicides, falling performance, etc). She says those angry, violent, and hateful bigots were just young, female, university students. (Another typical bigot tactic: Appeal to emotions.) As if the young, female, university students are all angels and can do no wrong. In fact, as their video recordings shows, they were some of the most vile, hateful, and disgusting feminists, who engaged in illegal efforts to harass, abuse, and abridge the free speech of other students. She then resorts to bald-faced lies. She says that a red-haired woman, whose YouTube video clips harassing and swearing at the MRA's were featured and popularized by the MRA's, received hundreds of comments threatening to beat, rape, and murder her (there were only some comments like that but exaggeration is a feminist's favorite 2+2=5 tool) from the MRA's (while actually they were from anonymous malicious people on the Web, not the MRA's), without bothering to present any proof as to how she decided that those posters were MRA's. As is typical of the bigots, you can ascribe anything negative to the men (or in this case, the MRA's), because your ideology of hate allows (in fact encourages) that. While Rekai lied anything and everything about the MRA's, she conveniently failed to mention that at those events there was an organized, self-identified feminist presence, that was vandalizing posters, tripping fire alarms, harassing attendees by screaming epithets at them ("rape apologists", "scum", etc), physically blocking doors so that attendees could not enter, and engaging in violence on a level that required police intervention. This is what happens to journalism when a feminist poisons it with her ideology rather than just reporting the facts.
  • In her recent "Daily Journal" column, high profile feminist professor Wendy Murphy dismisses the problem of false rape accusations as an "ugly myth", and calls for "boiling rage" activism to address what she perceives as the anti-woman bias of the criminal justice system. This is the same Wendy Murphy who emerged as a leading TV commentator on the Duke false rape accusation saga, with frequent appearances on CNN, Fox News, and other channels. She repeatedly referred to the accused men as "rapists" on the air. On one occasion, she fumed, "I'm really tired of people suggesting that you're somehow un-American if you don't respect the presumption of innocence, because you know what that sounds like to a victim? Presumption you're a liar."
  • Hofstra University student Danmell Ndonye had consensual sex in a dormitory bathroom and then falsely claimed that she was raped by 5 men. Ndonye changed her story after prosecutors confronted her with the revelation that a video of the encounter may have been recorded. Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice, a feminist ideologue and a bigot, refused to press charges against the false rape accuser, saying, "Her actions and demeanor depict a very troubled young woman in need of much help" (which, apparently, is always the case with female criminals).
    The young man who took the video that prevented the 5 falsely accused young men from serving 25 years in prison for a crime they didn't commit was branded by the feminist Deborrah Cooper as "the most twisted" one of all.
  • Barbara Ellen is a rape apologist (the real thing, this is not a shaming term here), who seriously doesn't think that a female teacher raping a male pupil is on a par with a male teacher raping a girl pupil. She also claims to know that most 15-year-old boys also think like her (funny how those little boys seem to have all the agency and wit of knowing what's good for them while the same-aged girls supposedly do not). She says that the issue of the teachers raping the students should not be taken lightly, and then not only does the same but also urges her readers to think just like her when it happens to be a female-on-male rape. Because, of course, a female perpetrator has (as always) already been punished by her circumstances which forced her into raping a student, and also because the Internet says so (yep, really, she says that this type of female-on-male rape should be treated as "older woman teacher - pupil" fantasies because those fantasies are abundant on the Internet, conveniently forgetting that there also is an abundance of stories of "older man teacher - female pupil" on the same media). She then goes on to femsplain that the teenager (who has been mocked by peers) was mocked because the other boys were jealous. And then she comes to the real cause of her bigotry: The law should be treating male and female pupil victims differently (read, the female teacher rapists should be awarded pussy passes and their male victims can be treated as cute live dildos for their female teachers' sexual satisfaction). She believes that the secondary schools are hubs of teenage sexuality (and not a temple of learning). Or maybe as far as the male students are concerned anyway. At such points, the feminists suddenly start seeing all kinds of differences in the boys and girls, using them as excuses for the female teachers' sexual misconducts. She says that the female rapists are not a problem because their male victims can learn from the experience (she uses the words like "practice", "bragging rights", etc as the "win-win" type of benefits to the victims - so long as they're male victims, that is). When not on a major media outlet, the feminists actually consider it quite good (not just non-criminal but absolutely positive) when a male becomes a victim of rape.
  • Feminist blogger Cara opposes the proposed ban on releasing defendants' names in rape cases. Her reasoning revolves around a lot of intellectual dishonesty, false dichotomies, and a dash of emotional appeals. She says that false convictions are not an issue with the question of whether or not this plan [of ban on releasing the name of the accused] is a good idea. She further makes several claims, starting with: "a vast majority of false accusations don't name a rapist. They involve stranger rape, not acquaintance rape, because the accuser is almost always looking for attention, not to see an innocent man convicted." Cara provides no evidence for this claim. She continues with: "those found to make false accusations do face punishment. They're put on trial themselves, and I'm pretty sure see a much higher conviction rate than rapists." Of course, she does not provide any evidence to support her claim beyond being "pretty sure", as if that means something. She further states: "I'm fine with all accused parties being named, because they are merely accused, with the understanding that every once in a rather rare while, one of those accused people will be innocent." She writes: "with the relatively rare and still only sometimes exception of stranger rapes, accused rapists tend to be granted much stronger support systems than accusers... I just refuse to believe that those who are falsely accused of rape - not even convicted, just accused! - and are tried and vindicated in the judicial system face the same risk of a 'ruined' life as someone whose bodily autonomy and personal worth has been violently violated in what is usually a gendered hate crime that faces great social stigma." Cara harps on the "rarity" of false accusations (using the 8% statistics - Even this is pretty high except for bigots to realize its seriousness), despite that no reliable studies or research exists demonstrating the actual prevalence rate.
  • Renuka Chowdhary sees no problem with one-sided anti-male dowry laws and their possible misuse, which is rampant at this point. But notice how the interviewer Karan Thapar brings up the issue of misuse of the laws only by the judges instead of by the unscrupulous women (which apparently is not allowed by the PC police).
  • Jeff Perera (a spokesperson for the White Ribbon Campaign), when faced with a mention of pure misandric garbage with the stench of feminist false propaganda being spread by the White Ribbon folks (as recorded on a phone call), did not promise that it will never happen again or that they were updating their information; but stated how it was "not cool" to ambush-call the White Ribbon line and record it. In other words, Jeff effectively said that the incidents of male victims seeking help from the White Ribbon being potentially harmed even further by their employees should not have been exposed because it was "not cool"!
  • Barry Nolan starts with pure fear mongering: "Angry, radical men's groups believe males are being victimized by out-of-control judges and politicians. They're wrong and they're dangerous and they need to be stopped." Only idiots will take such baseless things seriously, which is what his most readers probably are anyway. And he plays on their emotional insecurities just right. Further, even though the other feminists themselves have acknowledged that the men (and fathers) get the raw deal in the kangaroo courts, Nolan preaches like an ignorant idiot with his head up his ass, "One thing the Fatherhood Council is particularly concerned about is restraining orders, which it insists are used in a way that's biased against men", as if the family court bias against men is non-existent. Observing that DV is most commonly reciprocal, Nolan says that in the female-initiated violence, women are most often injured. (And hence the men are bad, again.) And of course, he views anything positive being achieved for the men as a reason for the women (whom he, like all bigots, mingles with the feminists) to fear and hate the MRM. He also quotes another bigot, Vice President Joe Biden, to support his claim, "Violence against women [but not men - notice the limiting clause "against women"] reflects as much a failure of our nation's collective moral imagination as it does the failure of our nation's laws and regulations... it deserves our profound public outrage." Clearly, someone deriving anything from such a bigoted and dishonest rhetoric cannot arrive at a legitimate egalitarian conclusion.
  • Amanda Marcotte and Mary Elizabeth Williams believe that nothing needs to be done about the fathers getting the raw deal in the kangaroo court decisions of child custody and chalimony, while not having any choice or reproductive rights as to whether they want the children or not, because it's totally a mother's choice alone, by law. (According to Marcotte, actually this issue should not even be raised - The feminist status quo must go on silently without any questions, and people's attention should not turn toward this discriminatory practice at all.)
  • Professor Dame Sally Davies, instead of recognizing the female shortcoming/unwillingness in certain tasks/jobs, holds a vagina syndrome called the "Imposter syndrome" responsible for their inability to achieve higher positions. She also says that men achieve those positions not with their abilities/sacrifices, but by using a built-in "bullshit gene" to succeed, which she jokes is on the Y-chromosome. Ironically, she failed to see how she herself has used bullshit so straightforwardly that it just seems to be her second nature. And why not? She's a feminist, after all. (Never mind the double standards of a woman at such a position being tolerated insulting the entire male gender, while a man doing the same with the female gender would never have been tolerated.)
  • These are the views of Barbara Jordan, of the US House of Representatives, of men: "I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it." She has obviously just shown off her own 'understanding' of and 'compassion' toward men with this very quote. Why don't bigots look into a mirror before judging others?
  • Nikki Gemmell, writing for 'The Australian', tries to induce collective guilt by stating that all the Australians are misogynists (oh well, does this overused word even work its magic anymore?) and their enablers, and should be ashamed for not allowing Julia Gillard - a woman (this is the most important point to Gemmell: She judges people based on what's under their pants rather than their brains) - to continue whatever moronic deeds she had been doing bringing her political party to defeat. She attempts to shame people who held a woman responsible for her incompetence and misandry. According to this bigot, no matter what a woman does, she must always be celebrated and supported just because she's a female, and must never be challenged or questioned.
  • At the opening ceremony for the 150th anniverary of the Battle of Gettysburg, Doris Kearns Goodwin turned the keynote address into a political lecture focusing on women's and gay rights. Her borderline inappropriate lecture touched upon nearly everything except for the heroic sacrifices made on that battlefield. She lectured the audience on the "women's liberation movement" and spoke at length about Eleanor Roosevelt (wife of one of the US presidents, and another bigot who refused to give interviews to male reporters, as if having a penis made someone completely inadequate as a journalist). Kearns Goodwin emphasized that World War II led to a "new birth of freedom" for women, and reminded attendees, "Still, we await our first female president". She compared the gay rights movement to the women's rights and civil rights movements. Mentioning "Stonewall", instead of talking about how different Gettysburg could have been had the great Southern General Stonewall Jackson lived to aid Robert E Lee, Kearns Goodwin spoke about the Stonewall gay riots that united the gay community, which she used to discuss how women's rights and civil rights and gay rights were all "human rights" while quoting Robert F. Kennedy's "ripples of hope" speech. She even compared "Stonewall" to "Selma", linking the gay rights movement and the black civil rights movement.
  • Russ Lindquist and Danielle Paradis think that an attack on the ideology of feminism (or on a feminist's beliefs and arguments) is a personal attack on the feminists, as if the feminists and feminism are inseparable (but the two do become separable as soon as the debate come to whether feminism is hate - Then claims such as "Are feminists necessarily hateful?" start showing up). Russ Lindquist thinks that a female in favor of the men's rights is nothing but a "false mommy idol". He then warns that while the second bigot Danielle is a moderate feminist, some rude arguments against feminism might compel her to become radicalized (as if the two flavors of feminism actually differ, or as if it should matter to the world as to which type of feminism she subscribes to). He even said that what made him want to take Danielle's side (that is, act as a white knight) was that the MRA GirlWritesWhat (GWW) was mean to the bigot, and not that the bigot was right or had valid points, while at the same time flinging insults at GWW (this should give you an idea of how seriously he needs to be taken). He believes that the feminists that are hateful are just misinformed, misguided, and the innocent victims of other people's lies. Danielle's 'arguments' in favor of feminism as being not hateful lack any real analysis or investigation - Just statements to be taken at face value (like the indoctrinated people do).
  • Stephen Marche assumes that the women and the feminists mean the same thing, on the basis of which assumption he paints the MRA's in a predictable light. The clown also claims that the MRA's promote pseudoscience and conspiracy theories while himself whining about the biggest conspiracy theory of all - the patriarchy!
  • Meghan Murphy, a feminist, is talking about having credibility and accountability!! She begins her indoctrination by saying that true manginas must respect women (not just female feminists but all women without exception, no matter what they do or say). Her own credibility and accountability has punctured right here. Because women, like the 'non-women', must earn respect and prove themselves to be worthy of it, rather than expecting it just for existing as a person having a vagina (that assumption takes away their accountability and suggesting that wipes away any credibility on part of the feminist author). She then goes on to spew typical feminist doctrines needed to be a good dog... oops... mangina, like, thou shalt never objectify women, remember that male power is nothing but rape culture and misogyny, do as I say and not as I do (i.e., it's okay for the women around you to do anything - to you or to other women; but you are not allowed to do anything that the feminists may not like), and that the manginas opening their mouths (other than to bark at other men) is silencing the feminists (so thou shalt ask no question about our doctrines, just shut up, bow your head, and follow the orders, expecting only criticism from the female feminists in return). She instructs the mangina-wannbe's to never say anything good about themselves, never proclaim to be gentlemen, etc, i.e., all your praising words belong to teh wimminz. All you're allowed to do to yourself is criticize your manhood and masculinity, consider yourself to be privileged and an oppressor, and of course, you won't be fully accepted as feminists ever anyway (a position that even a less bigoted female can get easily just for being female). In other words, this shaming attack is not on a man's views and thinking alone, it's on his very existence - He is guilty and has to prove otherwise just for existing. His existence is shameful and the world would be better if he (along with the other males) just vanishes away. And to prove otherwise, he has to constantly lick the women's collective ass. This is what Meghan Murphy calls the accoutability and credibility for the manginas. Warped, just like her own.
  • Kyle "Guante" Tran Myhre is a fully feminist indoctrinated bigot who believes in the feminist theory of patriarchy and the myths of centuries of 'oppression' that supposedly only women faced (at the hands of the men, of course), glass ceiling, male privilege, and wage gap - As if they're something real. He says that for centuries of inequalities, only men must payback to the women. He also suffers from apex fallacy, even though he's a man, which means his feminist indoctrination is so complete that he now essentially thinks like a woman. He believes that nothing should even be started to be done to address the issues faced by the men until all the issues faced by all the women have completely been solved (at which point he believes that the men's issues would automatically get solved - he's probably right about that, because no men remaining means no men's issues remaining either, after all). He refuses to accept that there can be any flaws in his perfect ideology - The feminism. He strongly believes that no questions should be asked about what the feminists are doing, and everyone must just blindly follow them. To anyone asking questions challenging his dogma, he responds by saying that one needs to understand his point (in other words, one needs to get feminist-indoctrinated just like him, at which point no question will remain), rather than answering the question in a logical and direct way. Oh, and a simple test for you: What does he call the MRA's (and any man talking about the issues faced by the men)? You guessed it: Misogynists. If you care about the men or bring forth the issues and discrimination faced by them, you must be a woman-hater - This is the feminist stance. He is also completely uninformed about the MRA's, thinking the they claim to respect women just for being women, while the MRM stance is to respect a person based on the person's actions rather than the person's gender. And the hypocrite demonizes the MRA's in bulk for treating all the women as a single generalized group, when all that the MRA's do is point out the wrongdoings of some women and tell people to be cautious of such elements (just like you'd do for male criminals, muggers, murderers, etc). Fact is, it's only feminism that generalizes the people of the two genders as two groups (no prizes for guessing which gender is treated as the perfect one and which one as faulty) with no free or 'individual' identity (if you're a female, there's simply no way you can be flawed in any way; if you're a male, there's no way you can be right about anything) - And that's why feminism is an ideology (of hate).
  • Michael Urbina believes in the myths of glass ceiling, patriarchy, and rape culture. He urges men to be servants and dogs (unpaid bodyguards) for the women, regardless of whether those women do something bad. According to this mangina, being women should be sufficient for the women to get the men as their own personal dogs. (Of course, he doesn't urge the women to return the favor in any way.) Like all dishonest ideologues, he also knowingly conflates feminism with women, so that anyone being against or questioning feminism could be painted as a misogynist. He asks men to support, not groups helping women do better, but pro-feminist (male-hating) groups.
    He begins his indoctrination of the men by stating that the male privilege exists and that it should be used in service of women only. In other words, men are not allowed to speak up anything for their own self, but only to bark and bite in favor of the women. (He urges men to redefine their masculinity in a pro-feminist way.) The obligatory heterosexual and White privileges are also thrown in (although women can also be those). That is, think of women as the oppressed groups, just like the Blacks and the LGBT people are. (But he fails to cite how the women are oppressed, and the men privileged or the oppressors.) Like a cultist, he says that men's own experiences (of pain, being hatred, etc) don't matter, they should only see the others' (women's) experiences. He then dictates that men should not carry the photos of semi-nude girls in their phones etc (because, well, he doesn't like it, so any man should not either). He tells men to return the magazines that contain women's sexy poses.
    According to him, men should not even look at the women as they walk by, and should walk on the other side of the street when a woman is walking towards them at night. They should also not talk or tell jokes among themselves (and if another man is talking or telling a joke, they should call him out and silence him), as that might make some overly sensitive woman uncomfortable. He says that if you, as a man, speak up anything or do not stop other men from speaking up, you're contributing to the women's oppression. He says, "Speak as if a woman is always listening" (that is, just shut up). In other words, he is holding men responsible for the illogical feelings of women, rather than telling women how to cop with their insecurities. And the double standards are obvious when he tells men to be comfortable with being uncomfortable (so men's feelings of being uncomfortable don't count). He tells men to treat women with respect, not just general courtesy but respect, just for having a vagina. (Of course, no such advice for the men's treatment at the hands of women.) He says, "Respect 'her' culture" (not your own if it differs from hers). Also thrown is the shaming language term "lived experiences", which means your experience as a man is worth nothing. He acknowledges that such terms are at the core of feminism and play important role in turning a man into a mangina.
    Ever wondered how the ideologues are full of dictations and restrictions for their followers, forcing them to stop thinking on their part or even having opinions and just follow the cult (feminism) rules? They even enforce the thought police. This bigot is no difference. He says, "Think about issues and your own life from an intersectional lens" (i.e., as a man, always think of yourself and the masculinity as the oppressors, no matter whether you've just been beaten up or falsely accused of rape by a woman). At the same time while he asks men to not force their opinion on to the others, he tells them to be pro-choice and support same-sex marriage. These are political stands and one should be freely able to choose whichever side one finds suitable for oneself; but for a cultist, that choice doesn't matter: Cult-thinking is the supreme, individual thinking is unimportant. He says, "Ask questions (but not too many)", that is, don't start exposing the truth of the cult, just show that you've accepted the 'answers'. He also dictates what men can/should read and not read - He recommends feminist books and sites as the news sources to the men, and tells men to avoid the MRM sites. He asks them to take Women's Studies classes, watch feminist-favoring TV programs, join the feminist projects, stay connected to the feminists worldwide, and attend women's rights protests. (He fails to say what rights women do not have that men have.) He asks men to indoctrinate their kids too, and make their space feminist. (Exactly what the cult leaders and bigots recommend to their followers.) In other words, he wants men to see the world and think from a female perspective (that is, be a mangina, just like him).
    He tells men to advocate more inclusive policies (inclusive to the females, that is), which favor females over males for no reason other than the gender. He tells men to support and vote for political candidates who advocate policies beneficial to women (which means discrimination against men). That is, he advocates for men to dig their own graves.
    It doesn't take long for him to prove that he is actually an idiot. As soon as he presented the first point that was different from the usual mangina speak, he showed off his stupidity in all its glory. He sayeth, "Take paternity leave if you're a father."
  • Jamie Utt is a bigot (and a feminist ally - another name for a mangina) who believes in the myths of patrirachy, male privilege, and women's 'historical oppression'. He makes excuses for women's wrong behavior against men by painting them as an oppressed group and men as privileged, while under the matriarchy the opposite is true. (Assigning group identities to the various people to justify some and demonize others is a hallmark of a bigot.) He believes that men cannot be discriminated against by the women because... well... patriarchy. And therefore, the idiot says, while women can do everything to men that defines sexism, women cannot be sexist. The height of his stupidity is that the definition/s of sexism - a word he claims people are using wrongly when they call women sexist - refute his own point, and he still keeps trying to bend the logic as per his feminist indoctrination to say that those defintions only apply one way - When men say/do something against women because of them being women (the definitions don't say anything like that, nor do they require 'historical oppression' or patriarchy, but that doesn't stop Utt from seeing in them what he wants to see - his feminist-approved version of the things, as he thinks everyone must believe in patriarchy like a religion). So what is it when women are being sexist against men? Well, he says, a general problem like every other problem, but not sexism. He calls people not agreeing with his version of things bigots. This is typical fembot behavior: Classifying even one-off instances of female-specific problems as systemic, and classifying the male-specific problems as general problems (interpersonal slights, just like everyone else faces some problems) and refusing to believe that they're systemic or male-specific.
  • Jesse Powell describes himself as TWRA (Traditional Women's Rights Activist) rather than a feminist. However, since any man bigoted enough to undermine a man's worth compared to that of a woman is still a feminist, so he is a mangina anyway. This bigot first quote-mines Paul Elam who said that given the feminist corruption in the rape cases, the courts simply cannot make any decision regarding rape cases rightly, and so, if he were to make any decision regarding a rape case given the current situation, he would not mark the accused guilty even if evidence has been produced that the accused is guilty. This ensures the principle of justice that says that it's better to let 10 guilty people go free instead of punishing one innocent. Jesse Powell, however, believes the opposite. He says that it's alright for innocent men who are the victims of false rape charges to be imprisoned (notice the similarity with the feminist Catherine Cummins's statement, "Men who are unjustly accused of rape, sometimes gain from the experience"; though their reasons differ, in either case, it's the men who must be run over, and women who must be pedestalized). The reason he cites is not based on any logic or reason at all (it obviously cannot be), and is pure bigotry (kind of like making use of the fact that you can just say anything negative about the men because nobody cares about them). The reason he gives is that he believes it will protect women from being raped (gynocentrism, only women's interests matter, men be damned). (When confronted, he then accuses the MRA's are quote-mining him, while it was him who had done it.) So why are women more important than men to him? He rationalizes by bringing in children (common bigot tactic, introduce a completely irrelevant point to make your case). He says that men have a duty to protect women, who in turn have a duty to protect children. So is it okay to require proof of rape from women not having children but not from those that have? Should there be two sets of rules for the women accusing someone of rape - One if the woman has children, another if she does not? Or should all women be believed because some of them have children? So whether an accused man should be punished or not should be based upon a generalized 'theory' proposed by this idiot rather than whether the man has actually raped or not. And why are then women not required by this idiot to protect their sons who are falsely accused?
  • Andrew Holding is a bigot who claims to be a scientist and still believes in a 'theory' as unscientific as the patriarchy. He acknowledges that the MRA's are telling the truth about the men's issues, but refuses to believe that those issues have been caused by feminism. He says that the MRM is wrong (of course, without explaining how or why) and we need more feminism, not less, to fix all the problems being faced by the men. In other words, the MRA's should just shut up and wait for the feminists to fix things up.
  • David Perry is a bigot who believes in patriarchy. In his article titled "The Straight Married White American Male Feminist Manifesto" on the site The Good Men Project (TGMP - a feminist-controlled site claiming itself to be about men and boys, and their lives), he deleted comments that were critical of feminism; of course, leaving no way for the readers to see if those comments asked something he could not explain on the basis of his dishonest and misandric ideology (feminism). This is typical of the TGMP moderators. When the commenters asked about the male problems like the rising level of the male suicides, depression, and addiction; fathers not getting child custody in the majority of divorce/separation cases; men being the majority of prisoners, school/college drop-outs, and violence/murder victims; etc, Perry has the one answer to everything: Yep, you guessed it: The patriarchy. According to him, the solution to these problems, therefore, is more feminism! (Even though it's the feminists that have created these problems or enhanced them in the first place. For example, it's the 'National Organization for Women' - NOW - that's opposed to fathers getting the equal child custody, not some abstract theory like patriarchy suddenly getting alive and opposing the fathers' rights.) Logic would suggest that we look at the situation in totality, dropping any ideological perspectives before we take that look lest we project our expectations onto the findings. Perry does not or cannot do that. He is so adamant in his feminism that even when presented with examples disproving his beliefs he hunkers down. When the commenter Danny asked Perry to explain what male privilege justifies the high suicide rate among boys, Perry stated that he did not "know enough about suicide rates to weigh in intelligently on this complex subject", but if the problem stemmed from gender roles "the solution is more feminism, not less feminism". So he has already chosen the solution, no matter if he knows enough about the problem or not. Perry labels any reasonable voices critical of his political and ideological views as "MRA trolls", and dodges any meaningful criticism of his ideas. To him, anyone (like Danny) who is not a feminist is simply wrong.
    Previously, TGMP's Joanna Schroeder had informed the author of the Toy Soldiers (a website dedicated to the male victims of rape and sexual assaults) that he is banned from TGMP in part because he is a non-feminist male survivor of sexual abuse. So a male victim of sexual abuse must be a feminist in order to comment on TGMP. In fact, they ban anyone who disagrees with or criticizes the ideas and theories of feminism. (They even delete comments not conforming to the gender ideology.)
  • David Duchovny of "X-Files" says that women's fashion is (a "subtle" form of, as always) men's way of binding them. He says that we (by which he means he himself and possibly other men like him) put women in these tight, high-heeled shoes (although it's women who make those choices for themselves), that we make them wear these tight clothes (he might have done so, but most men have probably not forced any woman to wear tight clothes - or go naked for that matter), and that we say they look sexy (which is nothing wrong; even women find men with a great attire sexy and compliment them). In a typical bigoted fashion, he assumes that women are not responsible for making their own choices (hypoagency), whereas men are guilty for those choices just by praising those choices (hyperagency). In other words, he didn't mention it by name, perhaps because that would make his idiocy too obvious, but implied the existence of patriarchy (in a "subtle" way, if you will).

End of the document.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comment moderation is ON. Only the following types of comments will be published (and possibly replied to): Dissenting with something, proving something wrong, asking for proof of something objective, and enhancing/correcting something. Comments of praise and encouragement are read and appreciated, but won't be published; don't feel bad about that.