ACLAF

• Montreal man in hospital after valiant rescue effort in cabin fire

  Posted: September 3rd, 2007, 2:27pm PDT by timberwolf

  Feminists love to claim that men are all bad. There’s always stuff like this though, that proves them completely wrong, not that they’ll ever admit it.

  Source: CBC News

  A man who was severely burned in a cabin fire at a nature reserve and then took a boat across a lake in a desperate attempt to save his family was recovering in a Montreal hospital Monday.

  The ruins of a cabin smoulder after a fatal fire on Sunday morning at a nature reserve in northern Quebec.The ruins of a cabin smoulder after a fatal fire on Sunday morning at a nature reserve in northern Quebec. (CBC)

  Karl Hansen, 49, was the only person to escape the Sunday morning fire at the Kiskissink nature reserve in northern Quebec.

  It ultimately killed his 26-year-old son, 19-year-old daughter, 13-year-old stepdaughter, as well as his daughter’s boyfriend, 22, and a family friend in his 50s.

  Quebec provincial police confirmed that five people had died. Autopsies will be conducted.

  Hansen, who is from Montreal, awoke early Sunday morning to find the fishing cabin filled with fire and glowing orange, the CBC’s Nancy Wood reported from Montreal on Monday morning.

  Hansen managed to find his 26-year-old son and tried unsuccessfully to get him out a window. Hansen ended up leaping out the window alone, head first.

  With burns over his body, especially on his hands, Hansen boated 15 minutes across Lescarbot Lake, since there was no road access or telephone access to the cabin.

  He then drove about 50 kilometres to the main lodge of the Kiskissink reserve, which is owned by the Quebec government and situated 170 km north of Trois-Rivières.

  Diane Morin, who works for the reserve, recalled how Hansen pulled up to her office at about 5 a.m. ET and started honking frantically.

  “The man said, ‘The fire had already started and all my children, everybody, burned at the chalet,’” she told Radio-Canada, the French arm of the CBC. “It’s a nightmare, it’s terrible.”

  Emergency workers were picking through the rubble of the cabin Monday to determine the cause of the fire. A faulty heating unit is a possibility.

  “We will look into this, if we can find something regarding a stove or a furnace that had problems,” said Sgt. Michel Brunet. “But it could be something else.”

  Pierre Lefebvre, president of Kiskissink, said the fire has devastated the tight-knit community of people who use the reserve, which spans about 1,000 kilometres and contains more than 300 lakes. Reserve users are close, like family, Lefebvre said.

  “I feel like I just came to lose five of my children,” he said.
  With files from the Canadian Press

• 
  

  The hypocrisy of Pron*

  Posted: August 23rd, 2007, 5:06pm PDT by timberwolf

  *Error intentional

  A question that has puzzled MRAs is why do some femcunts hate porn so much? I was recently turning this question over in my mind, trying to understand just what it is that makes feminists so anti-pornography.

  For my purposes, I’ll restrict what constitutes pornography to non-violent forms of erotica; simply put, let’s picture two attractive people just having sex. I understand that people have more questionable tastes and fetishes, which may perhaps be more objectionable than simple straight sex. But since even at its most basic form, femcunts still maintain that pornography is at least unethical, because it subjugates, objectifies and oppresses women, whatever that means. To be fair, there are some modern pornographic conventions that I don’t like, but these are personal tastes, not widespread condemnation.

  Try as I might, this concept still doesn’t make any sense to me, and I suspect that I’m not the only one. Furthermore, no anti-porn feminist that I have ever encountered has offered the least in any cognizant explanation of just what this means. When questioned, they will make up any excuse to avoid explaining their position. Could it possibly be that they themselves simply don’t understand their position?

  Even if someone manages to find coherent complete arguments against pornography, they are build much like house of cards, based on non-sense statistics and false information. And if statistics don’t manage to convince you, circular logic will!

  Take this bullshit statistic for one:

  9 out of 10 children aged between the ages of 8 and 16 have viewed pornography on the Internet, in most cases unintentionally. – Source

  And…? I’m not even disputing the statistic, given the volume of porn on the internet, sure.

  But so what!?! Where’s the harm exactly?

  There is a long list of these sorts of “facts” listed at the source in question, but the truly telling ones are hidden in the middle;

  Regular users of pornography are less likely to convict for a rape, and less likely to give a harsh sentence to a rapist if in fact convicted. Conversely, individuals who do not use pornography are more likely to convict an accused rapist.

  Did everybody catch what is ACTUALLY being said in this quote? No? How about this one.

  Regular users of pornography have increasingly hostile and aggressive sexual fantasies.

  Or this one:

  The Zillmann and Bryant laboratory studies (1982-1984):
  The question of the research was “what are the consequences of continued exposure to pornography on beliefs about sexuality in general and on attitudes towards women?”. The experiment was undertaken in this way:
  – Part One: 80 male and 80 female participants are divided into four subgroups. The “Massive Exposure Group” saw 36 short, non-violent (but degrading and dehumanizing) pornographic films (about 5 hours of film) over six weeks; the “Intermediate Exposure Group” saw 18 short, non-violent pornographic films and 18 regular films over six weeks; and the “No Exposure Group” saw 36 regular films.
  – Part Two: All participants read about a rape case and were asked to recommend the length of the prison sentence for the rapist. They were also asked to indicate their support for the women’s rights movement on a 0 to 100 scale. Finally, they were asked to estimate the popularity of various sexual acts among the general population.
  The results were: ….

  ….When asked to rate their support for women’s rights: Men and women in the “Massive Exposure Group” a lot less support than participants in the “No Exposure Group” (38% versus 76%).

  Are we seeing this? All of these examples off acts about the harms to society caused by pornography are actually cloaked misandrist claims. The first instance implies that being skeptical about throwing an accused person in jail is actually a bad thing. The second should really be nobody’s concern, and the third automatically assumes that so-called “women’s rights” are good for everyone, and as MRA’s have argued, this is clearly not the case. And I’m not even disputing these facts, but they clearly present nothing but an anti-male feminist agenda!

  But the greatest hypocrisy in this whole thing is purely biological, and an attempt to hide the truth; it’s nothing more than guilt and denial.

  Fact is, women react just as much, and are just as aroused by pornography as men.

  Last year McGill University researchers released a study monitoring arousal levels of men and women when watching sex films and found that both genders respond equally. Source

  Feminists can deny their psychological arousal to the ends of the earth, but it simply isn’t biologically true. Women are just as aroused by pornography as men, and therefore the anti-porn position is ludicrous. Why? Because feminism is in part based on the core concept that all women are perfect, and when we reduce feminism to a core of women-good/men-bad, pornography being something traditionally male-oriented is automatically deemed harmful to women, and whether or not the facts fit is irrelevant. Since women derive as much stimulation from it, the thought that a radical feminist might have a single ounce of masculinity in her body is unacceptable, and therefore, in order to cover-up a woman’s obvious human impulses, she must oppose porn as loudly and angrily as possible, lest she be forced the face the unfortunate reality that she is human.

  I find it delightfully ironic, that it is precisely the propensity to look at pornography which is one of the most important evolutionary factors in allowing her even the option to pursue her feminist canard.

  MGTOW is the radical idea that men and women are human beings.

  Edi: Even more hypocrisy. The Femcunt Gail Dines says that the culture is sick, that we cannot endure any more of the violent pornography which is flooding the market. As a porn user, I’m inclined to agree that some of the more aggressive and over-the-top conventions ought to go. Donkey Punching, the focus on anal, and facial ejaculations are not my cup of tea, and I could really do without them. Plus, it’s becoming an increasing treat to see a girl actually enjoying herself, rather than just zoning out. Call me a mangina if you will, my tastes are my own. So, I’ll even go along with the bitch-cunt about the culture, but I’d like to hold up a mirror for the bitch to have a look at who should be blamed.

  These femcunts have spent 40 years driving men away, degrading and insulting men, breaking up families and doing everything they possibly could to silence the voices and importance of men’s contributions to society, it comes as absolutely no fucking surprise that the culture is sick. And in case you haven’t figured it out yet, feminists are the direct cause of the illness.

• 
  

  Feminism – It’s spelt E-N-T-I-T-T-L-E-M-E-N-T

  Posted: August 22nd, 2007, 6:23pm PDT by timberwolf

   

  REG: All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us? XERXES: Brought peace. REG: Oh. Peace? Shut up!

  -Monty Python’s Life of Brian

  Gentlemen, can we relate? Sure we can. Just replace the word “Romans” with the word “Men” and you’ll see exactly what I’m getting at.

  I browse around the femcunt cites and overwhelmingly I see the same traits repeated over and over again. Perceived victimhood, outrage, anger, apparent helplessness and noise. An endless supply of angry rants, and hurt feelings. It’s at this point that it occurs to me, that the modern femcunts have become exactly like the People’s Front of Judea from Monty Python’s Life of Brian, with one very interesting contrast, the People’s Front of Judea is a fictional organization that would have fought a real enemy. Feminism is a real organization bitching about an imaginary enemy.

  I’ve previously discussed how patriarchy doesn’t actually exist. (still waiting on my secret meeting invitations…) It however occurs to me that the femcunts are more interested in committee meetings, and making as much noise as humanly possible, rather than doing anything about it.

  Think about it!

  What have modern feminists actually gone out and done to help their situations? They whine and complain constantly about issues like rape and pornography, blame men for these issues, but won’t lift a finger to actually DO anything about them. The actual work, is to be done by men!

  Has it ever occurred to femcunts that if they didn’t date thugs, they wouldn’t get raped? That’s blaming the victim.

  Has it ever occurred to femcunts that if women simply stopped preforming in pornography, that there wouldn’t BE any pornography? – Well, the women are being forced into porn by TEH PATRIARCHY!

  And who’s responsibility do you think femcunts will say it is to make sure that women feel safe and protected 100% of the time?

  Like the PFJ, the feminists seem to feel that someone else needs to do the work of ending their imaginary oppression. Rather than end their own oppression men simply “owe” them.

  What exactly do we owe femcunts gentlemen? A punch in the mouth perhaps?

  So what have the men ever given to women!?!… Oh yeah! The aqueduct! And sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health and….

• 
  

  ACLAF’s Film Review – I think I love my Wife

  Posted: August 21st, 2007, 11:16am PDT by timberwolf

  AFN and I watched a great men’s movie last night, I think I love my Wife written, directed by, and staring Chris Rock. It’s rated rather poorly on the internet movie database, and rotten tomatoes, mostly because while its billed as a romantic comedy, it’s not actually very funny. But don’t let that stop you, because it’s worth uncorking the champagne to celebrate that this movie was even made, which is also why I consider it a men’s movie.

  Consider that the film totally destroys each and every single bullshit misandrist stereotype that Hollywood loves to cram down our throats.

  First stereotype destroyed: Black people acting normally! ‘nough said?

  Second stereotype destroyed: The father isn’t a complete bumbling jackass! He’s smart, he’s successful, he doesn’t do a SINGLE clumsy thing throughout the movie, and he doesn’t turn into a yammering jackass whenever he sees an attractive woman. He does what men do; they admire the view in perfect silence. And to top it all off, he’s a great father who loves his kids and his wife.

  Third stereotype destroyed: Sometimes being married means that you won’t have any sex for a long time, the important thing is that you hang in there, it will come back eventually.

  Fourth stereotype destroyed: Women aren’t free of criticism. “Liberated women” are portrayed accurately in nearly every detail. The film’s antagonist, Nikki spends most of the film trying to work her way into Chris Rock’s pants. Her behavior could be taken straight out of MGTOW. She’s a thirty-something wild girl who has been hit by a bad case of baby-rabies and is looking for a rich successful man to have kids with. She’s spent the last ten years of her life partying and living it up, and now she wants the family that her friends have worked hard to build. In short, she’s an absolute skank.

  And don’t think that Chris Rock’s wife escapes criticism either. She doesn’t have sex with him, and all she seems to think about for most of the movie is re-decorating the house. Though she is a good mother, and a dedicated wife, she isn’t perfect; nobody in this movie is without flaw.

  Fifth Stereotype destroyed: Men don’t think with their penises. While they may want sex a lot, they aren’t all penis and no brains as Chris Rock proves.

  Five, yes five stereotypes destroyed in one movie, and probably more.

  So gentlemen, this film comes with my highest possible recommendation. Don’t expect to laugh, but be thankful that this movie actually managed to squeeze by the femcunts.

• 
  

  Hiatus break – Fatherhood

  Posted: August 17th, 2007, 10:49am PDT by timberwolf

  I’m not calling a formal end to my hiatus just yet, but I’m happy to report that I am now a happy and proud father of a beautiful baby girl. After a few days, I can say that so far that fatherhood agrees very much with me. I find that I have infinite patience for my daughter. It’s not that she can’t do anything wrong, but it seems that evolution has gifted me with a knack for caring for my daughter. And being a dad certainly makes you try to develop perspective.

  It doesn’t even bother me when she cries, because at this point, that’s nearly all she can do, and it’s her only way of communicating that she has a need. A baby who doesn’t cry might as well be a dead baby.

  I think that maybe because of this, no matter what she ever says to me, I’ll always love her, and respect her ability as a human being to make her own decisions.

  This may seem at odds with MGTOW, but I don’t think so. Feminists brainwash, we live by the creedo, “feminists are stupid! Throw facts at them!”

  A certain feminist recently posted an article describing how important it was that her son agreed with her opinion and no other. She is even proud of her ability to brainwash her sons into believing whatever she wants.

  Last night we were having a discussion about war and, more specifically, women being the biggest victims of war. My son took offense at this, citing that men were, in fact, the biggest victims. Afterall, men had to fight and women, well, sure, rape is bad, torture is bad, but really Mom it’s definitely not worse than what the men have to go through, you know, the real victims.

  *cough* Suffice it to say that I stomped out that little glimmer of Patriarchal nonsense before it had taken a real root in his tender little psyche.

  I’ve talked about who the real victims of war are, and we know that yes, some women are raped… but for every woman raped many more men have died.

  To top off her gross ignorance about war, she tries to inflate her own sense of ego by comforting herself with the idea that women of course, can do no wrong. And of course, any woman who does wrong is nothing compared to the legions of evil evil men out there.

  We simply don’t want to believe that our boys are capable of such atrocities but we, as Mothers and Women, have a responsibility to own the fact that if they’re men, they’re capable, unless and until we tell them otherwise.

  The Patriarchy is doing it’s level-best to assimilate my boys and bring them into the folds of Male Power and Privilege and it’s my job to put the spark of empathy, the fire of self-determination and respect into their young minds to make women safer. To make their wives and girlfriends and fuck buddies safe from them, because left unchecked they could rape, they already have the equipment.

  Now, if only I can figure out what to say *sigh*

  And not only that, but it’s of course, men’s responsibility to ensure the safety of women. Funny, I thought that was at least in part, why men went to war.

  But what strikes me is just how little she realizes that her boys aren’t men, and with she as a mother, they never will be,

  Western society has a love-hate relationship with a child’s right to self-determination. No parent would give their child a loaded gun. But in order to grow into an adult, a child must be allowed to stumble and fall, to feel pain, and to cry. Perhaps the test of parenthood is whether or not that parent has the presence of mind to develop the patience of a saint when that child does stumble and fall. A child must be cherished, and raised by its parents. The child will grow, and spend a great amount of time simply trying to co-ordinate its movement. It will spend much time just learning how to crawl, and to walk. It will learn mostly through trial and error. And this long, painful method applies to everything a child does, from talking to moving, and to thinking. And when a child is denied the ability to form their own opinions, they are denied the right to stumble and fall. Could a child learn to walk in zero-gravity?

  So like it or not, I really have no choice but to let my daughter grow into her own woman, forming her own opinions and ideas. While I shall try to present facts, she will not be brainwashed by her parents.

  Unlike some femcunts I could name.

• 
  

  Hiatus

  Posted: August 9th, 2007, 6:46am PDT by timberwolf

  I’ll be going on a hopefully brief hiatus, and you may not see much posted in the next few weeks since AFN and I will soon (matter of days now) be welcoming a new addition to our family. My attentions are demanded elsewhere for the time being. But never fear, I shall return!

  Death to femcunts!

• 
  

  So much for due Process

  Posted: July 26th, 2007, 5:01pm PDT by timberwolf

  What do feminists think of Justice? Well, seeing as how we know that Justice is not a lesbian man-hating feminist, but a blind person, only to be swayed by reason and proper argument, consider just the title of ScorpioGrrl’s latest post: “Rape, and why I believe that “Innocent until proven guilty” is a load of bollocks” Oh-my-god-what-the-fuck?

  So much for due process.

  English law states that a person is “innocent until proven guilty.

  Now, maybe it’s because I can be so incredibly cynical about things, but I just can’t bring myself to agree with that.

  Why am I not surprised?

  But, actually, it has a lot to do with my feminism.

  Yes, it actually does have a lot to do with her feminism. At least a feminist has finally stopped lying bout how they really feel about western systems of justice, which is actually pretty frightening, come to think of it.

  Given that the national average conviction rate in England and Wales is a paltry 5.3%, that would seem to suggest that – according to English law – there only 1 in 20 men who are reported to be rapists, are guilty of rape. Personally, I think that’s a load of bollocks; especially when you take into consideration the fact that about 75-95% of rape victims do not report to the police, which therefore means there are a ot more guilty rapists out there.

  Same old femcunt whinging. What is unique in this case is that this idiot thinks that she knows how to run a justice system. She begins with the wrong assumptions, and when they don’t pan out, presumes on the guilt of the defendant. With judges like this bitch wants, is there any hope for real justice?

  I happened to mention the other day that, as far as I – an individual – were concerned, in cases of rape, sexual assault etc, the perpetrator was – in my eyes, at least – guilty until proven innocent (and, even then, I am not convinced by lack of conviction or justice). As I have mentioned, this is largely due to a complete and utter disillusionment and disgust at a system which convicts only 5.3% of alleged rapists. (emphasis added) I know I go on about this a lot, but that’s because it is an issue I am hugely concerned about. However, this guy took exception to this, because – and I guess this is, in part, his Christian beliefs coming through – shouldn’t see people in such a negative light, and that – anyway – some women do not say “no” explicitly enough.

  Did everybody catch that? The crux of her entire argument is that the system simply doesn’t throw enough men in jail. And femcunts claim that they don’t really hate men?

  You know, I guess that last part is what is called a “grey area” technically, but when a woman does not say “no” explicitly, it is essentially because – I believe – women are not exactly socialised to be assertive. But this could potentially lead to something else I have been musing about recently – that is, the idea which seems to be commonly held, that sex is inevitable. I will rant on about that in a little while, but I don’t want to digress too much.

  So women can’t stand up for themselves now? I thought that women were supposed to be “liberated” and “strong,” and “independent.” These adjectives are starting to seem more and more like non-sense words and less like actual qualities every time a femcunt mentions them.

  However, this view – that some women do not say “no” explicitly enough – is essentially victim-blaming, and it is assuming that the vast majority of cases reported to the police are those of women who didn’t say anything at the time, but then regretted it, and so tell the police it’s rape – I think that’s largely a myth.The thing is, I believe that an alleged rapist has more of a vested interest to lie than the victim. The thing is, I believe that the judicial system is weighted against rape victims. The thing is, I have to beg the question – how, if I am really, truly to believe that in such cases that someone is “innocent, until proven guilty”, when only 5.3% of reported rapes end in conviction?”

  It does NOT add up.

  So. A rape accusation should be enough to throw a person in jail? I have an idea! Let’s accuse all feminists of rape! That would work right?

  Shit like this makes me want to be in favor of eugenics.

• 
  

  Contrition

  Posted: July 23rd, 2007, 7:06am PDT by timberwolf

  As most people are aware, there’s been a long row between Masculist Man and I. One of Fred X’s last achievements before he went away was that he actually managed to get the two of us talking, where before there had been only what can be politely described as bad behavior. So, in order to end the infighting between myself, and Masculist Man, I take the following action.

  The original offense was caused by an ultimatum I issued some months back where, in my typical hyperbole, I stated any militants who favored blind hatred towards women would be thrown out of the movement. It’s obvious that I can’t accomplish this, and there are better things to do with my time. This was also quite unnecessary, and a little more rude than a strong closing statement demanded.

  For these rash actions, I apologize. It is not hatred to view women in the MRM with some small amount of suspicion, especially considering that manginas would be met with greater suspicion in feminist circles.

• 
  

  So long Fred

  Posted: July 20th, 2007, 6:55am PDT by timberwolf

  By now, most of you are aware that Fred X has had to close up shop. Fred X was one of the most outspoken, and passionate of us. You could always count on him not to pull any punches when it came to the femcunts. And he’d be there for you no matter what.

  His disappearance was perceived as mysterious at first, especially due to its abruptness. However, it seems that he’s just got some things he needs to deal with.

  We wish him well, for he will be missed.

  Femcunts: Get fucked!

  “May God stand between you and harm in all the empty places you must walk.”

• 
  

  More praise for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary

  Posted: July 19th, 2007, 12:26pm PDT by timberwolf

  Source: [www.cbc.ca]

  The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary is refusing to comment on e-mails about a sexual assault reported two weeks ago at a St. John’s home.

  At a forum on Tuesday night, the RNC came in for criticism for not revealing more detail about an investigation launched two weeks ago, when a Circular Road woman reported a sexual assault in her home.

  Const. Paul Davis said if the RNC spoke about its Circular Road investigation, it could compromise its work and further hurt the victim.
  (CBC)

  Police said at the time the woman did not know her attacker, who reportedly forced himself into her home.

  Two subsequent e-mails have circulated around the city, but with differing accounts of whether the attack was random.

  Const. Paul Davis says officers will neither confirm nor deny any of the details in the notes.

  “We’re not willing to discuss the details of those e-mails,” he told reporters late Wednesday afternoon.

  “For me to get into any parts of facts that are contained in those e-mails [will] cause me to start to get into a discussion of specific details of the incident, as we know it to be, and, potentially, knowledge that’s exclusive to the perpetrator and the person who’s reported this assault.”

  Davis said the RNC cannot confirm whether the attack was random, or whether the victim was targeted.

  “To discuss an active investigation in such detail could not only likely compromise the investigation, it could certainly re-victimize the complainant, and cause us to enter into a public discussion on a very traumatic experience,” he said.

  Meanwhile, police are warning the public to be vigilant about locking their doors, and to take other safety precautions.

  Way to go gentlemen! Keep up the good work!

• Femcunts are Angry! – The Police is doing its job for once!

  Posted: July 18th, 2007, 4:37pm PDT by timberwolf

  Source: [www.cbc.ca]

  I had originally read about this alleged assault a few weeks ago, and didn’t pay much attention to it, because few details were being released. Given the hoopla surrounding the Duke Rape case, I would think that the lack of details released by the police in this circumstance would be a step in the right direction. Femcunts however would beg to differ…

  Gossip, media coverage of assault criticized at women’s meeting
  Last Updated: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 | 9:24 AM NT
  CBC News

  A lack of public detail about a sexual assault in St. John’s almost two weeks ago has allowed gossip to flourish, at the expense of the woman who reported it, participants at a public meeting Tuesday night said.

  So these femcunts are worried about gossip, over the lack of details around an alleged sexual assault now? Could that be because they’re being denied their right to “name and shame” the man who supposedly committed this crime before he’s even gone to trial?

  ‘Because there’s no information given out, all the gaps are being filled up by gossip,’ Gwen Mercer says. ‘Because there’s no information given out, all the gaps are being filled up by gossip,’ Gwen Mercer says.

  Did anybody catch what this hag is really saying? Anyone ever hear of victim shield laws? You know, those laws where a man accused of rape is denied the right to face his accuser? Could the police be oh, I don’t know, trying to spare another innocent man from being dragged through the mud on the basis of a bullshit accusation?

  Police were called to a home on Circular Road on July 5 to investigate a complaint that a man had entered the home and sexually assaulted a woman living there.

  The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, though, have refused to comment on the case and their investigation, beyond remarks last week that extra officers had been dedicated to the case.

  Police, for instance, will not say whether investigators believe the attack was random or executed by someone who may have been known to the victim. No arrests have been made.

  Yes, this is a step in the right direction! Cheers all around gentlemen! I never thought that we’d
  find more sanity in St. Johns, than in Ottawa, but there it is!

  Gwen Mercer, a longtime advocate for victim’s rights in St. John’s, said the woman has been victimized twice as e-mails have circulated through the city about the incident.

  “Because there’s no information given out, all the gaps are being filled up by gossip, and that woman has to deal with that as well,” Mercer said.

  “I think this is unforgivable.”

  Unforgivable? You know, I’m actually happy that they haven’t told us anything about this! Maybe this time the criminal justice system will get the chance to do its fucking job without being strong-armed by femhags!

  Barbara Wadman says the ‘apparent randomness of this case’ has disturbed many St. John’s residents. Barbara Wadman says the ‘apparent randomness of this case’ has disturbed many St. John’s residents.

  About 35 women attended the forum, which was organized by the St. John’s Sexual Assault Crisis and Prevention Centre.

  Executive director Barbara Wadman said the centre received so many calls about the incident, it felt compelled to allow women to voice their concerns together.

  “I think that the apparent randomness of this case is causing a lot of fear, and the fact that this occurred in the victim’s home,” she said.

  Wadman said sexual assault is more common than some residents might think. Last year, she said, the centre received more than 1,500 calls.

  Well, what do you expect comming out of a femcunt organization?

  Resident Alison Clancy said society needs to stop blaming the victim. She took aim at police advice that women should not walk alone at night, and at media coverage of the reported attack.

  “There’s a piece missing in the whole media coverage and in these types of discussion, and it focuses on the woman — should she not walk at night, lock her doors. And that has to change,” she said.

  Translation: “NO! Responsibility! Accountability! I’m melting! Melting! ARGHGHGH! NO, what a world, what a world…”

  Tonight gentlemen, I’m toasting the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary for their handling of this case, and if any of them read this, keep up the good work! It’s nice to know that someone is still committed to their job!

• 
  

  Feminizing the movies

  Posted: July 18th, 2007, 4:30pm PDT by timberwolf

  Something struck me as I was trawling the internet-feminists only evaluate any given piece of art or culture based on whether or not the art is sexist, and not on anything else.

  I watched three movies this past week, all of which had their own cultural merits. The first was
  Live Free or Die Hard, the second was Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, and the third was Transrmers. And all three are crazy, stupid, brain-destroying movies. These movies are not meant to be intellectual in any way. Before I take too much flack for this comment, let me say that while the films are stupid, they’re also a lot of fun! I think it’s great that the movie which broke all he box-office records was a movie that was made purely for the fun of it. I mean, common folks, it’s a movie about gigantic alien robots who transform into various vehicles, and fight with other gigantic alien robots! Truly awesome, exciting and fun! But also very crazy and ridiculous. Just picture a serious actor, I dunno, maybe Tom Hanks, or Russel Crowe, or Samuel L. Jackson trying to deliver a line like “Look out! It’s Megatron!” and try not to piss yourself laughing. “Look out! It’s motherfucking Megatron!” or “I’ve had it, with these motherfucking decepticons on this motherfucking plane!” Well, okay, actually Samuel L. Jackson sorta makes it cool and badass, but still…

  Let’s not forget Die Hard in here either. In the film, John McLean crashes a car into a flying helicopter being piloted by criminals who are bent on destroying the internet. He crashes a car.
  Into a helicopter! In a later scene, he “fights” an F-35 which apparently has absolutely no problems flying, and firing missiles galore through a thight network of freeway overpasses! Stupid! Totally unrealistic! But fun.

  All you have to do to realize that the bar in movies has been significantly lowered is to realize
  that Die Hard 4’s villian, Timothy Olyphant, is due to play “Agent 47,” for the movie Hitman,
  based on the popular game franchise about an over-the-top clone assassin who totes a pair of customized AMT Hardballers (Silverballers)! Can you tell that I’m excited?

  And of course, Harry Potter is about wizards, and strangely the one movie of the three which somehow manages the most in terms of plot content, even if you somehow manage to ignore just how old the actors are getting compared to the characters they’re supposed to be portraying.

  But I digress. I was talking about feminism, more specifically, feminist reviews of Transformers. And one of the most ridiclous beefs that they’ve managed to come up, is that there’s no “female” Transformer, or at least no Transformer with a female voice. I mean, how meaningless do our lives become when we reduce ourselves to watching films purely on the basis of how sexist, or how they portray men, or women or whatever. Especially when the movie you’re watching is fucking Transformers! It’s not Saving Private
  Ryan, or Shakespear in Love, or even Die Hard! One of the main characters is named fucking Megatron! MEGA-TRON!

  This isn’t to say that there are no situations when it is appropriate to point out the problems with agenda-laden art. Doesn’t the film The Birth of a Nation, with it’s plainly overt racism and glorification of the Ku Klux Klan deserve our revulsion? But then, Birth of a Nation doesn’t feature a sentient alien robot named Megatron.

  It is certainly true that agenda-laden art can ruin one’s enjoyment of it. Take Robert J. “mangina” Sawyer’s openly misandrist book series, the Neanderthal Parallax. To summarize, since most of you won’t have read it (DON’T!) let’s just say, it starts with a rape, and ends with all human males being banished from an alternate reality by way of a killer ebola-like virus created by a litterally castrated mangina, and let me just say that I wish I could make this shit up. It’s even got a highly explicit sex scene where it’s implied that human men are *ahem* inferior (innuendo definitely implied!) to their “enlightened” bi-sexual neanderthal counter-parts. To think that this awful work of what is supposed to be serious science fiction won a Hugo award turns my stomach. It’s certainly no Babylon 5, or Stranger in a Strange Land, or Dune.

  So, if the roles were to be reversed I could understand feminist revulsion at serious art which is overtly misogynist for the sake of being misogynist. Of course, such art is rare, as feminism has had to increasingly try harder to find examples of misogyny; misandry is certainly more often the norm in today’s culture. I dunno, maybe Macbeth or the Taming of the Shrew would qualify as vaguely misogynist, in some sense.

  But these are all serious works folks! All of these pieces are saying something about humanity, or western culture, or something intelligent beyond a gigantic robot shooting up a city street and transforming into a fighter-jet!

  Since we’re to some degree turning into a foil for feminism, I think that we really need to try to avoid this trend of finding misandry in absolutely every piece of culture ever produced. There’s something absolutely trite and petty and small about reviewing Transformers and trying to push femcunt agenda into a movie that stars fucking Megatron and Optimus Prime! I mean, it was even directed by Michael Bay, the same shmuck who did Pearl Harbor, and you’re expecting serious art, or at least deliberate and useless female inclusion? Well fuck all you bitches. I had fun watching Optimus Prime lay the beat-down on Megatron. Besides, I thought that was the whole fucking point.

• 
  

  Only Women can stop False Rape Accusations

  Posted: July 17th, 2007, 6:42pm PDT by timberwolf

  Original from: [malesamizdat.blogspot.com]

  If you agree, pass it on. It’s important.

  • If a man is drunk, don’t falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man is walking alone at night, don’t falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man is drugged and unconscious, don’t falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man is wearing shorts, don’t falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man is in a bar at 11:00 p.m., don’t falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man looks like one of your twelve ex-husbands, don’t falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man is asleep in his bed, don’t falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man is asleep in your bed, don’t falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man if fixing his car, don’t falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man is in the hospital, don’t falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man changes his mind in the middle of or about a particular activity (like giving you money), don’t falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man has repeatedly refused a certain activity (like giving you money), don’t falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If a man is not a man, but a child, don’t falsely accuse him of rape…or rape him (like many female schoolteachers these days).
  • If a man is not in the mood to spend money or time on you, don’t falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If your step-son is watching TV, don’t falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If you break into a house and find a man there, don’t falsely accuse him of rape.
  • If your friend thinks it’s okay to falsely accuse someone of rape, tell her its not, and that she’s not your friend.
  • If your “friend” tells you she falsely accused someone of rape, report her to the police.
  • If your sorority-sister or another girl at a party tell you she is angry with a man and is going to falsely accuse him of rape, and you should too, don’t do it, call the police and tell her she’s a liar.
  • Tell your daughters, god-daughters, nieces, granddaughters, daughters of friends it’s not okay to falsely accuse someone of rape.
  • Don’t tell your male friends how to be safe and avoid false accusations of rape.
  • Don’t imply that it’s in any way his fault.
  • Don’t imply that men have it coming to them and deserve it anyway.
  • Don’t let silence imply agreement when someone tells you she got away with a false rape report.
  • Don’t perpetuate a culture that tells you that you have every right to use the courts to destroy a man. You can, too, help yourself.
• 
  

  MGTOW & Wikipedia Censorship

  Posted: July 5th, 2007, 8:21pm PDT by timberwolf

  As of the time of this writing, the Wikipedia page that detailed the men’s movement, known as Men Going their Own Way has been deleted.

  While I am familiar with Wikipedia as a user, I am not at all familiar with Wikipedia internal policies. But I am learning.

  According to the various talk-pages on Wikipedia, the page has been created, and deleted several times, and apparently this is being done by a single, feminist editor.

  Thus, we can only conclude that this repeated behavior is a feminist attempt to censor what they perceive as a threat. This perception, is of course, entirely accurate; we are a threat to feminism.

  Feminism is afraid of MGTOW, and rightly so. Nothing is a greater threat to feminism than a single man who is willing to educate himself.

  Knowledge is power.

  And the femcunts are trying to monopolize that knowledge. They want to seize that power for themselves. They will attempt to accomplish this by suppressing all knowledge of MGTOW wherever they have influence. We cannot allow this to occur.

  Evil does not share power.

  Therefore, I add my voice to Fred X’s excellent post on this issue. If you are familiar with Wikipedia I urge you, while staying within Wikipedia’s guidelines, to put MGTOW back onto Wikipedia. Show the femcunts that we will not allow them to win this battle.

  I may not be familiar with Wikipedia, but I AM familiar with writing, the internet, and this blog. And therefore, I will add whatever support I can to MGTOW by publishing the MGTOW manifesto on this blog for the benefit of all readers.

  Source

  MEN GOING THEIR OWN WAY ver. 2.2

  The goal is to instill masculinity in men, femininity in women, and work toward limited government!

  By instilling masculinity in men, we make men self-reliant, proud, and independent.

  By instilling femininity in women, we make them nurturing, supporting, and responsible.

  By working for a limited government, we are working for freedom and justice.

  Women have other qualities is not interesting to men because we don’t need them! Femininity will be the price women pay for enjoying masculinity in men!

  This is the aim of “Men Going Their Own Way”.

  By holding this point of view, we are helping other men and, more importantly, we are helping boys grow up to become men.

  This goal is to take away everyone’s “right” to vote on other people’s affairs thus rendering it impossible for political organisms and ideologies to impose their personal will on everyone else. It is not about reinstalling patriarchy or revoking female voting rights or making socialism illegal. It might have this as a side effect – but not directly and not as a political ideology. Only the future will show what happens and by going our own way we are preparing men and boys for that future.

  It is important for men to have a practical approach to implementing our strategies.

  PRIME STRATEGIES FOR ACHIEVING OUR GOALS

  We have 3 main strategies:

  1. instilling masculinity in men by:

  Demanding respect for men
  Serving as good male role models
  Living independent lives
  Fighting chivalry

  2. instilling femininity in women

  We will hold women equally accountable to men and ignore and shun those who refuse to take any responsibility for their own circumstances. Thus we induce women to take a complementary position with men instead of a competitive position as is now the case.

  Feminine qualities we want from women:

  * Nurturing
  * Supportive
  * Responsibility
  * Respectfulness
  * Honesty

  3. Limited government

  In order to be independent of society, and live within it, while at the same time work for limiting governmental influence upon our daily lives, men will:

  * Go Their Own Way
  * Support other men
  * Legally reduce any taxpaying
  * Truthfully act out any duties in accordance with their conscience
  * Use any rights to the benefit of other men as well as themselves

  It is those 3 strategies that come together in one.

  MEN GOING THEIR OWN WAY

  This is the logo:

  

  Every man supporting this idea is welcome to use the logo in this or similar contexts.

  What we do as activism or the way we behave personally are the main tactics.

  * Use of a logo which symbolizes the strategy.
  * Run one or many web-sites and fora that promotes this.
  * Run one or more web-sites which tells the truth about feminism.
  * Provide stickers, T-shirts, etc., with various statements such as “Chivalry is dead!”.
  * Writing articles supporting our product.
  * Producing music promoting our product.
  * Hold international events and local meetings.
  * Establishing men’s clubs.
  * Boycotting certain products.

  You will basically be alone doing this. There is no organization supporting you. You just go your own way and do what you believe is right. You are never obligated beyond your own conscience. True masculinity is also about accepting the rights of other men and not letting them down for any short term personal benefits.

  The men’s movement does actually cover a much larger picture. By instilling masculinity in others, as well as yourself, you will actually be improving the lives of everyone, including women and children.

  IF IT’S NOT RIGHT, GO YOUR OWN WAY!

  Take care brother!

  Finally, much to my chagrin I have not yet made any effort to display the MGTOW logo. I now happily correct this oversight.

• 
  

  Closer to Princess – Part 1

  Posted: July 5th, 2007, 4:40pm PDT by timberwolf

  Disclaimer: I know I’ll draw some criticism for this, and I don’t care. This idea is just too interesting to ignore.

  Do my eyes deceive me? Have I taken leave of my senses? Did I take the blue pill? No, apparently, I’m reading this correctly, and there really is such a thing as a Surrendered Wife.

  Incredible. Seven days ago, I talked about how modern women would never figure it out, that they seemed destined to a life as cruel and vindictive stepsisters. Today, it is obvious that I spoke a little too soon. Today’s modern feminist certainly has that curse, but today’s modern Surrendered Wife will definitely not share her fate. Pride goeth before a fall, both for me, and the modern feminist.

  But the modern feminist is about to fall harder and farther than my little tumble.

  Enter: The Surrendered wife.

  Just what is a surrendered wife exactly?

  Among other things, it’s a misnomer, but in as short as I can manage, a “surrendered wife” is a woman who simply stops trying to exert control over her husband.

  That’s all it is. Stop trying to run your husband’s life, and you get a happy marriage. Or so says a book entittled, The Surrendered Wife: A Practical Guide to Finding Intimacy, Passion, and Peace with Your Man by Laura Doyle (Simon & Schuster, Jan 2001, ISBN-13: 978-0743204446)

  Feminists are going to absolutely hate this idea.

  Of course, they won’t really understand it either.

  To the feminist the surrendered wife is little more than a slave, and now that there’s apparently a Surrendered Wives movement, this is perhaps the biggest threat to their dominance, especially since a surrendered wife, surrenders,willingly! The feminist reaction to this is something that I’m going to go into detail during a later post.

  But for the moment, I’d like to explain why The Surrendered wife is more happy than her moronic feminist counterpart. While it is true that there are some people who will take being a surrendered wife to extremes, such as having the wife put toothpaste on the husbands toothbrush, and putting on a blindfold while her husband drives. I certainly don’t think that a husband necessarily needs to choose his wife’s outfits, or act like a lazy slug. But then again, this is no worse than the behaviour of some women, who routinely tell their husbands how to dress, walk, talk,
  work, etc. At any rate, no marriage is identical, and therefore, no single micromanaged solution will work for everyone. Just remember for a moment the key, that a surrendered wife doesn’t control her husband’s life, and in any healthy marriage the details will work themselves out. That’s not to say she doesn’t influence, but she does so in a positive way, a way that befits Cinderella, and in doing so she becomes Cinderella, and she does live happily ever after.

  You see, through some social fluke, Doyle has come to some understand that men are born programed to value pleasing women.

  Much ink in the MRM has been spilled discussing the pitfalls of chivalrous behaviour extended towards today’s modern woman, but as most MRAs would attest, chivalry is not so easy to abolish, and there’s damn good reason for that. You see, providing for the needs women was for quite some time necessary to the survival of the species.

  In modern context however, this impulse has caused many men a great deal of harm, and so it remains wise to continue to suppress it… Well… That is, unless you’re lucky enough to have ended up with a surrendered wife.

  In “It’s Evolution Baby!” I talked about how gender specific idiosyncrasies had various evolutionary components. I also however, described men as problem solvers.

  If one takes a moment to consider a neolithic family on the African Savahna, much as it is today, one can immediately imagine how many challenges this family will face as it struggles to survive. If you consider the usual family of one man, one woman, and perhaps a few children. In the case of an infant, it goes without saying that the father will have do most of the risky work, and help his woman wherever possible. He must provide for his woman and children because they cannot provide for themselves. What happens if dad runs off, or does not provide for his woman? His line will cease to exist, because without a man’s support, his woman will not be able to support his offspring, and they will both probably die. We are not the offspring of deadbeat dads, because those kids died a long time ago! If the woman behaves like a selfish feminist and decides not to care for her children, then her line ceases to exist, because her children will not receive what they need and they will die. We are here, because our distant male ancestors evolved to put female needs above their own, and our female ancestors evolved to depend and value male support, and generally put their children’s needs over their own. There was a time, when these behaviours were necessary to survive.

  And some of these instincts are still with us today. It is well documented that unless drugged, if a newly born baby is placed on its mother’s stomach, it will in a relatively short period of time crawl to her breasts. Mother and father also experience an instinctual bonding with their children, sometimes within a few minutes after birth.

  This explains the relatively common phenomena of couples who seek to save troubled marriages by having a child, which while misguided, is at least somewhat founded in what could best be described as proto-logic. Since it is well documented that both parents are very likely to develop an instinctual bond with the baby, they stay together not because they are happy together, but because they are more closely connected with the child than with each other.

  All of this, has an evolutionary basis, because it was at one time, necessary to behave this way for the species to survive, and over time, this behaviour became an instinct.

  And this is the underlying reason why the Surrendered wife is more likely to be happy than her quasi-femcunt counter-part.

  There is a degree to which men will very easily give up control, and follow the leadership of someone else, which is also an evolutionary adaptation. When possible, neolithic peoples would form small groups, or tribes for mutual protection and assistance. Many hands make light work after all. And since the role of the man was the role of the hunter, and hunting was very much a team effort, it undoubtedly became sometimes necessary for a leader to emerge. Since hunting would require people to preform a variety of different tasks, a leader would be necessary to ensure success by assigning those tasks. Again, this was necessary for survival at one time, and a man who consistently opposed, or made trouble for a leader would no doubt risk being ostracized. Thus, we’ve evolved to readily accept roles as followers, to a certain degree.

  Obviously, if a leader calls for unnecessary personal risk, or abuses their position, the group would stop obeying the orders of a corrupt leader. And thus, we have theories of leadership which still hold true today. A leader should never ask a follower to do something that the leader would not be willing to do themselves. This is not to say that men aren’t individuals, or don’t have strong personalities, it does however mean that men accept leadership more willingly than women.

  This also means that men evolved to be more comfortable and accustomed to leadership roles, and function best when the role of leader is most obvious. Therefore, when a man would be alone with his wife, he would have felt that he should take the lead, not to be abusive, but to make decisions, and try act as the sound foundation for his family, to ensure everybody’s survival, and therefore, the continuance of the species. At home, a man was a leader, and responsible for his family’s well-being, no matter what he did in the outside world, and he did his best, because if he failed, they would fail with him. Thus men also evolved to feel burned by leadership, because so much rested on their shoulders.

  A wife could feel safe and secure in the knowledge that her husband would always put her first, and try to make decisions that would be best for all, while she, as the bringer of life would be free to focus on that supremely important task. And thus, the two genders evolved into two fundamentally different, but complimentary roles.

  Of course, this would eventually result in some of the abuses that we’re familiar with today; a family is by no means a bed of roses, and while evolution often gets things wrong, it only needs to get a few things right. For the most part, the system worked. And as long as it is generally workable, evolution says that humanity the species will survive, and people will be for the most part, happy.

  That is, until we got feminism.

  Feminism started by convincing women that they were not happy with the way that we evolved, and that women were really meant to be different. And by different, feminists meant that women should be more like men, and that men should change to suit women’s whim, and if a man wasn’t willing to do so, then fuck him, he doesn’t deserve you! And in that moment, women stopped being like Cinderella, and they became just like her step-sister. Not all at once, the transition took time. And at least at home, men offered little resistance to this female role, because men are generally willing to accept the role of a follower more easily than women.

  And through years of misandry, feminism also convinced women that men were flawed and inferior to women. For the feminist, it doesn’t really matter how good a man is, he’s always going to fall short of any given woman.

  Women however, never had the same evolutionary leadership training that men had, and thus while feminism convinced them that they all really were destined to be leaders and crusaders for women, it never talked about proper leadership. Feminism didn’t and still doesn’t understand leadership; leadership is a uniquely masculine trait. And so, since according to feminism, men are flawed, and women are leaders, it naturally falls to women to change men for the better. Feminism says nothing about
  how to accomplish this impossible task, it only says that men must change. And not only that, feminists have made the mistaken assumption that leadership is about control, and therefore through female henpecking and nagging, which is what passes for female leadership, men will eventually come around to the feminist way of thinking, and everyone will be happy again. Of course, they were happy before, but feminism doesn’t like to talk about that.

  There’s just one problem, and that may be man’s best defense against feminism. When someone leads, men become followers, and that is exactly what had happened to many husbands of newly converted Surrendered Wives. When a man’s wife becomes domineering
  and nagging, he simply accepts her leadership and withdraws. The more she nags, the fewer decisions he makes for himself; he is relying on his new leader to tell him what to do. The more she micromanages his life, the more he needs to be micromanaged because in his mind it’s her responsibility as a leader to give orders. If something goes wrong, he blames her, because she’s made herself the leader, and it is her poor leadership which has allowed this to happen. And if such a wife fails to give orders, the man will do as he pleases, until she corrects him. Many women have nagged themselves right into unhappy marriages.

  Depending on what choices she makes, there are a few different possibilities for what will happen in such a scenario. If she continues to try to play the role of leader her husband will withdraw farther and farther until the couple is married in name only. They may find a balance, but the happiness that they enjoyed at the beginning of their marriage will never return. If the nagging continues far enough, one of the two parties will eventually get fed-up, either the woman will leave, and the two will end up in divorce court, or the man’s instincts concerning leadership will kick in and arguments will begin. If the arguments progress far enough, the man will eventually resort to physical violence to try to get the woman to give up the leadership role. He does this not because he wants to harm her, but because this is how he would treat a man who had become the sort of corrupted leader that his wife has become.

  If the couple is very lucky, the wife will surrender. She will stop nagging, and she herself will withdraw. At first, the man will be confused and insecure, but in a relatively short span of time, his instinct to provide for his family will assert its self. If his wife shows trust in him, he will feel like a leader, and he will begin feel the leader’s obligation. If she is vulnerable he will feel compelled to protect her. The more she allows him to lead, the more he will lead. He will eventually come out of his withdrawn state, and begin to be a pro-active contributor to the marriage. And when his wife expresses need for intimacy, he will happily provide for her emotional need, not because he is being forced, but because he is being allowed to do so. If his wife allows him to love her, he will, because remember that if he
  does not, his line will not survive.

  This does not mean that a wife needs to completely suppress her personality, it does mean that she needs to do away with feminist notions of “female strength,” which is simply code for “acting like a bitch.” Remember the only thing that a surrendered wife really needs to do is to stop trying to run her husband’s life. I certainly don’t think that it’s absolutely necessary in every case for a husband to micromanage his surrendered wife’s life either. I recognize that in order to learn how to surrender, some women will need an extreme level of micromanagement from their husbands, but this should probably be a temporary solution, and a few truly stubborn ones will need it constantly. But for the most part, once a woman learns how not to try to control everything about her man, then the two can easily come to a more balanced arrangement, as long as she doesn’t try to exert control over his life. By the same token, a husband should be highly receptive to his surrendered wife’s influence and advice. A good leader responds to the needs of his followers, and
  carefully considers what they have to say.

  And thus, in this way, a surrendered wife will always be happier than her feminist counter-part, because a surrendered wife isn’t acting like a step-sister anymore, she’s acting like Cinderella.

• 
  

  Wild and crazy World… of Warcraft

  Posted: July 4th, 2007, 12:37pm PDT by timberwolf

  Before you read too far ahead, realize this: I take a very dim view of the online phenomena known as World of Warcraft. I however, am not against computer games. On the contrary, and much to AFN’s displeasure, I love ‘em. I’ve been playing computer games for a very long time, and I have no intentions of stopping any time soon. I play far more than AFN likes me to, but mind you, unlike your typical World of Warcraft player, I know that there comes a time to put the game aside, and do something else.

  I have a number of reasons for disliking WoW as it is colloquially known, I hate subscription fees, I don’t like to wait around to play, the tranlsation of game-economy into real world economy is deeply disturbing (just realize that ontop of subscription fees, and buying the game its self, some people will fork over real world dollars, for in-game dollars,) and while I enjoy playing with others, I really hate subscription fees. And besides, don’t you know that the internet is for porn?

  And occassionally, you get something really strange happen, like this:

  Source.

  AN AUSTRALIAN woman has been arrested in the US for trying to lure her young internet boyfriend to Australia.

  Woah!

  It is believed Tamara Broome, 31, might have been set up by the boy’s parents.

  She’s 31 and meeting boyfriends in World of Warcraft? I know that some Australian women are really good looking, but if she has to resort to WoW for meeting men, there might be a good reason for her being single. Also, BWAHAHAH! Sounds like the bitch got what was comming to her. We all know how the situation would be if a man did something like this, but let’s read on.

  Ms Broome told her housemate they paid for her to travel to the US this week so “they could sort it all out”.

  Instead, Ms Broome was met by three detectives as she tried to board a train near the teenager’s home town in North Carolina.

  She was charged with attempting to abduct a child after a 17-year-old boy was caught trying to board a flight to Australia.

  That would be the sound of the other shoe. Her boyfriend: 17 years old, she: 31. She’s nearly old enough to be his mother. And this is not creepy why?

  Last Saturday she left Australia to meet the teenager, but she is now behind bars at the Pitt County Detention Centre in North Carolina.

  Let’s hope she stays there.

  The university student is said to have begun an intense relationship with the boy, then 16, a year ago through medieval-themed online role-playing game World of Warcraft.

  Hey kids! Can you say, female pedophile! It’s real easy look, fee-m-ale, p-ed-o-file, see?

  It is understood the pair planned to marry.

  Run kid, it’s a trap!

  Lt Karen Kilpatrick, of the Pitt County Sheriff’s Office major crime unit, said authorities intervened before the pair were able to meet.

  She said the Adelaide woman flew to the US to bring the boy back to Australia so they could be together.

  Ms Broome is being held on a $2.35 million bond and faces more than two years’ jail if found guilty.

  Under North Carolina law, an underage minor is 17 years old or younger.

  Her flatmate, who asked not to be named, said Ms Broome was not trying to kidnap the teenager.

  Okay, perhaps not. Admittedly 17 year-olds really start to blurr the line between too young, and old enough. But it’s still good to see a female pedophile being arrested before she got the chance to screw him over. Ya know, at 31, I think baby-rabies might be kicking in.

  “He’s the one who wanted to come here,” the housemate said, adding that Ms Broome believed the boy’s parents had hacked into her email accounts to find out about her.

  Ms Broome moved to Adelaide after spending some time in Port Pirie, where she worked part-time at Coles.

  Aleasha Amato, Port Pirie Coles support manager, said Ms Broome moved to the coastal town when her former partner, Jerard Horton, was appointed grocery manager two years ago.

  “The news of her arrest is shocking,” she said.

  No, the news of her arrest is a breath of fresh air. What’s shocking is that you think it’s shocking.

  “I could never imagine her doing something like this.”

  That’s because you’re stupid.

  A spokeswoman for the Pitt County Detention Centre said Ms Broome was sharing a cell in the 404-bed facility.

  The Pitt County District Attorney’s office said that Ms Broome would appear in court on July 11.

  Her lawyer, Earl Brown, did not return calls to his office.

  The Department of Foreign Affairs is seeking more information about the case.

  Bwahahahah!

  Source.

  It’s a bit stunning when issues about a certain MMORPG spills over to real life – and with rather unsavory consequences. Never does anyone any good, it it just creates a lot of drama for all the people involved. Such is the case, unfortunately, with the recent arrest of Tamara Broome, 31, World of Warcraft player and alleged kidnapper of her 17-year-old boyfriend.

  - D([”mb”,”u003cbr>trap of spousal-support, child-support, and family-court before he's even finished highschool! nu003cbr>u003cbr>Details are a bit scant at the moment, but what we know is this: Tamara was contacted by her boyfriend'su003cbr>parents with the simple request that they sort it all out. This meeting required a bit of air travel, as nu003cbr>Tamara lived in Australia at the time.u003cbr>u003cbr>On her way to her partner's home, however, she was met by three detectives and was arrested on the spot. u003cbr>Smells like a setup, doesn't it?u003cbr>u003cbr>Having shared a deep and trusting relationship with her barely-legal boyfriend for more than a year now nu003cbr>- at least, in the online realm of World of Warcraft - Tamara clearly didn't think before she leapt, the u003cbr>player now facing potential jail time of more than two years if found guilty as charged.u003cbr>u003cbr>Tamara's flatmate, who wished to remain anonymous, maintained that it wasn't in Tamara's intentions to kidnapnu003cbr>the boy at all, saying that it was him who wanted to fly over to Australia to be with Tamara in the first place.u003cbr>She also added that the boy's parents might have hacked into their son's account to find out about the details nu003cbr>of their relationship.u003cbr>u003cbr>Certainly shocking and saddening. What do you think, players and readers? Overprotectiveness on the parents' u003cbr>parts, or good parenting? Let us know by your comments.u003cbr>u003cbr>The anti-male/pro-female bias is clearly present in this little tidbit. Well, it's going to take longer thannu003cbr>a few short years to really get the message out there, so I won't belabour the point.u003cbr>u003cbr>As alluded to before, my interest in this stems from the high probability that this poor kid was going to unknowinglyu003cbr>nwe this harlot, father a child within a short time, and then spend the rest of his life paying through the nose u003cbr>for this priveledged step-sister and never getting to see the child that he helped to create, and all before henu003cbr>turns 25. It's good to see her thrown in jail, I say, that if she's convicted, throw away the key!”,1] ); //–>Umm… no, I think that some good might come out of this case, namely saving a young man from being pulled into the trap of spousal-support, child-support, and family-court before he’s even finished highschool!

  Details are a bit scant at the moment, but what we know is this: Tamara was contacted by her boyfriend’s parents with the simple request that they sort it all out. This meeting required a bit of air travel, as Tamara lived in Australia at the time.

  On her way to her partner’s home, however, she was met by three detectives and was arrested on the spot. Smells like a setup, doesn’t it?

  Having shared a deep and trusting relationship with her barely-legal boyfriend for more than a year now – at least, in the online realm of World of Warcraft – Tamara clearly didn’t think before she leapt, the player now facing potential jail time of more than two years if found guilty as charged.

  Tamara’s flatmate, who wished to remain anonymous, maintained that it wasn’t in Tamara’s intentions to kidnap the boy at all, saying that it was him who wanted to fly over to Australia to be with Tamara in the first place. She also added that the boy’s parents might have hacked into their son’s account to find out about the details of their relationship.

  Certainly shocking and saddening. What do you think, players and readers? Overprotectiveness on the parents’ parts, or good parenting? Let us know by your comments.

  The anti-male/pro-female bias is clearly present in this little tidbit. Well, it’s going to take longer than a few short years to really get the message out there, so I won’t belabour the point.

  As alluded to before, my interest in this stems from the high probability that this poor kid was going to unknowingly we this harlot, father a child within a short time, and then spend the rest of his life paying through the nose for this priveledged step-sister and never getting to see the child that he helped to create, and all before he turns 25. It’s good to see her thrown in jail, I say, that if she’s convicted, throw away the key!

  But what’s more distrubing is the new femcunt propensity to target younger more vulnerable men. I certainly don’t like the idea that men are in any way vulnerable, but the fact is that a 17 year old doesn’t have the financial resources, the know-how, or the experience to effectively fight back against the femcunt divorce industry. You see, I think the marriage strike has brought on this blowback. Since femcunts can no longer count on desireable wealthy, older men, like doctors and lawyers to be willing to risk supporting their lazy step-sister asses after a nasty
  divorce, and even if they do, these men are starting to wake up to the fact that marriage with the modern step-sister is a recipie for diaster, and are therefore giving the femcunts a much harder time in court, the femcunts have decided to try to prey on what they see as much easier targets; very young men. That way, when the femcunt who has secured a younger man she will likely have a much easier time screwing him over. Since it would be very difficult for a young
  man to defend himself in family court, he’s much more likely to sign whatever insane setlement the femcunt will offer, even it includes the donation of an eye, a kidney and a lung!

  This sharp alteration of tactics tells us two things: first that the marriage strike is definitely being felt, and that we therefore need to keep it up. And second that our message needs to pierce the bubble of security that all too often accompanies youth. Simply put, we must develop a way to counter the feminist indoctrination which takes place in the public school system. Young men must be encouraged to view modern step-sister women with suspicion, because as the mindless articles demonstrate, people are far too willing to excuse improper female behaviour.

  D([”mb”,”u003cbr>of today's modern women. And if you must send them to public school, pay close attention to textbooks, and especiallyu003cbr>teachers. This is perhaps the one time when men can easily fight back against femcunt teachers. As parents, schoolsnu003cbr>are terrified of parental displeasure. u003cbr>u003cbr>I'm sure that there are other ways that we can fight this new femcunt tactic, and fight we shall. We will not allow theu003cbr>femcunts to take our young men. We owe them that much.n”,0] ); D([”ce”]); //–>Gentlemen, young men need us. If we fail to reach younger men, we may well allow the femcunts to force a generation of good men into perpetual, state-sanctioned, slavery. For MRA fathers, that means educating your sons about the dangers of today’s modern women. And if you must send them to public school, pay close attention to textbooks, and especially teachers. This is perhaps the one time when men can easily fight back against femcunt teachers. As parents, schools are terrified of parental displeasure.

  I’m sure that there are other ways that we can fight this new femcunt tactic, and fight we shall. We will not allow the femcunts to take our young men. We owe them that much.

• 
  

  Modern woman – Cinderella?

  Posted: June 28th, 2007, 12:43pm PDT by timberwolf

  It’s completely safe to say, that greatest dream of modern western women is to end up just like Cinderella, and this has given rise what can be called Princess Syndrome. Years upon years of careful marketing, manipulation, and most of all feminism, have created millions of princess wannabees, and princess wannabee mother enablers. The dream that has been bought by these unfortunate women, is that, “You may think for the moment that you are a normal, powerless girl plagued by mean friends and nagging parents/stepparents, but really you are a princess, with liberation and a truly excellent wardrobe just a few plot points away.” Link
  Why has this marketing been so successful?

  One of the most popular fairy tales in the world is called Cinderella. Everybody knows the story of Cinderella, the unfortunate girl who is put down by her step-mother and cruel, ugly step-sisters, and one day is transformed into a beautiful princess by virtue of a prince who is taken with her.

  This story, has been around for at least two thousand years, probably more, and transcends virtually all cultural boundaries, making it into a shared experience which lurks int he mind of every young girl; to one day slip her dull dreary existence, and become a princess.

  The oldest version of the story dates back to Ancient Egypt. In the story of Rhodopis, as series of events leads her from being a slave, to marrying the Pharoh.

  In China, Cinderella is called Ye Xian, (or more accuarately, in Europe Ye Xian is called Cinderella,) and in this story Ye Xian marries the King.

  But the story most familiar to young girls, is the western version of the story, complete with a fairy godmother who gives her a makeover, allowing her to go to the ball, get the prince to fall in love with her, and they live happily ever after, and nothing bad happens.

  Or so all western women like to think.

  You see, virtually no western woman can hope to ever have a life like Cinderella’s, because they all lack that essential quality which makes Cinderella a princess: a good character.

  In Grimm’s Cinderella, there’s no fairy godmother, and the step-sisters aren’t ugly, they’re actually quite beautiful, but they are lazy, cruel and materialistic. In Grimm’s version of the story, when Cinderella’s father goes into town, he asks the three if they want anything. One asks for a dress, the other asks for a pearl necklace, and one asks for the first twig that strikes father’s hat on the way home. Guess who asked for what? Modern woman has far more in common with Cinderella’s wicked stepsisters, than Cinderella herself.

  Remember what justification was given to Cinderella when she wasn’t allowed to go to the ball? Remember how she didn’t have nice clothes so she couldn’t go? And how do modern women feel about clothes?

  Modern women act just like the fisherman’s wife, from The Fisherman and his Wife, another Grimm fairytale. In the Fisherman and his Wife, the two start off living in a hovel by the sea. One day the fisherman goes out to catch something to eat, and he pulls in a talking fish (Jesus maybe?)! Anyway, the fish begs to be let go, and the fisherman says, “I really don’t want to eat a talking fish, so see ya!” and lets the fish go. When he goes home having caught nothing, his wife tells him he should have wished for something. They banter a bit, and eventually she sends him back to the sea. He calls to the talking fish, the talking fish shows up, and he asks the fish to turn their hovel into a nice little cottage, which is what happens. But in short order, Mrs. Fisherman becomes unhappy and tells her husband to go back and wish for something bigger, which he does, and their cottage is turned into a castle. But she’s not happy with that either, so she wishes to become a Queen, which is granted to her. But that’s not good enough either and she wishes to become Empress. She’s not happy as an Empress either, and decides she wants to be Pope (Yes, P-O-P-E, Pope)! So she becomes Pope, but she’s not happy with that either, and then wishes for the power to make the sun come up. By this time the fish is so damn sick of this demanding bitch that he puts her back in her hovel.

  You see, Cinderella’s status as a princess is not related to what she wears, but is a function of her character; she was always content with what she had, and no amount of wealth, clothing, or jewelry could change that. She didn’t go to the ball to meet a prince, she went to the ball because she liked to dance, but she happened to be the most desirable woman there, because she was kind, and decent; a true princess. For Cinderella, clothes are wrapping paper, but for her stepsisters, clothes are character, and sadly, western women have decided the same; that clothes are character.

  When she puts on a t-shirt which advertises her bad-attitude, she permanently divorces herself from the character, that makes Cinderella into a princess, and she will never become one, ever.

  For you see, the story doesn’t end there. In Grimm’s Cinderella, there’s still the little matter of trying on the shoe (as if we could cram more materialism into this!). In Grimm’s Cinderella, the stepsisters try to put on the shoe, which of course does not fit. The eldest sister’s big toe wont fit, so she cuts it off to make the shoe fit, but a little bird tips off the messenger to the ruse. The youngest sister’s heel wont fit, so she cuts off part of it, but again, a little bird tips off the messenger. And finally on the way to Cinderella’s marriage, the sisters form her wedding party, and two birds pluck out one of the eyes of each of the sisters. On the way back from the wedding, the same birds pluck out the sister’s other eye, leaving them both blind and crippled as punishment for their wickedness, and materialism.

  In the years since the brother’s recorded their stories, little has changed. The modern woman is just as blind and lame as the stepsisters she wants to emulate, entirely blinded by the dream that she too can be a princess, she only needs one more makeover, when in reality she can never be a princess. A true princess exists independent of wealth and shiny baubles.

  Putting lipstick and perfume on a pig does not make it into a princess, it’s still a pig. And modern women will never be princesses, they never learned how, and wouldn’t enjoy being princesses if they bothered to try. No matter how many pairs of shoes they own, modern women will still be greedy, arrogant, stuck up, cruel lazy, whores as their lazy step-sister counterparts. You’d think that “Ugly Step-sister” t-shirts won’t sell, but you just need to realize that they already have. They look like this:

• 
  

  It’s Evolution Baby!

  Posted: June 28th, 2007, 12:31pm PDT by timberwolf

  Most people today don’t truly understand evolution. They don’t see the elegance and simplicityof Darwin’s theory. Some find it threatening, and frightening because to science, it is very compelling.

  As such, there are a great many mistakes that people make about evolution. One criticism which I often hear leveled at evolution is that scientists believe that we evolved from monkeys, which is to some degree true, in a very round-about way. Actually scientists now seem to agree that we didn’t evolve from monkeys, but from Australopithecus roughly two million years ago. We don’t know exactly when it happened, but this is when scientists believe that the first animal that you could readily identify as an early human came into existence. That’s a very long time ago.

  Recorded human history covers approximately six thousand years, from about 4000 BCE or so, to the present year 2007. That’s roughly six thousand years, and our knowledge of those years is very much incomplete, and likely never will be. That means that we have relatively sketchy knowledge of approximately 0.003% of the grand total of human history. Of that two million years, we know less than 1%, of 1% of two million years. We know a fair bit about civilization, we don’t know much about what life was like pre-civilization.

  We do however know, that our distant ancestors were identifiable as human beings. We also know that they were not the first humans. Even if we were to halve the figure of two million, we can make a pretty good guess that what we would consider a human relative existed about one million years ago. And there’s still a lot of history that we’re missing, but we can safely conclude that a substantial population of humans lived one million years ago. This means, that for any very religious folks who happen to be reading, that evolution does not say that grandma and grandpa were monkeys; grandma and grandpa were grandma and grandpa. You have always been you, but you’re still an animal, and you’ve been influenced by the animals who are like you that came before you!

  Another error that people make concerning evolution is to view it as a ladder, where earlier lifeforms are considered more primitive and therefore inferior to current lifeforms. This is somewhat compelling, on the relatively short term of six thousand years, but really makes no sense over two million years. Scientists maintain that most species which mutate, die. Many adaptations fail. Think of evolution more like duck-hunting. When duck-hunting, one normally uses a shot-gun, and bird-shot ammunition. The goal of bird-shot is not to hit the target with a single bullet, but to create a cloud of shot, a relatively few of which will hit the target. Most of the pellets in a fowling shot don’t hit the duck, but a few do. Evolution creates many adaptations, most of which fail, but a few are successful. So while the ladder anaology doesn’t fit in broader terms it can be seen in more narrow terms, for instance to humans in particular.

  And this is where evolution can get somewhat confusing, because though it is not a ladder, every single aspect of the modern human being is some sort of evolutionary adaptation, and as such is helpful for survival. Everything. Take any facet of human life what so ever, and a little bit of thinking allows us to see that it has some sort of evolutionary component. Thus, modern humans while they are free to do as they please on paper, in practice, are to some degree slave to their evolutionary urges and instincts. Every animal on the planet feels the weight of several million years of evolutionary drive pressing down on them, and they must act accordingly, or cease to exist.

  Why are there so many people on the planet today? Simply put; humans like to fuck. People have to some degree been denying this one since time immemorial, but human beings love sex. They love having it, they love thinking about it, they love to see it. And even when we’re not thinking about it, we develop elaborate and complex rituals, and mores, and norms which govern, and influence the way that we have sex. And if we didn’t like sex exactly as much as we do, we would not be here. There would be no human civilization what so ever. Think about it. Realize that we’re not really sure that pre-historic humans had an understanding of reproduction. Maybe they did and maybe they didn’t. But we are absolutely certain that pre-historic humans derived roughly the same enjoyment from sex as we do today. We know that pre-historic humans weren’t entirely irrational, and therefore they knew enough that when you thrust a penis into a vagina, it feels pretty good for both involved, and so this activity would be seen as desirable, and therefore repeated until the inevitable were to occur; a pregnancy. You see, early humans didn’t have any need to understand
  the fine details of human reproduction, evolution had already sorted that one out years ago. Those creatures that had no desire to reproduce did not do so, and so they went extinct. Those that did feel the need to reproduce did so, and so they survived. Those that felt pleasure from the act of reproduction engaged in the act of reproduction a lot, and they thrived, and their numbers increased. That the human sex act is a pleasurable one is an evolutionary adaptation. There are even a whole number of adaptations which are part of the human physiology which exist in order to ensure that we have sex as often as possible, with as many people as possible. Awareness and society do add new considerations to this equation, but at a base level, all of this remains true.

  Since we are a product of evolution, it only stands to reason that what we see today in society and otherwise is very much guided by evolution. Evolution, with the exception of “reproduce or your species dies” doesn’t give hard and fast rules; it’s a numbers game. If a given set of circumstances is reproduced often enough then a certain result will happen.

  Society works on this principle too. Sales is not based on closing every single sale. Advertising relies on promoting a product to as many people as possible, because only a small number will purchase it. Remember the duck-hunting analogy.

  That being said, some time ago, someone on the Anti-Misandry forums asked if giving women greater and greater power would result in chaos. Here is the evolutionary answer to that question.

  I tend to subscribe to the view that men and women are more or less equal, but fundamentally different, and that gender roles are really supposed to be complimentary and not adversarial as feminism has created. As the media recently reported, with heavy scientific intervention, a woman can have a child on her own, but only another woman, it takes a man to create a man. Thus, as grade school sex-ed teaches, we are indeed fundamentally different on a genetic level. But we’ve evolved to be socially different as well, and two million years of evolution takes a lot longer than a few thousand years to outgrow.

  Has anyone ever wondered why women go to the bathroom in groups? This question has been asked many many times, and is normally answered by asserting that while a group of women are in the bathroom they are socializing. But notice that this has answered the wrong question, it has answered WHAT women do, but not WHY they do it. I am going to give an explanation of why. It is a conditioned urge, and by examining a few things we know about ourselves, and the world around us, we can answer this question! We know that on par, women are smaller and generally weaker than men. We also know that human beings have learned that it’s a bad idea to leave human waste lying around since it attracts unpleasant odors, disease etc. We also know, that our distant ancestors likely lived in some sort of sheltered dwelling, without internal plumbing, which was probably an easily defensible, safe position. We also know, that in order to survive, our distant ancestors likely lived in small groups. Therefore, it only stands to reason that our ancestors would relieve themselves some distance away from wherever they might be living. Given that this time frame pre-dates metal tools, it only stands to reason that large ancient African predators might find it rather easy to catch, kill and eat a small, relatively slow-moving ancient human being. Now the men of the time no doubt figured out that their contribution to survival was best served by being the biggest, strongest, and most brutal animal on the continent. A hunter’s senses would have greatly helped a man to survive, maybe even triumph against a large African predator, such as a lion, or hyena. But what about an ancient woman? An ancient woman certainly doesn’t have the strength, or experience of her male counter-part. She simply cannot stand toe to toe with a hungry lion, but she must also relieve herself. It doesn’t take much intelligence however, to realize that most predators do not attack large groups of anything, they prey on the individual few who are old and sick, or young and helpless. A substantial group often makes predators weary, so if people leave the safety of the dwelling in groups, they are less likely to be attacked. Therefore, women especially probably started to leave the dwelling to answer nature’s call, in groups. Those who went
  in groups survived more often, and the idea caught on. And that quirk of evolution is still with us today. When the washroom moved into the home in the 20th Century, it was no longer necessary to be afraid of going to the bathroom, but women still go to the bathrooms in public, because in public, the unfamiliar, and may not, at least subconsciously, be entirely safe. Therefore, women go to the bathroom in groups, because they feel compelled to do so.

  Yet more proof that evolution is still with us today. So what these subconscious feelings? What do men feel, and how is that different from what women feel?

  Men feel loyalty to each other in a group. Does anyone know anything about the US Navy SEALs?

  All SEAL duty is voluntary. A SEAL does what a SEAL does because he CHOOSES to do it, not because he is ORDERED to do it. Has anyone ever seen the component SEAL training known as “hell-week”? Basically during, hell-week, which lasts from Sunday to Friday, recruits get four hours sleep, total. They are kept perpetually cold, and wet. One
  of the stated objectives of SEAL training is to make people fail the course. obviously, successful completion of Hell-Week is meant to instill confidence in the recruits, but it is also used to develop a sense of Esprit de Corps; loyalty, respect and friendship towards others who have experienced the same hardship as the individual. The United States Marines undergo a similar sort of indoctrination. As does every other fighting unit in the world.

  Feelings of loyalty towards a man’s companions, his unit, are essential to all military operations. When these feelings are so strong that they inspire increddible acts of altruism to aid one’s companions, governments create medals and decorations to commemorate, and reward these acts of altruism. We call the people who do these things, “heroes.” Most heroes are men, not because women are incapable of altruism, but because men are more team-oriented than women. This is also why men dominate military affairs.

  But the roots of this evolutionary instinct go back to early hunting. Since men would sometimes have to venture far away from home, for long periods of time, with only each other for company, they learned to rely on each other both to achieve success in the hunt, and for mutual protection. Remember, humans are slow compared to lions. Observe the way that two men, or a group of men sit together, they do not look at each other, they normally look in the same direction, at something other than each other. Women look each other in the eye. Why do men choose not to look at each other? Because when men are in groups they’re, they’re doing two things; they’re still stalking prey, and they’re still watching out for each other! They are working together for success, and maximizing their safety. It’s subconscious, but it is still present today. And if you watch a heterosexual couple who is courting, they will start looking away from each other, but gradually turn towards each other. Why do women always try for eye-contact, and to see someone’s face? Because the female realm is concerned with building relationships, which will make sure that all the crops are in on time. The male realm is concerned with making sure that the prey is successfully hunted, and that everybody makes it back alive. Thus, the male places a greater value in the strength of the team, since the loss of a single male hunter is considerably greater, than someone who gathers crops. The wheat might be able to wait for one day, the animals wont. Since a team cannot function effectively if one man develops too much ego, humility is also a uniquely male trait.

  Since the female places less importance on team effort, her personal sense of value will always tend to be higher than a male’s, and she is therefore less likely to be willing to “take one for the team.” Feminists freely acknowledge that fewer women participate in team sports. Female musicians are also more likely to be individuals, while males are more likely to form a band. Can anyone name any male divas? How many female divas can you name? Men feel compelled to at least partially restrict their egos, but when unrestricted by society women clearly do not.

  So what happens when you add feminism? Since feminism generally opposes societal control, it encourages women to act out, and in short order, women’s egos grow out of control. Consider the case of Britney Spears. Contrast this with Trent Reznor. Both need heavy amounts of sound engineering, as well as other musicians to be successful. Yet Britney Spears clearly doesn’t care about anyone who assists her success, it’s all about her. She demands all the attention and all the money, and when she doesn’t get it, she shaves her head, or flashes the paparazzi, just to extend the 15 seconds of fame that she never deserved in the first place. Trent Reznor formed Nine Inch Nails, and even though it is HE, not the other musicians who deserve the credit for changing the face of music today, it is he who was named one of the most influential modern musicians in the world by RollingStone Magazine, he chooses the name of a band, even though he would certainly be just as successful if he was a solo-artist.

  What happens when you add feminism, which has removed society’s restrictions on female egos? As egos swell, responsibilities begin to disappear, and as responsibility disappears, loyalty, and humility vanish. Why be loyal if no one will hold you accountable? Feminist message: Why bother making any contributions to society at all, if feminism encourages you to take society for all its worth, and as long as woman is happy, the consequences are irrelevant. It doesn’t matter who you hurt, or who you hate, so if you’re not happy, BLAME MEN! Men are problem-solvers after all, so they should be making you happy, because YOU are all that matters! Since men are problem solvers, (who do you think built the hut when it rained and she was 7 months pregnant?), some man will no doubt clean up the mess.

  But of course, heap scorn and misandry on men, add a touch of screwing men over in divorce-court, and sooner or later, they stop caring about women, and they are no longer willing to invest in women, because the investment always results in a loss. Men begin to invest in themselves, often in benign ways, through hobbies, but they no longer are willing to invest in society. The group begins to disperse, man’s esprit de corps is gone, because there’s no longer anything worthy of his attention out there, so he turns inward as well. And as he does so, the group begins to crack, there’s no longer a single direction, and chaos is the result.

  Both men and women have unique ways of organizing and mobilizing power, and each other for that matter. In dealing with power, men tend to try to unite, women try to divide. Men by virtue of their role as hunters would need to find it necessary to unite with other men at times, and with the whole group at times to accomplish something, be it relocating, defending the group, what have you. Wherever men go, they tend to achieve some sort of unification with each other. Again, a military is an excellent example of this, as the men of the unit are more ready to identify with the unit than any female counterparts.

  Men also thrive with a certain amount of authority and structure, while women do not. The goals of men often must transcend beyond their personal goals, and therefore it is often necessary for men to accept the leadership of other more experienced men to better the chances for success. So when used responsibly, clear direct authority is often the best way to achieve success. However, the abuse of authority has taught men to be weary of those in power, and to watch them to make sure that leaders continue to act in the best interests of the unit. On a relatively small level, this is not difficult at all. Mutiny is one of the highest crimes at sea for a very good reason, and it’s much easier to achieve than say, a revolution at the national level. At a national level, people are much less willing to work together. Unification comes from familiarity, a shared experience, not distance. A shared identity and experience are almost always necessary to mobilize groups of people on a national level. The American Revolution was only possible through intense feelings of shared experience, and even then, there were many, many loyalists who emigrated to Canada.

  Women’s roles however, favored division. Have you ever considered how men and women go to the supermarket? Men and women do the groceries in entirely different ways. Men want to be in and out very quickly, while women will stop and consider price, sales,
  alternatives etc. But the real telling factor, is in the produce section. Women will examine each piece of fruit they buy in detail before they decide on buying it or not. Women will note even the slightest blemish or discoloration on tomatoes, carrots, apples, etc. Why? Because for men, it didn’t really matter what lay underneath the skin of an animal, the meat would generally retain its nutritious value, as long as the animal was not gravely ill. For women who were concerned with fruit, vegetables and grains, it mattered a lot, because there might be parasites, or you might get ill eating too much unripened fruit. A person’s survival might be dependent on just the color on the fruit. There was even a recent news story which stated that some women see more colours than men, and this should be no surprise what so ever. Women therefore, are very concerned about separating the desirable from the undesirable, and they don’t care in the least about the undesirable. Men value and emphasize the whole, women value and emphasize the individual.

  So men, tend to unite, while women divide. In high-schools, there is always a clique of popular girls. We can identify them by those who are not present. We can see female division by looking at feminists especially. Men tend to be concerned with the family unit, the majority as contributing to society. Feminists are concerned with minorities, gays, lesbians, and minorities as determined by race. Men are not concerned about a person’s race, feminists overwhelmingly are. Feminists have openly sought to turn women against men, while men have been playing the marriage game. Feminists have decided that men are undesirable, and either they must change, or be
  censored.

  And thus, give females too much power, and they will divide society, again, and again, and again, until the cohesiveness of the unit is broken, and chaos is the order of the day.