Sep 102016

It has been 10 years since the Duke Lacrosse false rape accusation.  How does everyone who falsely accused the Duke Lacrosse players of rape, such as the faculty at Duke who supported this false rape accusations, feel about it now?  They have absolutely no remorse about it.  They don’t care that they were a part of a virtual lynch mob.

Additionally, there have been ZERO consequences for the Duke faculty who supported this false rape accusation.  Most of them are still working at Duke.  The rest are working at other universities.  In either case, it is safe to assume that they are pushing more false rape accusations.

Sep 052016

I found this screenshot from a tweet:

Yes, I would ask for proof.  For her pet dying to be equivalent to a sexual assault accusation, that would mean that she is accusing someone of murdering her pet.  For sexual assault to happen, someone has to cause it.  There is no equivalent in sexual assault to dying of natural causes where death can happen independently of someone causing it.  Any woman who says she has been sexually assaulted is accusing a man of sexually assaulting her.  That is an accusation of criminal behavior.  Since we have a standard of innocent until proven guilty when it comes to crimes (unless you’re in college), we always demand evidence that a crime actually happened.

Jun 172016

More and more has been happening with the Jacob Appelbaum case.  For those of you who don’t know what is going on, Jacob Appelbaum is (or rather was since he resigned his position) at the TOR Project, a software application to help protect anonymity on the internet.  A website ( got created out of nowhere to document all of Appelbaum’s alleged rapes and sexual assaults.  It has all of the hallmarks of being nothing but false accusations.  The crimes that Appelbaum are supposed to have committed unspecified or poorly specified.  They are also mostly unfalsifiable except in one case that was reported by witnesses, but the supposed victim insists she was not sexually assaulted.  (This is exactly the same thing that happened at CSU.)  It’s also a social media campaign with a call for others to come forward to join the social media campaign.  None of that involves going to the police or taking any legal action whatsoever.

That last part is very important.  One of Appelbaum’s accusers objects to due process and the legal system because it is “violent towards accusers”.  This is basically the same argument that is being used by the women at the University of Tennessee who are suing to end due process because they believe due process violates their rights.  In other words, this woman wants to completely eliminate due process.  Additionally, that same woman objects to being described as a lynch mob:

I was troubled by some of the misguided defenses of Jake. People speaking up were dismissed as a lynch mob — an ahistorical and offensive way to describe a critical mass of people who had previously been silenced and were demanding accountability.

This is the exact same argument that the KKK would use to lynch black men, especially if a white woman was falsely accusing a black man of rape.  Everyone who is accusing Appelbaum of anything is morally equivalent to the KKK now.

Instead of due process and a real evidence based investigation conducted by police, the accusers want something called “transformative justice”. From what I can tell is half gibberish and half complete totalitarianism. Take a look at some of the steps involved in “transformative justice”:

0. Jake must be excluded from all community activities as a precondition for healing.

1. We must believe victims, and continue to foster an environment where they feel safe to report their stories of abuse.

“Transformative justice” is just another term for getting rid of due process and legal standards like innocent until proven guilty.  It doesn’t even replace innocent until proven guilty with guilty until proven innocent.  Under guilty until proven innocent an innocent man still has a chance of being declared innocent sometimes.  “Transformative justice” is guilty forever with no possibility of proving innocence.  The court systems of the most totalitarian nations that have ever lived (including the Soviet Union) weren’t this bad.

It’s obvious that all of the accusations against Appelbaum are false.  Any criminal accusation made by someone who wants to eliminate due process must be a lie.  Anyone who has a legitimate criminal accusation against someone would not be afraid of due process.

Jun 082016

There is this Stanford swimmer in the news I’m sure all of you have heard about.  I don’t care about if his sentence for sexual assault was too lenient.  Women who commit sexual crimes against boys get similarly lenient sentences or even more lenient sentences.  Until that is fixed the Stanford swimmer does not deserve a longer sentence.

Plus, I would not be surprised that we eventually find out he is a victim of the false rape industry.  Every high profile rape accusation has turned out to be false, so why not this one?

May 252016

A Sheriff in Idaho admits that the false rape industry is very real:

This Sheriff was willing to admit what most law enforcement knows, that there are many false rape accusations. I found the example he brought up of teenage girls who have consensual sex but make a false rape accusation is very interesting. Part of that is unwillingness on the part of teenage girls to admit they had consensual sex, but as he points out a big part of the problem is when teenage girls get forced to make false rape accusations by their parents. It makes you wonder how many false rape accusations were the results of meddling by third parties. Whatever the answer, it is a waste of time for law enforcement. And as the Sheriff points out, law enforcement is painfully aware of how their time is being wasted.

Apr 242016

For a man to be a victim of the false rape industry, it used to be that a woman (usually who had sex with the man) actually had to make an accusation against that man.  Thanks to the reclassification of rape as a civil rights violation such standards of due process no longer need to be followed.  At Colorado State University – Pueblo, a male athlete and his female trainer start a relationship. Everything during the relationship was consensual, but another person made a complaint to the university that the trainer was raped. The trainer strenuously disagreed saying, “I’m fine and I wasn’t raped.” That didn’t stop the athlete from getting expelled from the university for rape.

What happened here was that since rape is now reclassified as a “civil rights violation”, it doesn’t matter if the alleged victim says everything was consensual.  His relationship with his trainer offended someone else so the athlete violated the “civil rights” of women regardless of repeated statements from the woman he had sex with that made it clear she wasn’t raped.  We will see more of this in the future since feminists will declare that women who don’t think they were raped to be victims of “internalized misogyny” and can’t be trusted as a result.

At this point I’m waiting for a man living in the middle of nowhere in North Dakota with no other person within a hundred miles to be accused of rape/violating the civil rights of women because some woman that he never met was pissed off at him.  This will happen sooner or later.

Mar 262016

The anti-vaccination movement is responsible for the rise in measles (such as the Disneyland measles outbreak in 2015) and whooping cough.  Since the anti-vaccination movement is primarily made up of mothers and other women, this is something where women bear responsibility. On top of that, mothers are usually the ones making health care choices for their children so in almost all cases where a child is not vaccinated (for anything other than legitimate medical reasons), a woman is responsible.  This problem is made worse by divorce and that fact that women are responsible for most divorces.  Fathers have to fight their ex-wives to get their children vaccinated and protect their children.

What started all of this anti-vaccination nonsense was a discredited study linking vaccination to increased autism rates.  Not only was this study discredited to the point where the journal that published it chose to disavow it, the study was funded by a law firm on a fishing expedition to sue vaccine manufacturers.  Despite these facts, women immediately latched on this.  Why did this happen?  To understand the reason, one must understand that certain degrees of autism, particularly autism level 1 (or Asperger’s Syndrome as it used to be called), is not a debilitating disease but indistinguishable from ultra-masculine thinking (the type of thinking that drives innovation).  In fact, lower levels of autism, especially those that used to be called Asperger’s Syndrome, are likely to be nothing more than the medicalization of regular masculinity.  In other words, women believed the anti-vaccination conspiracy theory because of their fear and hatred of masculinity.  Not only is women refusing to vaccinate their children dangerous for their children’s health, it is particularly dangerous for their sons since those women in addition to endangering their health will be raising them in a cesspool of feminist/anti-male ideology.  This is another example of how women’s role as child-bearer is rapidly becoming unnecessary and in many cases even harmful.

Anti-vaccination propaganda is filled with fear and hatred of masculinity (in addition to many lies).  Women are comparing vaccinations to rape (including the non-existent college rape “epidemic”) with images such as these:

And written propaganda like this:

I have been thinking this morning about the parallels between vaccine-injury and sexual assault. I happened to hear a news story today about the incidence of rape on college campuses, and as I was listening, I could envision several commonalities.
In the story, a young woman was interviewed about her experience. She described a situation in which she had accompanied a young man to his dorm room and they had engaged in sex – both agreed and it was an interaction to which both gave informed consent. They both knew they were going to have sex before entering the dorm room and there was no force or coercion involved. There was an element of trust and equality in the decision-making process.
She said that afterward, she was ready to leave and when she got up to get dressed, the young man pushed her down onto the bed, and held her down while he turned up the stereo so her cries for help could not be overheard by neighboring students.
After the assault, the young woman reported the rape to campus police. The investigation was dropped and the rapist was not prosecuted. She sees him on campus and has classes with him, which she reported is extremely difficult and re-traumatizing for her.
Vaccination of our children is in many ways similar to medical rape.
We know the person who has harmed our infants and children. We trust them. We willingly go into the environment and we even participate in holding down the victims. In many cases, we have been in those rooms and participated willingly, albeit without truly informed consent, in the medical assault on our children (or on ourselves.)
In other cases, we entered those rooms with people we trusted, believing we were NOT going to engage in the act proposed by the perpetrator, only to be talked into it, shamed into it, threatened into it, coerced into it, or tricked into it with promises that, “This won’t hurt” or “It’s only going to hurt for a second” or “Come on… you know it’s the right thing to do… everyone else is doing it….”
Afterward, the perpetrators, pat us on the thigh or shoulder while looking us straight in the eyes and saying, “There now. That wasn’t so bad, was it?” They straighten their white coats, instruct us to get our things together, as they turn their backs and stride out of the room in search of their next victim. We may be left feeling afraid, and numb, not knowing how that happened and praying that it’s over. Praying they won’t come back and do it again, and praying there won’t be any lasting harm from what just happened.
In many cases, as we leave those rooms, feeling sick to our stomachs… dirty… with lumps in our throats and tears in our eyes, we force ourselves to take deep breaths and resolve to be stronger next time; more prepared to say NO and mean it.
For many of us, we ARE more prepared and we ARE able to say NO the next time. Others of us are not so strong.
Some of us resolve to change our lives and we seek new relationships, which are good for us and in which our decisions and our choices – our right to say NO is respected.
Some of us endure the worst when we realize that the medical assault inherent in the act of coerced vaccination is only the beginning, as our children or ourselves become sick, often within minutes or hours following the assault. It is at that point that we are suddenly faced with the horror that when we reach out to those who are supposed to help us, we must again confront the assailant and beg for assistance. Not only is the help denied, the assault is also denied and the harm minimized. We are told, “It’s nothing,” “You’re over-reacting,” – no different from the rapist’s claim, “It was consentual. After-all, you came here asking for it. What did you expect?” If there is ANY admission that what happened was harmful, the victim is blamed for the damage because “Everyone else does just fine. In fact, they keep coming back for more. They love it. It’s only those extremely rare individuals who are weak, or flawed, or physically or emotionally damaged to start with who don’t like it. The problem is not with the perpetrator, and certainly not with the act itself… it’s the victim. Something is wrong with that one…”
And just like the rape-victim in this morning’s radio story, we are continually re-traumatized when we encounter the rapist in public – in our churches, in the grocery store, at PTA meetings and community gatherings.
The medical rapist is empowered by laws that protect him (or her) from liability. There are no consequences when they harm us or our children and this has emboldened them to become even more callous in their actions.

I suppose the comparison to the non-existent campus rape “epidemic” is accurate.  Both anti-vaccination and the campus rape “epidemic” are lies.  They are also both led by women who want the end of due process.  The woman who wrote the above propaganda specifically complained about the police and the criminal justice system not providing a summary judgement against a supposed “rapist” so it is clear that she is against due process.

Elsewhere, vaccination gets called a “war on women”.  Conspiracy theorist, Jeff Rense, says vaccination is an attempt to secretly sterilize women.  Conspiracy theorist website,, specifically called vaccination, the “vaccine industry’s war on women”.  This proves (again) that conspiracy theorists are no friend of men and are willing to white knight at the drop of a hat.

Calling or implying that vaccination is a “war on women” is not limited to conspiracy theorists.  The simple act of pointing out that Jenny McCarthy, a leader of the anti-vaccination movement, has the facts wrong on vaccination is misogyny.  It would be bad enough if these false accusations of misogyny were just coming from anti-vaccination people.  However, even pro-vaccination people will defend these women by saying that the women were just reacting to the misogyny of (male) doctors and demand that you have sympathy for them.  Or they will falsely accuse you of misogyny for disagreeing with anti-vaccination women:

I love and respect science which I worked in for a decade. But, believing in science doesn’t mean I have to ignore non-science. Science can’t explain why acupuncture works but it does. Science says vitamin E doesn’t reduce pre-menstural breast tenderness but I have 20 years of experience that says otherwise. That’s fine. If the science isn’t there then the medical profession should steer clear but we – individual people – don’t have to steer clear. It is the same with vaccines.

Like the story of a mother whose daughter got a vaccine on Friday and by monday morning had pulled all of her hair out. She is a statistical anomaly and therefore her mother is just being hysterical. That’s misogyny. We have no respect for motherhood, mothers, or the choices women make for their families.

I have trouble believing that this woman ever worked in science unless “correlation does not equal causation” is now considered misogynist.  (There are probably plenty of women and maginas who think that way.)  As for not respecting “motherhood, mothers, or women’s choices”, women’s “choices” are endangering their own children and other people.  (And that doesn’t even address that fact that she thinks that fathers should have no say it what happens to their children.) For example, this woman who refusal to vaccinate her children caused all seven of them to get whooping cough, but this woman only endangered her own children.  What is worse is that these women who are refusing to vaccinate and endangering other people’s children and people who can not get vaccinations due to legitimate medical reasons.  People in the latter group are protected against various diseases by the rest of us being vaccinated (a.k.a. herd immunity).  When a woman refuses to vaccinate her children and someone else is injured or killed by that act, she could face civil or criminal liability because her intentional disregard for her own children’s health is injuring other people.

When you look at all of this together, it is clear that being anti-vaccination is anti-male.  In particular, the biggest victims of the anti-vaccination movement (besides those who have died as a result of women refusing to vaccinate their children) are boys who are being raised by anti-male feminist mothers.

Mar 122016

I found a woman on Reddit who should be a candidate for Entitlement Princess of the Month, but what she said is too vile to wait that long.  A woman wrote a post on Reddit titled “Feeling are more important than reality”:

This has been a point I’ve been trying t tackle in my life for a while now, and I’m hoping this sub can help out. I’d like to add a trigger warning for topics of sexual assault.
Often when I’m discussing social topics with people who don’t tend to agree with me the conversation will hit a point where the other person will present some fact that will go against what I have just said, but doesn’t necessarily counter the point I’m trying to argue. So often they just drop supposed “facts” as if that makes the matter ok. I’ll try to present some examples that will clarify what I mean.

Whenever I’m trying to discuss or spread awareness of sexual assault on campuses, it seems that someone will always come along and deny that it’s a problem. He will throw out articles claiming that the 1 in 5 stat is wrong or misleading, and that there really isn’t that much of a problem (as if we could know that for certain). My issue is that even if all these things are true, it doesn’t stop the underlying issue of women feeling unsafe at colleges. It only makes the issue worse if so many women are being given the impression that their potential rape is not a concern because it is statistically insignificant. The feelings are being dismissed by the “reality” of the situation and I can’t make myself see what that should be the case. Does empathy count for nothing in today’s world?

Speaking of feeling safe, I find these kinds of people are also dismissive of safe spaces for people of color or other minorities in university. I want to make the same assertion here; If people feel safer in these situations, why is it alright to ridicule them or try and take those spaces away? It isn’t harming anyone, and it’s making people feel better, which is helpful for their well being.

Another example is on International Womens Day a friend on Facebook made a post about how there is still a lot of work that needs to be done for women in todays society. The post mentioned that women still feel afraid to walk outside alone at night. Someone responded by saying that women are statistically much less likely to be assaulted at night than men.

What help is a comment like that? If I’m afraid to be out at night, and I have a 0% chance of being assaulted or raped, and I’m afraid of being out on a night where there is a 50% chance of those things happening and in that instance they don’t, my panicked walk home is the same miserable experience.

Now, I hope I have presented examples that have a clear connection. I’m obviously not arguing that there is no harm in a situation where someone feels like they will be ok if they put their hand on a heated stove element or something like that. I think it’s more for situations where and individuals perception is their reality. What benefit is there is trying to dismiss that by saying that “actual reality” isn’t how they see it? It’s like if someone said “I’m scared of the dark” and someone else said “Why? The dark can’t hurt you”. Even if the dark can’t hurt someone, you’re just disregarding their pain instead of, I don’t know, turing on the lights or something helpful and trivial.

I’m having such a hard time seeing the other side of this. Please change my view!

tl;dr feelings inform our reality, so “feels” are more important than a facts for situations that concern individuals.

I added the bold to some parts of this.  This is an excellent examples of how women think that their feelings are correct when their feelings are practically the opposite of what actually happens in reality.  This woman will defend against that being pointed out, by saying that “her feelings are about making a larger point”.  Since she has the facts wrong in the first place, her “larger points” and feelings are also wrong by definition.  Take when she said, “women are being given the impression that their potential rape is not a concern because it is statistically insignificant”.  If something happening is statistically insignificant, then it is a waste of time to be concerned about it.  It is like saying, people in Canada should all learn how to defend themselves against being trampled by an elephant even though the chance of that happening to anyone in Canada is effectively zero.

This is the type of thinking that leads to women believing things like that carbon fiber and glaciers oppress women.  That wouldn’t be so bad if the negative effect of women thinking their feelings override reality only applied to them.  However, it does not.  Everything from the Women In Tech movement’s attempt to remove men from the tech industry to women attacking doctors by accusing them of “fat shaming”  and dentists by accusing them of “tooth shaming” to women attempting to end due process are the result of women believing that their feelings override reality.  The results speak for themselves.  Men either lose their jobs or are in danger of losing their jobs not due to nothing that happened in the real world, but to a woman’s desire to have them removed from her sight.  Our health is in danger because doctors and dentists will be too afraid to speak about it with us since it might offend a woman’s feelings.  We are in danger of losing our rights to due process because it makes women feel bad.  The only way to fight this is to stand up and tell women that their feelings don’t override reality.

Feb 252016

Men are being accused of sexually harassing virtual assistants like Siri and Cortana.. To call this nonsense would be an insult to regular plain old nonsense. A virtual assistant is nothing more than a computer program that makes sounds that approximate a female (or male) voice. It is no where near an artificial intelligence so a virtual assistant can not be considered a person under any circumstances. What really proves that this is BS is that no one has talked about a virtual assistant with a male voice being sexually harassed.

I predict that the next thing in this vein will be feminists accusing men of raping virtual assistants. That makes even less sense than virtual assistants being sexually harassed but this will happen. We are lucky that there is an easy way to avoid being accused of raping your virtual assistant. Only use a virtual assistant with a male voice. Feminists will still accuse you of being a misogynist for using a male voice in your virtual assistant, but they will accuse you of being a misogynist regardless of what you do.

Feb 162016

Feminists continue their war on Article 3 and the Sixth amendment to the US Constitution.  This time several women sued the University of Tennessee for “violating Title IX”, creating a “hostile environment” for women, and using “an unusual, legalistic adjudication process that is biased against victims who step forward”.  How did the University of Tennessee do all these things?  By following due process:

The plaintiffs say that UT’s administrative hearing process, which is utilized by public universities across the state, is unfair because it provides students accused of sexual assault the right to attorneys and to confront their accusers through cross-examination and an evidentiary hearing in front of an administrative law judge.

The University of Tennessee shouldn’t even be doing what they’re doing now.  Dealing with alleged crimes is the job of the criminal justice system, but at least in Tennessee, they realize that due process doesn’t end when a person steps on to a college campus. 

I don’t know what the result of this lawsuit will be, but the existence of this lawsuit proves that feminists are trying to take a big dump on the Constitution.  No matter what happens, more people will be woken up to the fact that many women have no problem with totalitarianism and that feminism is totalitarianism.  If this lawsuit is successful, I imagine the next lawsuit of this nature will be a bunch of women suing a university for not providing immediate summary executions of men they find ugly.

Jan 182016

Paul Murray brought up how the US Constitution says that crimes must be tried by courts in reference to the college rape tribunals (which we know are a part of the false rape industry.  Specifically, he is referring to the end of Article 3, Section 2 of the US Constitution which says:

Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

The only exception to a jury trial for a crime is impeachment.  For all other crimes, all citizens of the US are guaranteed a jury trial.  Despite what feminists think they can get away with, the constitution makes no exception for rape.  The existence of college rape tribunals are in violation of Article 3, Section 2 of the constitution.

Additionally, the sixth amendment is also relevant.  It says:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

College rape tribunals violate every single clause of the sixth amendment of the constitution.  Feminists have declared war on Article 3 & the sixth amendment of the US Constitution.  (Feminists have declared war on the entire US Constitution, but that is a subject for another time.)  Feminists have been running this war for a long time.  First, feminists tried to use the Commerce Clause in the constitution in the first VAWA (violence against women act) to allow women to sue men they accused of rape even when said men had been exonerated by the criminal justice system.  For obvious reasons, the courts declared this to be unconstitutional.

Now, feminists are trying to declare rape a “civil rights violation”.  Remember that the college rape “tribunals” got started because of a letter to colleges from the Dept. of Education’s Office of Civil Rights.  The trick feminists are using is have have men accused of rape not charged with a crime, but a “civil rights violation”.  Because these men don’t get charged with an actual crime, they are denied due process.  This is a violation of the spirit of our entire legal system and the constitution.

This reminds me of a science fiction TV show from the 90s, Bablyon 5.  In that show, the President of the Earth Alliance (all of Earth plus all human colonies) wanted to make himself a dictator.  One of the things he did was to create a organization called the Nightwatch which was designed to root out non-“peaceful” behavior.  (This could be easily be replaced with civil rights “violations”).  Non-“peaceful” behavior conveniently included criticizing the government of the Earth Alliance.  The Nightwatch wasn’t involved in the criminal justice system so it did not need to follow the rules of due process.  Even people who had joined the Nightwatch questioned this:

Because the Nightwatch was enforcing directives from the Earth Alliance political office (which could be replaced with the Office of Civil Rights easily) due process was thrown out the window until someone was charged with an actual crime.  In other words, a person who committed a burglary, for example, would get full due process, but someone who criticized government policy would be dealt with by the Nightwatch who was completely free to ignore due process.  The reason for this was that burglars or bank robbers or drug dealers or most criminals weren’t a threat to the coming dictatorship (which happened later in the series).  Anyone who spoke out against the government was.  Rather than completely take away due process which everyone would notice, they took away due process only in the areas that were relevant to them.  This allowed them to hide what they were doing.

Feminists are trying to do the exact same thing.  Feminists don’t care about taking away due process from burglars, bank robbers, drug dealers, etc. because the crimes those people commit aren’t crimes where (it is assumed that) women are the victims.  On the other hand which something like rape, feminists want due process taken away because they want women to have the power to destroy mens lives just like the Earth Alliance government in Bablyon 5 wanted the power to destroy anyone who criticized them.  (It goes without saying that male victims of prison rape won’t benefit from this.)  Also, like the Earth Alliance government, not trying to take away due process in general gives feminist the benefit of being able to hide what they are doing (at least until the lawsuits from men start showing up).  This is why colleges were chosen to host these “tribunals”.  By starting them on college campuses, most people wouldn’t be in a position to notice them especially since they wouldn’t have a broader effect on due process.

On Babylon 5 the endgame of the Nightwatch was to merge it with regular security/police (which happened).  Similarly, the feminist endgame to the college rape “tribunals” is to merge them into the government as a “civil rights” court and enforcement system where due process is ignored since it is not a criminal court.  Such a thing is a violation of the US Constitution and needs to be destroyed before it can even be created.

Jan 112016

By now, I’m sure you all have heard about the alleged gang rapes in Cologne, Germany.  I have been seeing a lot of reactions from people in this part of the internet who should know better like:

  • See feminists don’t care about women
  • See feminists can’t protect women
  • Immigration is the real rape culture

If you think things like this, then you aren’t an anti-feminist.  For the last several years from Rolling Stone at UVa to mattress girl at Columbia, we have witnessed just how large the false rape industry is.  Yet, as soon as a middle eastern refugee/immigrant gets accused of rape, so called anti-feminists who know just how pervasive the false rape industry is automatically believe the accusation.  Anyone who ever applies the feminist principle of “listen and believe” to a rape accusation, even in limited cases, is a feminist.  And plenty of so called anti-feminists did that with the alleged rapes in Cologne.

For those of you who have been around this part of the internet long enough, this shouldn’t surprise you.  The same thing happened when Dominique Strauss-Kahn was falsely accused of rape.  A man’s race or his politics is no excuse to automatically believe a rape accusation like a feminist. The best of all would be to look for a good lawyer like Tampa sex offenses lawyer that will defend your rights.  What a lot of so called anti-feminists are doing is trying to be more feminist than actual feminists.  It’s a bad idea for many reasons, and it just strengthens the false rape industry.

Why is adopting “listen and believe” such a problem in limited cases?  The best example why starts with this video of a white knight nationalist who is highly emotional about the alleged rapes in Cologne and wants to start “rape patrols” to stop them:

Notice how he’s talking about violently assaulting middle eastern refugees who supposedly are raping white women.  He doesn’t talk about giving the alleged rapists a trial, fair or otherwise, due process, or innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  For him, if a woman says she was raped, he wants a gang to beat or murder the alleged rapist.  He also attacks MGTOWs for not wanting to join his gang of refugee beating white knight nationalists.

One reason why we have such a problem with the college rape “tribunals” is because they exist to circumvent the criminal justice system and due process.  This white knight nationalist also wants to circumvent the criminal justice system and due process.  He is just as bad as the college rape “tribunals”.  It shouldn’t be a surprise that he’s similar to the college rape “tribunals” because he is talking like a feminist and acts like a feminist (engaging in “listen and believe).

Feminists want rape to be handled outside of the criminal justice system because the criminal justice system demands things like evidence and believes in principles like innocent until proven guilty.  Just like the college rape “tribunals”, this man is giving the feminists exactly what they want with his “rape patrols”.  It’s no surprise that the entire video is an emotional outburst against MGTOW who are actual anti-feminists.

Nov 192015

Jesse Powell, the mangina who said that it was all right for men to be imprisoned on false rape charges to protect women, is now saying he’s a MRA.  He has not changed his views in any way, and he admits that.  What he did was take a lot of tradcon bullshit that has nothing to do with MRAs and label it MRA.  Here is an example:

In terms of my psychological development and how I see the world regarding gender relations I am definitely an MRA and always have been. If I was to try to establish a “beginning” of my MRA path or my MRA psychological orientation I would say the “beginning” was my initial effort to declare my love towards and establish a relationship with the woman I loved the most in high school in 12th grade at age 17. That was when I first established in my mind a romantic identity or romantic persona; a sense of self-worth and purpose based on my love for a woman. I had a very rudimentary sense of asserting myself for the purpose of claiming a moral purpose in relation to a woman. What was “MRA” about this first assertion of myself romantically was that it was based on a self-defined morally oriented self-concept where I was trying to associate the romantic feelings I felt with a moral idealistic purpose that would give my romantic feelings moral purpose and moral value. In other words I was setting up for myself a concept of myself as a man in service to a woman on my own terms for my own moral purpose.

The MRM is about things like fixing laws and public policy, not getting a girlfriend in high school (or later).  Clearly, he has no interest in actual MRA issues like fighting the false rape industry.  (It’s obvious he still supports the false rape industry.)  No one can take the term, MRA, and apply it to any old thing like Jesse Powell did.  Words have meaning.

Nov 052015

Feminists hate Linus Torvalds.  They hate him for not caring about “diversity” in tech (a.k.a. women in tech) and for saying that individual contributions and technical skills matter.  Feminists hate Torvalds for refusing to kowtow to Sarah Sharp, a now former Linux developer, who accused him of being abusive. Torvalds also refused to step down from managing the Linux kernel as feminists like Shanley Kane have demanded.  How Torvalds has handled feminists can be best summed up by this image:

Thus, I was not surprised when Eric S. Raymond, another leader in the free and open source software community, found out from a trusted source that there is a persistent to get Torvalds into a position where a woman could make false attempted sexual assault accusation against Torvalds.  ESR’s source has said that there have already been several attempts to do this to Torvalds.

While all we have is an IRC conversation as evidence, it is likely there is at least one woman out there trying to set up Torvalds.  This is the same tactic that has been used against Julian Assange and Michael Shermer, by the atheist+ feminists.  Linus Torvalds definitely needs to be careful.

Sep 192015

By now I’m sure you have all seen the latest feminist whining about sex bots.  I’m constantly amazed how every time a feminist whines about sex bots it is treated as a new thing instead of a constant feminist war on sex bots.  I would also think that feminists would eventually figure out that there is much to worry about before a true sex bot is available for men such as VR sex.  They probably won’t since feminists aren’t involved in the development of new technology so they don’t understand how there are a lot of intermediate steps in the development of new technologies.

Every time a feminist whines about sex bots the same arguments get brought up about whether men will actually make use of sex bots or not.  Where these arguments fail is that they do not take into account just how bad women are getting especially for younger men.  Young men are getting fed up with women faster than any other group of men.  (It’s also worth pointing out that the article at that link STILL gets lots of hits years after I wrote it.  It has gotten more hits than any other page on this blog.)  On top of this consider the specter of false rape accusations such as mattress girl and Jackie that young men now have to deal with.  Men in college are choosing to date off campus so that they won’t be the victim of the campus false rape industry.  Because of dating off campus, the next push will be to expand college kangaroo tribunals to cover sex between a college student and a person who doesn’t go to college.  With that and the development of VR sex that will be happening in the next few years, “date off campus” will become “no sex with human women until graduation”.

Young men, who aren’t stupid, will choose “no sex with human women until graduation” since that will be the only way for men to protect themselves from the campus false rape industry.  VR sex can also provide alibis to men false accused of rape by women they never had sex with since the VR sex system can log when it is being used.  If a man is using a VR sex system, then obviously they weren’t doing anything else.  Given the education (pun intended) young men will be receiving from choosing “no sex with human women until graduation”, men aren’t going to suddenly choose to give up VR sex entirely for human women the day after graduation.  Young men will ask themselves if women couldn’t be trusted not to make false rape accusations in college, why would they be trustworthy later?  Thus the effect of “no sex with human women until graduation” extends beyond college even if a man occasionally has sex with human women.  This is what nobody is talking about when it comes to VR sex (or sex bots), and it’s a greater threat to women than anyone realizes.

May 042015

Since Avengers: Age Of Ultron came out this weekend, this week on the blog with be Ultron week.  All posts this week will be discussing various aspects of Ultron.  (There are a aome spoilers for Avengers: Age Of Ultron.  You have been warned.)

There’s a line in the movie (that also is in the trailers) that Ultron says, “You want to protect the world, but you don’t want it to change.” What Tony Stark and Bruce Banner wanted by creating Ultron was something that would allow everyone on Earth to ignore what was happening beyond Earth.  Ultron would protect the world from alien threats so that everyone could live their lives as if the world had not changed.  It turns out that trying to create such a protector is impossible.  One of Ultron’s messages was that if humanity doesn’t evolve it will die.  The movie is about his quest to force evolution in a manner similar to the asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs.  Vision, the good artificial intelligence, in the movie agrees with Ultron’s assessment that humanity will die if it doesn’t evolve.  Vision just disagrees with Ultron’s methods of killing anyone to do it.

Women and manginas want an “Ultron” that will enforce the status quo.  Their “Ultron” will force things to be like they were in 1987 or 1962 or some other date in the past forever.  It will force men who are engaging in a marriage strike to marry, destroy MGTOW, and keep men in the dark about the real nature of women like previous generations of men were in the dark.

The problem is that in both cases creating an “Ultron” that will keep the world in a static state is impossible.  What many men have discovered is that they need to evolve to survive.  That evolution involves GTOW, refusing to marry, etc.  Any attempt to create an “Ultron” that will end the marriage strike and MGTOW will fall victim to the same problem that Tony Stark and Bruce Banner had.  It will just force more men to evolve faster.  Everything from attempts to shame men who refuse to marry to college rape hysteria is an attempt at creating an “Ultron” who will enforce the misandrist status quo.  However, it has not worked.  More men just discovered the truth of how marriage is a bad deal for men, the false rape industry, and the real nature of women.  All it has done is cause more men to evolve.  That’s the problem for women and manginas.  They want to keep the status quo, but they can’t stop evolution just like Tony Stark and Bruce Banner could not.

Mar 282015

The title is correct.  False is supposed to appear twice in the title, and there is a reason for that.

I recently read this article about a woman who works at Chicago State University who says that she was pressured to file a false sexual harassment against a professor who ran a blog that was critical of CSU’s president.  I bet that most people reading this automatically believe this woman’s story since all of us know just how common false sexual harassment (and false rape and false abuse) accusations are.  Stop a think about it for a second.  There’s also a strong possibility that rather than make a false sexual harassment accusation against CSU’s president, the woman was smart and decided to make a false false sexual harassment accusation against CSU’s president.  I’m not sure if that is what happened in this case, but the rise of the False False Sexual Harassment Industry is definitely something that we will see in the future.

While false sexual harassment accusations still have teeth, many men know that the false sexual harassment industry exists.  Many men limit their contact with women at work to strictly professional matters with witnesses.  Even when a woman successfully gets a man fired with a false sexual harassment accusation, many of her male coworkers will start avoiding her.  This is why false false sexual harassment accusation is ingenious.  It uses our knowledge of the false sexual harassment industry against us and combines with most men’s tendency to defend women whatever the circumstances.  It makes us think that a woman who says that a man tried to get her to make a false sexual harassment claim must be pro-male because she refused to make a false sexual harassment claim against a man.  This is a form of entryism into anti-feminism similar to how a woman like WoolyBumbleBee was able to infiltrate AVFM or the attempts of women like Susan Walsh to create Game 2.0 or the red pill women.

Another danger of the false false sexual harassment industry is that it is narrative where women and not men are the victims of the sexual harassment industry.  This is will give women who make a false sexual harassment accusation a get out of jail free card by blaming a nearby man.  And this won’t be limited to the false sexual harassment industry either.  The same thing will happen with the false rape industry, the false abuse industry, etc.  That is why we have to be vigilant against this sort of thing.  We can’t allow women to get out of making a false accusation against a man by making a false accusation against another man.

Dec 152014

I have been noticing a lot of similarities between #GamerGate and what is going on at UVa.  One such similarity is feminists trying to create self fulfilling prophecies.

One thing that has been discussed in #GamerGate discussion areas like the KotakuInAction reddit is how anti-#GamerGate is driving women away from video games, despite their alleged desire of wanting more women in the video game industry.  Gaming journalism does nothing but tell stories about how women in video games receive death threats, are harassed, and so forth.  A woman who is interested in the video game industry is going to run in the other direction after reading that.  No sane person would want to be in an environment where they’re constantly subjected to such things.  Of course, it’s all lies, but only handful of women will do further research to find that out.  Over time more and more women stay away from video games.  As more and more women stay away, gaming journalism pumps out more stories about how the video game industry is full of “misogyny” reinforcing the cycle creating a feedback loop.  The lack of women in video games becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.  This doesn’t make sense if their goal is to get more women into the video game industry.  It does make sense if they’re trying to destroy the video game industry (which they have admitted to doing).

There’s a similar dynamic with what is happening at UVa (and Lena Dunham) with respect to the false rape industry/false rape conspiracy industry.  Whether its “Jackie” from the Rolling Stone article or Lena Dunham, they talk about their rapes (that never happened) where they never go to the police.  Women take this to be true and become convinced that the police aren’t doing anything about rape.  Real rape victims get their stories co-mingled with the greater mass of false accusations.  Even if they went to the police, it creates a view that the police aren’t doing anything when in reality they are (provided it gets reported to them).  This creates a feedback loop creating a self fulfilling prophecy where it looks like the police are ignoring an epidemic of rape, even though no such epidemic is happening.  At every stage of the feedback loop, there are more and more calls to do something about the “rape epidemic” leading to non-law enforcement entities like colleges to deal with it.  This doesn’t actually do anything to prosecute actual rapists but like with the video game example, that isn’t the feminist goal.  The feminist goal is to have women be able to make accusations against any man, bypass the court system (since they will ask about things like evidence), and generate a lynch mob against him.  Since feminists made it look like that law enforcement can’t handle crimes against women, lynch mobs are the next step.  The biggest victims of this will be nerds, unattractive men, and other men low on the social totem pole.

Dec 072014

We all know about the false rape industry and the false abuse industry.  Both of those things have something in common in that they target individual men.  Sure many men have been targeted by the false rape and false abuse industries, but they don’t target groups of men at once.  What we’re seeing with what is happening at the University of Virginia is the rise of the false rape conspiracy industry.

As we know the story in Rolling Stone that started this described a woman getting gang raped as part of a fraternity initiation ritual.  This is where it gets problematic (in addition to all of the other problematic details) because if gang rapes are part of fraternity initiation rituals at UVa, then lots and lots of women at UVa would have to be gang raped for that to be even possible.  We would see women en masse avoiding UVa.  At the very least there should be a massive police or FBI investigation.  In fact, I thought of one question in particular.  If raping is happening on this scale and is this organized, then it’s potentially a violation of the RICO act.  This means that there are FBI agents who could make their careers exposing this supposed rape conspiracy at UVa.  We don’t see any of this because there is no rape conspiracy at UVa (or any place else).

The is what a false rape conspiracy accusation looks like.  Instead of making a false rape accusation against a single man (or a few men), a false accusation is made against a group of men, like a fraternity.  The accusation isn’t just that a single man or a few men in engaging in rape, but that the group of men is an organized conspiracy to rape women.  What makes it uniquely effective is that it does an end run around the criminal justice system.  Look at what happened.  All fraternities at UVa were suspended even though the accusations were only against one fraternity.  It didn’t matter that the accusations only involved men of one fraternity.  It didn’t matter that the accusations didn’t involve most men in said fraternity.  (And it goes without saying that it didn’t matter that the accusations were false, that there was no party at said fraternity on the date the gang rape allegedly happened.)  This is an attempt to set a standard of collective punishment (something forbidden by the Geneva Convention) against men whenever a woman makes an accusation no matter how absurd it is.

The first false rape industry was the KKK where they would lynch black men on the false rape accusations made by a white woman.  Yet, not even the KKK could come up with the idea of black men working in an organized conspiracy to rape white women.  Yet, the Rosewood massacre still happened.  This is where the false rape conspiracy industry is heading.  The police won’t be doing anything because the rape accusations are false, and they can’t do anything because criminal charges will never be filed (like with Bill Cosby).   Despite that lot of women and manginas will accuse the police of inaction and demand someone “do something”.  You will see more and more things like universities suspending all fraternities at the drop of a hat.  The collective punishments will get worse and worse, but that won’t satisfy the women and manginas who are complaining.  This will lead to another Rosewood massacre.  Since colleges seem to be at the forefront of the false rape conspiracy industry, the 21st century Rosewood massacre will probably be something like feminist vigilantes burning down fraternity houses with fraternity brothers still in them.  That’s assuming that this travesty of justice isn’t stopped now.

Jan 022014

It’s time for the Entitlement Princess of the Month.  Last month’s winner was Jenny Erikson.  Anyone who has read about her will understand why I made her last month’s entitlement princess without any voting.

The Entitlement Princess of the Month can only keep going with your support so keep submitting new entitlement princesses on the Entitlement Princess of the Month submission page.

This month there are two entitlement princess to choose from.  The first was submitted by Josh the Aspie, and she is an unnamed woman who was the wife of a North Sea oil worker.  While her husband was away, she carried on an affair spending all of his money and running up large debts in her husband’s name (committing identity theft).  (Later, it would be revealed that the wife actually had a string of affairs.)  When her husband found out about the affair, she and her husband got into a violent altercation that led to him being convicted by a court and being put in a jail for a few months.  However, the jury didn’t believe he was the one who started the violent altercation.  The woman also tried to falsely accuse her husband of rape, but the false accusation failed.  The husband’s house has been repossessed to pay for his wife’s debts, the wife fled with their four kids.  The husband doesn’t know where his now ex-wife and kids are.

The second was submitted by Bill, and she is only known as L.M.  L.M. wrote to The Not Thinking Housewife that she was a lesbian for a while before seeing the error of her ways.  However, L.M. doesn’t believe that her bout of lesbianism is her fault.  It’s the fault of men for failing to pursue her for marriage and not knowing how to “take charge” in relationships.  This might be the first time in the history of the Entitlement Princess Of The Month contest where we had a morality specific entitlement princess.

Vote for one of the entitlement princesses in the poll below. Remember you are voting for the biggest entitlement princess, not necessarily the most evil woman or the most violent woman or the most insane woman or the biggest whore.

Who is your vote for the December 2013 Entitlement Princess Of The Month?

  • The Cheating Wife Of The North Sea Oil Worker (72%, 63 Votes)
  • L.M. The Former Lesbian (28%, 25 Votes)

Total Voters: 88

Loading ... Loading ...
Aug 152013

Jesse Powell TWRA (the TWRA at the end is important since Jesse Powell TWRA has no identity without women) says a lot of misandrist things.  One of the most misandrist things he has ever said it’s all right for innocent men who are the victims of false rape charges to be imprisoned because he believes it will protect women from being raped.   Jesse Powell TWRA says that we’re slandering him, and that the context of his remarks was because Paul Elam secretly desires to end all rape prosecutions.  In reality, we are correct, and he is the one slandering Paul Elam.

Paul Elam said that if he was on a jury in a rape trial, he would always vote not guilty.  This isn’t some sort of general protest against the false rape industry nor does Paul Elam want women to get raped.  Paul Elam has said that the whole legal culture around rape prosecution is corrupt tainting any evidence in a rape trial.  Rape shield laws also prevent a defendant from presenting relevant evidence.  These factors come together to make it impossible to determine guilt in a rape trial.  If you’re on a jury and know you can’t trust the evidence presented to you and/or you know evidence is missing, then you can’t evaluate whether a defendant is guilty or not.  Thus, a juror in such a circumstance must vote not guilty.  This is a sound legal principle and a proper application of due process.

Jesse Powell TWRA will start screaming at this point how this will allow rapists to go free.  It’s possible it might.  However, one of the principles that is at the foundation of our legal system is that it’s better for a guilty man to escape than let an innocent man be imprisoned.  This is better known as Blackstone’s formulation (named after Sir William Blackstone) which is, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”  Blackstone wasn’t the first to understand his formulation.  Various legal authorities in history before him understood this principle.   The Bible is likely the original source of this principle.  The Founding Fathers also agreed with Blackstone.  Benjamin Franklin said, “it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer”.  John Adams provides the best explanation on why a legal system striving to be just must follow Blackstone’s formulation:

It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished…. when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, ‘it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.’ And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever

In other words, if the legal system must default to letting a guilty person escape whose guilt can’t be proven rather than let an innocent person be imprisoned because the alternative is to completely undermine the desire of people to follow the law.  In such a scenario, either the government collapses into anarchy because no one trusts it, or a police state (which will be corrupt by definition) will be established.  Knowing this it’s no surprise that the critics of Blackstone’s formulation are mostly tyrants or apologists for tyrants.  Pol Pot was a strident critic of Blackstone’s formulation.

There is no way to completely eliminate rape as there is no way to completely eliminate any other form of crime.  Imprisoning innocent men like Jesse Powell TWRA (and Pol Pot) would want to do will not eliminate rape.  Instead it destabilizes our government potentially leading to a police state which is exactly what a tyrant would want.  If Sir William Blackstone and the Founding Fathers were around today, they would agree with Paul Elam’s point of view because they understand that Blackstone’s formulation is a necessary component of a free and just society.

Jesse Powell TWRA clearly disagrees with Blackstone’s formulation so the only conclusion that we can draw is that he wants a matriarchal police state to “protect women”.  This is a case with a clear difference between two sets of ideas.  On one side you have Sir William Blackstone & the Founding Fathers defending freedom and justice.  On the other you have Pol Pot and a police state.  Jesse Powell TWRA has chosen the latter.

Jul 132013

Men’s Rights Edmonton in Canada has done some great work for mens (human) rights recently.  The Vancouver Police Department came up with these anti-male posters that accuse all men of wanting to sexually assault women with the tag line, “Don’t Be That Guy”.  MR-E turned the tables on them with a series of posters called, “Don’t Be That Girl” which were posted all over Edmonton, Canada.  Here’s an example:



Needless to say, MR-E’s campaign has generated some reactions such as this woman who wants you report the posters to the government:

Then there’s this mangina who thinks that pointing out the reality of the false rape industry is “rape culture”:

The “Don’t be that girl” campaign is certainly having an effect beyond individuals.  The Vancouver Police Department, who originally created the “don’t be that guy” campaign, is “disturbed” by these posters.  So is the Huffington Post, the Edmonton Journal, and the Ottawa Citizen.  A local TV station in Edmonton talked to a feminist that said women “just don’t like about that [rape and sexual assualt] even though the reality is that the false rape industry is real.  MR-E is having quite an effect with just a little work.  This is the type of thing that can be used to positively promote men’s (human) rights, and it’s an example for all of us to follow.

Jun 212012

It’s important to do real things in the real world in support of mens rights.  A commenter is informing us of an opportunity to strike back against the false rape industry:

Kickstarter has a Brian Banks documentary (Brian Banks being the man falsely accused of rape, which cost him an NFL career and much more):

For those of you who don’t know how Kickstarter works, they seek crowdsourced donations to fund projects (a documentary, in this case). If the amount requested is not raised, all donations are returned.

About $9000 more is needed, and just 8 days remaining.

If you were wondering about new ways to have an impact, this is where you can. If MRAs can’t scrape up the mere $9000 needed to reach the funding threshold, that is a total failure of the MRM, and of the entire androsphere.

Five people have donated $1000 or more (and there is a good chance none of them are MRAs), but even donations of $5 or $10 can be accepted.

Come on! You can do it!

I fear that this is a time where the absence of Ferdinand Bardamu will be strongly felt…..

Go and donate.  Do something for mens rights. Fight the false rape industry.

Nov 262011

Sorry about the delay getting this out.  Things are busy this week for me.

Originally, I wasn’t going to say anything about the Elam-Frost debate.  To me it was an epic failure from almost all perspectives that I best avoided.  However, as I wrote my post on Man Up 2.0 & Game 2.0, I changed my mind because I realized there is a fundamental failure in in the Gamer vs. MRA wars.  I will talk about that later in this post.  First, to get a flavor of my thoughts (and of MGTOW in general about this), read what some of the men at the MGTOW Forums had to say about the Elam-Frost debate:

Frankly, while I think I follow their individual points, I can’t figure out just what the debate is supposed to be about. Seems to me it boils down to

Elam (zeta male): “Chasing pussy is more trouble than its worth!”

Frost (PUA): “No, it isn’t!”

So it mostly works out as both of them calling each other a fool or other slurs. I’m pretty disgusted by it. And I usually like Elam. Am I missing something?


I don’t really see the point. The only overlap between the Game community and MRAs is within the values of individuals.

Being a PUA is about getting laid. Being a MRA is about actually changing things or at least making a stand. One group is focused on fucking women while the other is an activist group. The aims of the two groups are completely different.

I don’t have a problem with guys learning stuff to get laid but it has little to do with the legal and cultural realities we deal with.


I’m so bored with the PUA versus MRA debate that I could spit. It’s as easy as ‘To thine own self be true’ imho. I’m not about to become dogmatic about MGTOW; seems like a contradiction to me. Men need to stick together these days. Pussy has divided us enough. To each their own.


True. Men can go their own way and definitely have sex. There’s a difference between that and letting it “control” you though, (like a drug). Also jumping through hoops or ego boosting to get laid is counterproductive. If you don’t do those things, that’s great.


I listened to the AVoiceForMen radio podcast last night and was so disappointed. As a MGTOW, I already feel pretty disconnected from most of the blue-pill world as it is. At least most of the PUA’s recognize thatsomething isn’t right. That’s enough for me to feel like those guys, while they don’t have the same end-goal as me, at least aren’t fumbling around in the dark wondering what happened. Basically, I never felt like the PUA guys are “the enemy”. And it seemed like Paul has been really pushing for that. Very disappointing.


I think it’s important to understand that MGTOW, MRA and PUA aren’t mutally exclusive or inclusive. You can be all three at once or just one. The fact that most guys who fit in one category usually fit into one of the others doesn’t really mean that the three things are significantly related.

You can be a MGTOW ghost and not be an MRA, like I am. There are PUAs that are non-MGTOW pussy beggars and PUAs that are MGTOW.


I thought MGTOW was about … Men Going Their Own Way … or am I missing something?

Be fucked if I stick to some stupid rule book – for anything.

The whole debate was a disaster from the beginning in my opinion.  Elam saying that all you need to do is take a shower to get women was silly.  However, Frost made a mountain out of a molehill and actually implied that MRAs are trying to trick men into celibacy.  It got worse from there.  There was no way that this debate could get to any reasonable conclusion.

There were several definition and scope problems, like when either of them are talking about game, what are they including or excluding?  Things are not helped by how 90% of game advice is BS and how most gamers and PUAs have never heard of mens rights.  Worse, many of them are self admitted feminists.  The response to this will be that we’re only talking about the Roissysphere, as Frost said, (which is valid and I have no problem with) but that has problems too.  It still includes Roosh, the guy that said mens rights is a euphemism for sexual loser.  If this debate happened a year ago, Obsidian Trollsidian would be included too.

The Roosh and Trollsidian examples are sideshows compared to the real problem of scope here.  The real problem comes from the Man Up 2.0/Game 2.0 contingent.  What is Man Up 2.0/Game 2.0 all about?  Co-opting game or manosphere ideas in general by providing minimal or fake empowerment of men for the purpose of benefiting women. In the mens rights world we have already dealt with the mens rights equivalent which include the socons/tradcons, white nationalists, and other fringe groups trying to co-opt the MRM. In the game world this has not been dealt with yet.

This isn’t just an academic question. Game 2.0 subverts game in a manner similar to how marriage 2.0 subverts marriage. It’s also no surprise that the same groups that promote game 2.0 are the same groups that tried to co-opt mens rights. Some of them are just trying to defend the status quo and the preferred female form of promiscuity like Susan Walsh. Others are just pissed that MRAs don’t hate blacks and Jews such as 1stdv who said this about the Elam-Frost debate:

I’ve long suspected that many MRAs are motivated primarily by a pathological hatred of white women and not women in general. For example, one MRA who I will not name gave a sperm sample and listed his race as Caucasian despite being East Indian – and then bragged about getting back at some white feminist when a brown baby comes out. This might be one of the sickest things I’ve read on the Internet, but it fits well into the pathological hatred of white women. Further, blaming (white) women for our troubles partially absolves “people of color”.

If one were to apply what Paul Elam said about game to just the Man Up 2.0/Game 2.0 morons, then Elam would me more or less completely correct.  (The Game 2.0 morons do not need to actually understand game at all. All they “know” about game is that it can be used in a bastardized form to bludgeon men and attack mens rights.) However, Elam is not willing to make this distinction. The other side doesn’t see the problem.

There were also other problems with this whole debate such as other gamers who couldn’t understand that there is a false rape industry, but no rape industry, and many other side problems that are too numerous to list here.

Lastly, there is no one strategy that will defeat misandry by itself. The entire principle if MGTOW is each man going his own way, not Frost’s way or Elam’s way. I found Frost saying that the “seduction community” would defeat feminism incredibly laughable (beyond the fact that most of the seduction community has never heard of mens rights or is explicitly pro-feminist).

In the end I still respect Paul Elam. He does things to advance the MRM even though he doesn’t understand the actual problem here. I didn’t care about Frost before this, and I care even less about him now. I find his dedication to nebulous and poorly defined “self-improvement” a waste of time especially when it comes to the paleo diet plan, something that will be in the dustbin of history in a year or two like every other diet of the last few decades.

Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Cheap Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale Football Jerseys Wholesale Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NFL Jerseys Wholesale NFL Jerseys Cheap NHL Jerseys Wholesale NHL Jerseys Cheap NBA Jerseys Wholesale NBA Jerseys Cheap MLB Jerseys Wholesale MLB Jerseys Cheap College Jerseys Cheap NCAA Jerseys Wholesale College Jerseys Wholesale NCAA Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys Cheap Soccer Jerseys Wholesale Soccer Jerseys
Translate »