Political Issues

25.12.11

Feminism Will Destroy Everyone..

The Men's Movement has only ever and will only ever work for the good of society as greater minds and everyone involved in it over the centuries has determined it to be. The only problem with society is what radical feminists and feminists as a whole, determine those problems to be..

They are just delusional..

The entire problem with society is that feminism has been allowed to fester and infect society to try and destroy our normal existence and turn it into some loathing cauldron, which it is not. Radical feminism is the by product of marxism and their rampant hate for all is now coming to light. This is what they are teaching your children, they are teaching your children to hate everything and everyone..

Is this the world that you want to raise your children in ?

December 24, 2011Kyle Lovett<small style="color: rgb(56, 56, 56); font: normal normal bold 0.71em/normal Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; text-transform: uppercase; ">FEMINISM, SEXUAL POLITICS</small>

The destructive logic of radical feminism

I decided that before I got really deep into the long breadcrumb trail of radical feminists working towards changing laws and policies inside Australia, I wanted to take a moment to discuss radical and mainstream feminism at its base level. At the bottom of the page, I’ll list out several popular books by radical feminists that discuss what their ideology is all about. But I’ve noticed a lot of discussion here on AVFM and other sites questioning just what radical feminism is and if there is any difference to mainstream feminism. I thought it important to give at least my take on feminist and radical feminist theory, as I think it is important to understand what exactly these people are talking about, and what they are so motivated to accomplish.

And, please don’t take my word for it, if you have the stomach, I suggest that you read what this movement’s ideology is, and the very bizarre thought process behind it.

Before I address the condensed list of radical feminist bullet points, I think it is important to touch on leading rad-fem writers position on individual choice. The quick and dirty is that the overwhelming majority of radical feminists don’t believe women have true individual choice. Instead, they think that women who are uneducated on radical feminist theory have no agency over themselves or their actions. According to doctrine, the individual choices of a woman regarding her own body and sexual practices, and even her own actions in life, are a tool of oppression and the patriarchy. No, seriously, they really believe this.

Shelia Jeffreys in her book Beauty and Misogyny (2005 2nd ed) explains this concept in detail:

“I suggest that beauty practices are not about women’s individual choice or a “discursive space” for women’s creative expression but, as other radical feminist theorists have argued before me, a most important aspect of women’s oppression. The feminist philosopher Marilyn Frye has written incisively of what makes a theory feminist, and why it is not enough to rely on women’s individual assurances that a practice is OK with them and in their interests” (p2)

Radical feminist Denise Thompson, in her 2001 book “Radical Feminism Today” expands on this idea of the harm of individualism a bit more:

“The ideology of individualism depicts ‘humanity’ as a set of isolated selves […] Desires, needs, interests, beliefs, actions, feelings, attitudes and behaviours, are perceived as personal properties intrinsic to each individual […] If relations of domination and subordination are interpreted as nothing but properties of individuals, they cannot be seen as relations of ruling at all. They become simply a matter of preferences and choices engaged in by discrete individuals who have no responsibilities beyond their own immediate pleasures and satisfactions. In this libertarian discourse, politics vanishes. If only individuals exist, political critique can only be seen as personal insult or annihilation of the self, and disagreement becomes assertion of the self against threatening and hostile others. ‘Freedom’ is reduced to the absence of constraint, either on the part of the self or of others.”(p43-44)

In other words, Thompson is saying that she believes individualism and individual choices of women are part of the collective oppression of the patriarchy. In Janice Raymond’s 1995 book, “Women as wombs: reproductive technologies and the battle over women’s freedom,” she takes it a step further; that a women’s body is the reproductive agent of the patriarchy.

“The assumption that any reproductive means should be a constitutionally protected

...

Another "women are not Violent" Example..



The lies that feminists tell always get exposed, one way or the other. It is akin to that saying "Sit on a river bank and watch the bodies of your enemies float by".
Feminist lies are those bodies and here we have an example on how much they lie about women not being violent..

This guys cannot even defend himself against this monster even if he had the guts to do it. He would be arrested and jailed. That they way it goes these days. Thanks to feminists like Harman and her male hating ilk..

If this does not convince you, then I suggest you just bugger off and live your ignorant life somewhere else..

As reality just does not do it for you..

<object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid<img src=" http:="" antimisandry.com="" images="" smilies="" biggrin.png"="" border="0" alt="" title="Big Grin" smilieid="3" width="520" height="266"><embed width="520" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ab2b-k_ZaEM&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></object>

December 21, 2011TDOM<small style="color: rgb(56, 56, 56); font: normal normal bold 0.71em/normal Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; text-transform: uppercase; ">FEMINISM, FEMINIST GOVERNANCE</small>

SCUM Manifested

The Hate-Filled Legacy of Valerie Solanas

Radical feminism can be traced more or less back to Valerie Solanas, author of theSCUM Manifesto. It was first published in 1967, though Solanas began drafting it in about 1959 or 60. In the Manifesto, Solanas calls on women to rise up against men who she sees as biologically inferior and responsible for all of the world’s problems. However, she doesn’t end there. She refers to the male as “a biological accident” and the Y-chromosome as being an incomplete X-chromosome, making the male an incomplete female. She further calls for men to be exterminated and to assist in eliminating themselves by eliminating each other.
There are those who have stated that this Manifesto is little more than a parody of “patriarchy” or a work of satire. They claim to view it as an anti-patriarchal statement, but state that the calls for the elimination of men should not be taken seriously. However, while the work may contain elements of parody and satire, these devices are used to emphasize the message, not to indicate that the author wasn’t serious. Solanas’ own history would indicate this as she shot pop artist Andy Warhol, art critic Mario Amaya, and attempted to shoot Warhol’s manager Fred Hughes on June 3, 1968, attempting to kill them. In 1977, she claimed that her views had not changed since the Manifesto was published, indicating that she believed what she had written.
Further evidence that the SCUM Manifesto was to be taken seriously is found in the reaction of feminist leaders and organizations to Solanas’ Manifesto and shooting of Andy Warhol. Ti-Grace Atkinson, radical feminist and president of the New York chapter of NOW, called Solanas “the first outstanding champion of women’s rights” and heralded her as “a ‘heroine’ of the women’s movement.” Robin Morgan, former editor of Ms Magazine, included excerpts in her book, Sisterhood is Powerful. Other feminist authors such as Amanda Third and Catherine Lord have credited her with creating radical feminism and have stated that the feminist movement would not have occurred if it hadn’t been for Valerie Solanas. There have also been several books, plays, and movies glorifying Solanas and her actions.
There are also those who would dispute the acronym that SCUM stands for the Society for Cutting Up Men. While this is not spelled out within the document itself, It was stated on the cover of her self-published version in 1967. Later, Solanas would deny that she intended the acronym. Instead she stated that there was no such organization, nor would there ever be. SCUM was a state of mind. It was meant as a reference to empowered women who considered themselves fit to rule.
The legacy of the SCUM Manifesto has continued. It was published as late as 2004 (perhaps since then, though I don’t have a record of it) and has been translated into several languages. Currently there are organizations based on SCUM existing in Sweden (producing materials for high school students) and on the internet (RadfemHub) It has impacted society in many ways which will be outlined below.
In New York in 1967 at about the same time Solanas was publishing the SCUM Manifesto, Shulamith Firestone, Pam Allen, Carol Hanish, and Robin Morgan founded a group called New York Radical Women. This short-lived organization adopted a radical feminist ideology that emphasized the patriarchal oppression of women by men similar to that outlined in the SCUM Manifesto. They claimed that men exercised social dominance over women by creating social roles that divided privilege and power by gender. This group is often credited with the first bra burning at the 1968 Miss America Pageant. However, rather than burn them, they tossed bras and other artifacts of patriarchal oppression into a garbage can. Firestone would move on to found Redstockings and New York Radical Feminists while Morgan would become more involved in feminist activism and writing. Hanish would help found Redstockings and would later edit a journal called Meeting Ground in which she would publish an essay called The Personal is Political and is sometimes incorrectly credited with coining that phrase, although she undoubtedly helped popularize it.
In 1969, the radical feminist organization Redstockings published its Redstocking Manifesto. The influence of SCUM is unmistakable. It is considerably less violent, but no less hateful. It characterizes “all men” as oppressors of women. It characterizes individual male-female relationships as “class relationship(s)” and provides that all individual male-female conflicts are political, not personal and “can only be solved ...

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2011

The Facts behind the SCUM Manifesto Conference..



Agent Orange Special Report no 2.

With the exposure of the RADFEM Hub information, their discussions about gendercide (the killing of all men) and the SCUM Manifesto, one does wonder who those guest speakers were , who were involved in the three day SCUM Manifesto conference..


Agent Orange, our Net Investigator appear to have hit on the identities of the speakers involved and also the organisers of the conference as well. Those who attended to discuss the annihilation of men and boys are listed below..

As you can see the object of that conference is listed as above and also in the poster. One would have to question also as to who financed this conference and where was it held.

Perth SCUM Conference and it's connection to Australian Academia


Between September 23-25th, 2011, two members of the radical feminist hub and radfem forum, Danielle Elina Pynnonen (Allecto) and her partner, Big Brother UK 5 contestant Kat "Kitten Pinder (Amazon Mancrusher) organized and hosted a three day feminist conference in Perth Australia that they called the 'SCUM Conference'. They billed it as:


"THRILL SEEKING FEMALES UNITE! Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore, this THREE DAY RADICAL FEMINIST CONFERENCE is for civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females who want to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex. Workshops, guest presenters and social activities, plus a space to celebrate and re-member the life and work of Valerie Solanas and other radical feminists."
As you've seen in pervious articles, the people that frequent the Radfemhub and forum have often contemplated and discussed gendercide, male genital mutilation and advocating the abortion of male fetuses, among many other very disturbing activities. Valerie Solanas, the woman who this group has almost worship like admiration for, was the author of the SCUM Manifesto, never made it a secret about her feelings towards men. She wrote:
"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex."
In another passage she writes:
"Retaining the male has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the y(male) chromosome is an incomplete x(female) chromosome, that is, has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples."
Her writing seems to be in lock step with the very disturbing writings we have witnessed recently on the Radfem Hub and forum. And many would dismiss these people as wack-jobs, or insane or even the disturbed rantings of a few no-name sadistic people. Of course this isn't the case, as many of these women as we have seen are in positions of responsibility in the real world. But what about the guest speakers for the conference, the one's who also celebrated the life and work of Valerie Solanas? The sad, yet ugly truth is, that not only are these lecturers well known professors, authors and activists, but they also run in the same online circles with the very same women that advocate a desire for violence and death towards men.


While many of those who spoke have been smart enough to not talk about such ugly things as we have seen here online, (at least nothing that can be traced back to them) they are friends with these same groups of women on Facebook, guest post articles on the Radfem Hub and even comment on some of these women's individual blogs. Julie Anne LeComte on Canberra, Australia, the owner and administrator of the forum where most of the worst hate is espoused, goes by the online name Rain Lewis/Rainsinger/Raindancer.


A quick look at her Facebook page, as well as online forum discussions, that she, as well as Danielle Pynnonen(Allecto) and Kat Pinder(Amazon Mancrusher) personally know many of these professors, authors and activists. Just look at the speakers and some of the attendees of the 2008 Brisbane Feminist Conference. So just who were these speakers at the 2011 Perth SCUM conference that would openly associate with ...

09.jpg

Verizon is the Monster, DVMisinformation....


Verizon's misinformation in their latest DV promotion demonstrates once again that telling the truth is not part of their overall agenda or strategy but promoting disinformation is..

To blame Fathers solely for DV disregards and ignores the fact that Mothers are the greater child abusers and are also as abusive at domestic violence then her partner.. Verizon totally disregards, ignores this vital information and instead spreads male hate (misandry) instead..
Domestic Violence will never be halted by stopping only one partner from fighting while the other has carte blanche. This sexist attitude and discrimination against Fathers has to stop as it will never solve anything..

It just ensures that feminists and Verizon will be able to continually promote their lies and misinformation at will, while publicly funded by your hard earned tax dollars..

Verizon in the Monster in the Room..

The Verizon Foundation and the National Domestic Violence Hotline Team Up for Some Man-Hating
Harry Crouch
December 1, 2011

“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” — Robin Morgan – former president of the National Ourganization for Women (NOW) and editor of MS magazine
Last week we became aware of the Verizon Foundation’s and National Domestic Violence Hotline’s video Monsters.
We mailed and/or emailed 28 leaders of both organizations an open letter strenuously objecting to their outrageous man-hating video.
Before reading the letter we sent both those organizations or more of what is below please watch or re watch the video.
Now that you have seen it or seen it again ask yourself if you can imagine yourself in the room full of people who conjured up this video. How many people do you see? How many meetings were there? Which million dollar conference rooms were used in Verizon and NDVH buildings? How many men and how many women were in the conferences?
Try to imagine all that and the conversations that led to the production of this horrific misandric boy bashing video. I cannot come close to imagining myself in such a room, being surrounded by however many people were there all blinded by some ill conceived and irrational ideology that drives them to the conclusion that only boys grow tall to become abusers.
These people are either ignorant or hateful or both. If ignorant they can be educated, if hate filled ideologues with hidden agendas there is little or no reason to believe reality and truth will have any bearing on their self-serving idiocy.
And, wouldn’t you like to know that one someone, the first person in this group of man-hating sociopathic pariahs that came up with the idea for Monsters?
If challenged that person and her defenders will deny, justify, rationalize, and blame it on a kid, the little girl, if she really exists, whose ugly vision this video purportedly shares. I sure would, I want to know. Then could put on a full court press to get whoever it was fired, if not somehow imprisoned.
You won’t see this video on network television, it’s a weird length ill suited to program scheduling. It will live on the Internet and be proudly shown around the country at domestic violence council meetings; used for training public safety officers, forced on the military for awareness training, and paraded at fundraising events put on by domestic violence shelters, family justice centers, and even struggling university women studies programs. Oh, and yes, it will be introduced into our schools perhaps even as early as first grade.
This video has the potential for spreading harm and hate for decades. It has to be stopped, withdrawn, and destroyed.
Please help. Our letter includes the mailing address, email addresses, and even some phone numbers to those that have the power to stop this pure propaganda mind-warping travesty of a video. Write letters, send emails, and make phone calls to your legislators too; also, your local Verizon company executives and newspapers.
Please feel free to reprint our letter and mail or email it, turn it into handouts, flyers and so forth. Also, please distribute a link to this page to as many people as you can.
Become part of the solution and help us help others protect our children and future generations by ensuring this video is pulled from the Internet, is not distributed, and destroyed.
How is it we allow such hate-mongers to gain such power? I just don’t get it.
Source: NCFM strenuously objects to the Verizon Foundation and the National Domestic Violence Hotline teaming up for some man-hating | National Coalition For Men (NCFM)

This may come as a shock to many but it is inevitably the case. We owe women a living like a forest owes the ground, we are not talking symbiosis here. Feminists rely on that false premise in order to make unreasonable demands and justify their disgusting behaviour..

December 2, 2011

FidelbogenSHORT UPDATES

The ontology of female supremacism

I have concluded elsewhere that men as a group owe no special collective favor to women as a group, any more than Democrats as a group would owe any special collective favor to Republicans as a group. In view of the objective political situation of men in Western civilization, such is the only conclusion to which moral consistency would lend itself.
However, I know that plenty of feminists would take issue upon this point. And being feminists, they can do no less. If they agreed with this way of thinking, they would no longer be feminists. And why? Because the entire feminist enterprise is constructed around the overarching and atmospherically all-pervading premise that men are the problem. This is so because feminism is a hate-fueled, anti-male, female-supremacist movement, and such a movement couldn’t possibly embrace the view that men and women are BOTH the problem. No, that wouldn’t work – it would bust their gearbox all to hell!
The fruits of feminism bespeak an enterprise embued with the spirit of moral rapacity…

If in fact men are the problem as feminism supposes, and consequently that women are not, then it would follow that men specifically are under some form of obligation which would translate as a debt owed to women. And such indeed summarizes the general wind that has wafted from the direction of feminism and spread widely into other quarters. That is why I say that the feminists would take issue with the idea that male and female are political parties: because it implies that men and women are equal cutthroat gangs competing equally to cut each other’s throats. The feminists would favor a scenario in which one of those gangs (men) would bare its collective throat voluntarily to the gang wielding the knife.
But what does it mean to say that “men are the problem”? What is this statement really driving at? Which “problem” does it refer to, exactly? I have implied that this idea lies at the root of a world-view. A paradigm. But how can we spot it in action? What signs or tracks does it leave?
Here is what to look for: any time a woman does something notably blameworthy, or any time something goes awry between a man and a woman, a feminist will nearly always search for a way to either get the woman off the hook, or reduce her share of blame to a barebones minimum. Female wrongdoing will always be extenuated in whatever way possible, if not denied altogether.
The bias is persistently male-negative. It is evasionary of any realization, or any frank admission, that women in the depth of their nature are just as rotten as men. You can almost hear the female-justification hamster spinning its little wheel into overdrive in the backs of feminist heads, any time the least shadow of womanly or girlish malfeasance confronts them. They are not a bit concerned to know what actually IS; rather, they fervently wish to know what, according to their template, must be. It is a deeply rooted emotional reflex which transfixes the core of their world like a pivot or an axle or a black-hole singularity.

IN FACT, LET’S GIVE IT A NAME.

Let’s call it the “must-be” maneuver. Yes! This little trick is the alpha and omega, the sum and substance, the necessary precondition for everything that feminism seeks to put about in the world. It must be that a man is to blame in every argument, it must be that he doesn’t listen, it must be that he is insensitive to her needs, it must be that he is using male privilege, it must be that he has control issues, it must be that he has anger management issues, it must be that he is “condescending” her, it must be that he feels threatened by intelligent women, it must be that she was violent in self-defense or if not, it must be that she attacked him pre-emptively. On it goes.
And should it prove impractical to pin the blame on a particular man, it is always possible to fall back upon men or maleness in the abstract: it must be the patriarchy which oppressed her into lying, killing, cheating, stealing or stumbling! It must be male-dominated power structures which drove her to anorexia or smashed her head against a glass ceiling!
Inherent to the must-be maneuver is the exclusion of examination. A commonsense, rough-and-ready calculus might suggest to the layman that male input is to blame in at most half of the suggested cases, and that prior to concluding what must be, we should interrogate ...

Grant County District Attorney Lisa Riniker : Sexist Bigot..



Grant County District Attorney Lisa Riniker : Sexist Bigot..

Solaris..

Last week the parents of a Wisconsin boy sued Grant County District Attorney Lisa Riniker for charging their son with first-degree sexual assault, a Class B felony, after he played "butt doctor" with a 5-year-old girl. He was 6 at the time. When the boy's lawyer tried to have the charge dismissed, Riniker replied: "The legislature could have put an age restriction in the statute if it wanted to. The legislature did no such thing."According to the complaint (PDF), the girl is "the daughter of a well-known political figure in Grant County," and her brother, who is the same age, also was involved in playing doctor but was not charged. In addition to Riniker, the lawsuit names as defendants retired Grant County Sheriff's Sgt. James Kopp and Jan Moravits, an investigator with Grant County Social Services "whose regional supervisor...is the political figure's wife's sister-in-law"—i.e., the aunt of the alleged victim.Although the boy, now 7, is too young to be prosecuted or named in a juvenile delinquency petitition, Madison.com reports, county officials are using the felony charge to force his parents into accepting "protection or services" for him. The lawsuit says that once he turns 18, he will be listed as a sex offender.I noted a similar case in my July Reasonstory on sex offender laws.

Welcome to the real world as feminists and their promoted "legislation" condemns a six year old boy for playing doctor. Something I did myself at that age, kids are naturally inquisitive. But with the current laws in place and it was done, not out of malice, it was just out of the "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" childhood prank and caters to the natural interest that children have.

Now that normal behaviour is regarded as a felony..

Something else you can thank feminists for..

Link..