A Finnish/Canadian computer science Professor was forced to take down his blog and make grovelling apology's to the world and his dog following his observations on the world around him including this one that seemed to hit a sore point with some readers.

“Quite a few feminists out there seem to be losers who take psychiatric medicines (come on: if the word “loser” doesn’t apply to these people, I don’t see how it could ever apply to anybody) … Is it any wonder that these women are so bitter towards the male sex, since they have to settle for the loser males? Perhaps lesbianism really is a wise choice for these women.”

http://www.ryersonline.ca/articles/4...air/Page1.html

What has the world come to when a respected academic is muzzled like this? His error was to use his his real name on a blog and it's a warning to all antifeminist commentators to keep your id's secret or face intimidation from the feminazi ideology that holds sway in vast areas of society. Btw I think the "loser males" he refers to are the manjinas that hang out with femnuts.

Checkout his blog and decide whether you think this guy believes what he's writing.

xhttp://sixteenvolts.blogspot.com/2006/09/end.html

"I am deeply humiliated and ashamed by this experience, and at least I understand my place in the whole world much better. This will therefore be enough of the virtual world for me. I will now sign off permanently, thanking everybody for bearing with me, and once more apologizing for everyone who I have hurt or insulted in my thoughtlessness. When I go out next time, I will be looking at the whole world in a very different way."

Didn't he later say that it was the woman he lived with who was dismayed?

Originally Posted by bola

Didn't he later say that it was the woman he lived with who was dismayed?

I'm not aware of any information to imply it was the woman he lived with who reported him to the faculty. Although he did imply that his wife wasn't pleased by his blog!

An anonymous American student alerted the WomenÂ’s Centre, mentioning that she is a computer science student and software engineer and that she had stumbled across KokkarinenÂ’s blog and was concerned.

The WomenÂ’s Centre responded by posting her note outside its office.

“If I were a student at Ryerson,” she said, “I’d be very interested in reading some of the things he (Kokkarinen) has to say before deciding whether or not to take his classes.”

He is not the first anti-feminist and he wonÂ’t be the last, said Huda Assaqqaf, 22, womenÂ’s centre orientation co-ordinator.

“I don’t think we should keep quiet, especially if it’s a professor working at Ryerson,” she said.

This college professor may be politically incorrect, but he's also stupid.

He is a part-time computer science instructor who has an exemplary record within the classroom; however, he failed to notice that he was an employee of a feminist regime, and, worse -- lacking tenure.

He will be sacked shortly.

(The administration will state that there is a decrease in demand for computer science courses, and so they had to let go a few of their adjunct faculty.)

I suspect that the day is soon coming (if not already here) when the feminist academics in control of higher education will have a nice I.P. database enabling them to track the "private" 'Net communications of male oppressors who still enjoy employment within enemy camps (schools, colleges, universities...)

Feminism has been at war with the idea of "private space" ever since Marx and the Klu Klux Klan inspired their movement.

Why should they change their tactics when they are so obviously succeeding?

Originally Posted by Disaffected

This college professor may be politically incorrect, but he's also stupid.

He is a part-time computer science instructor who has an exemplary record within the classroom; however, he failed to notice that he was an employee of a feminist regime, and, worse -- lacking tenure.

He will be sacked shortly.

(The administration will state that there is a decrease in demand for computer science courses, and so they had to let go a few of their adjunct faculty.)

I suspect that the day is soon coming (if not already here) when the feminist academics in control of higher education will have a nice I.P. database enabling them to track the "private" 'Net communications of male oppressors who still enjoy employment within enemy camps (schools, colleges, universities...)

Feminism has been at war with the idea of "private space" ever since Marx and the Klu Klux Klan inspired their movement.

Why should they change their tactics when they are so obviously succeeding?

Yes he seems to have been living in a fools paradise like many men who are unaware of the true circumstances they live in until they face a crisis eg divorce, false accusations, gender discrimination at work, exercising their right to free speech. However, it's nice to remember that some of the worst ideologies in history had a limited lifespan because they were basically flawed. Feminism is the same in this respect but it's the damage it will do while it's popular that is the greatest concern. This incident demonstrates that feminists are opposed to freedom of speech and are willing to use bullying tactics to silence their opponents. In communist Russia people seen as opponents were sent to psychiatric hospitals for "therapy". Will that be the next demand from the feminists for their opponents?

Originally Posted by jbgood2

I'm not aware of any information to imply it was the woman he lived with who reported him to the faculty. Although he did imply that his wife wasn't pleased by his blog!

http://sixteenvolts.blogspot.com/

This is not some underhanded attempt to grovel because I am afraid of losing my job or something. Because I'm not, as far as I know. And even if I were, that would be peanuts compared to the idea of the woman you love looking at you and you see how she is disappointed of you, asking you why you would want to write mean things. I would rather shovel shit for living every day than have to come up with an answer to that. Because there really is none.

She shamed him into silence.

The women really got us boxed-in good, don't they? If they're not having draconian laws passed on a state-level then they're pressuring us on the personal level. No wonder antifeminism is a flop.

I'dd also add that many mra writers, myself included, stay annoymous because, at present, we are unfairly labelled as 'sexist' and 'bigoted' for holding antifeminist viewpoints

Look at all the other mra's online, very few actually give their real details out- especially those who would be treated in the same way as this poor man

Even being a member of this forum alone would be more than enough ammunition for those ghastly feminazis to use against our likeminded comrades

I am very thankful that the internet is not run by the government- and, because of this very reason, mra's can continue, quite sucessfully, in going about their business without outside interferance

So f u c k you feminists- you won't stop us with our online activism

THIS MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL......They are free to spread their hate...
one slight word of criticism and you can lose your job yeah we knew that.

I am no technical whizz but could he not have started mirror sites?
Someone should now.
Saw a thing about Viz the comic had the temerity to take the mickey out of the ghastly Trinny and Susannah.
They sent an authoritarian warning to print a full page apology.
Viz rightly responded with another page more derrogatory than the first.

Anyone with the address of the offending institution should start a letter campaign.Certainly they deserve to be ridiculed and shamed

What bloody business is it of anyones if this guy expresses anti-feminism views in his blog?
Just proves that feminists cannot tolerate dissent. Or freedom of speech. Neither could the Nazis.
The name feminazi is certainly an apt one.

Still, it's pretty damn scary to see how much power feminists have and to see how they can ruin someones life.

It would seem that this guy who is a professor and therefore qualified to make statements on various matters passed alot of comments about everything including feminism. That was his mistake.....lol. He has deleted his blog but some of it is on google cache and here eg.

http://tinyurl.com/gvd4n

...about a hundred million young unmarried Third World women in their Internet cafes will soon (if not already) be skyping and wannachatting with young Western men en masse in hopes that they would get to live in the rich fantasyland of America and other rich Western countries that they have only seen depicted in television shows such as Dallas. So we can look forward to seeing a lot more weddings between Western men and Third World women taking place within only a few years. This should make at least the anti-racist community very happy, with men giving up racism in their own lives in such an accepting way.

Despite this, Western women and especially feminists don't particularly seem to like the idea of the Western men marrying Third World women. I do have problems with their arguments, though. First of all, haven't the feminists been telling us for several decades now that a man should always respect a woman's "no" so that if she rejects his amorous advances, he shouldn't be a creep or a stalker but just move on and never try to approach her again. (If only women were equally respectful of men's "no" when men say that they don't want to use their bodies to pay higher taxes to subsidize the various socialist utopias that women so often come up with... hey, one can dream.) In this light, I find it difficult to comprehend the feminist complaint about the Western men who are losers and thus rejected by their fellow countrywomen giving up the Western women and turning their eyes to the Third World. Wasn't this exactly what these men were supposed to do, once they were rejected by the Western women? Just like Sigmund Freud, I remain utterly confused of "what women want".

(By the way, for those women who say that these loser men should stop approaching all women altogether and die alone in their loserdom, I would like to remind you that there is a word that means a person who believes that inferior people should have no right to try find companionship or to breed.)

Every man already understands perfectly that only a teeny-tiny minority of the three billion women on Earth desire him sexually. (All right, if you want to nitpick, things might be different for Brad Pitt and other doubleplusalphas at the top, but such men are quite rare and they are not reading this.) Each man knows that the vast majority of women would find him sexually horrifying, by which I mean that if they were somehow legally necessitated to have sex with him, this experience would traumatize them for life. Therefore each man will have to first hear about twenty women say "no" to him before he finds one who says "yes", after which he will spend the rest of his life telling that woman that she is special among all women and it never could have been anybody else for him. Having a woman tell a man that she doesn't want to have sex with him should be no big deal for him: after all, this only establishes that she belongs the vast majority of women on Earth. The only way a woman can make her rejection really sting against a man who has any common sense is if she can somehow pretend that her attitude is shared by practically all women that the man will meet during his life, the way you can see in the comment that I quoted above.

We don't consider a man to be a "loser" if one or ten or even a hundred women reject him but one woman of similar quality eagerly says "oh yes!". This simple observation leads us to another problem that I see in the usual mockery of those Western men who find themselves a wife from the Third World. A common theme seems to be that since these men are losers who can't convince any Western women to stoop down to date them or have sex with them, these men have to settle for significantly inferior sex and partnership than what a Western woman could have provided. For some strange reason, this mockery is not considered as deviously contemptible as, say, if I mocked somebody who can't afford to pay a pittance of a few hundred bucks to go see a doctor. This blatant double standard in when it is acceptable to mock losers both for being losers and for being angry for the mockery and rejection that they receive from the non-losers is rather galling. Which way is it, do losers who are angry and want to change society to make it more suitable for their needs deserve our sympathy and understanding, or our cruel mockery? Hey, I could live with either option, but I won't let you have this both ways depending on the needs of the moment.

Coming back to the main train of thought, I would now simply like to know if the Western women generally do believe that they are somehow better than their brown sisters in the Third World. Because if they do believe this, then they explicitly admit that they are racists. And if they don't believe this, then they admit that a man doesn't really lose or miss anything if he marries a Third World woman instead of a Western woman, since both women are equally "good". So which way do you want it to be? Again, I can certainly live with either option, but I would certainly be interested to hear what women, especially the left-leaning ones who are currently the noisiest against the idea of Western men getting increase their dating prospects with globalization generally think of this dilemma.
*

It's now getting interesting.

Everything you WRITE is now inscribed on the 'Net.

This was supposed to be a medium of free expression.

Instead, it has become a medium of surveillance. SUS LAWS!

Read Orwell while it's still available.

Everything you t-y-p-e is being spooled....

Yes, it is.

jbgood2,
Years ago, I was aquainted with a man who was planning to bring home a "mail order bride." She was only a teenager, and he was old enough to be her father. One day he was telling me that he would like to sign her up to take some home ec classes, and to this I suggested that she could take whatever classes she wanted. He said that I was trying to impose my feminist values on her. Her motive for the marriage was to try to get a more prosperous life, and apparently his motive was to have a young domestic servant who he could have sex with. So yeah, I disapproved and thought that was pretty loserish of him. However both had something to gain from their "marriage" and I don't see that there is anything wrong about it, so what do I care? (as long as he is nice to her)

"(as long as he is nice to her)"

...and she is to him.

It's now getting interesting.

Everything you WRITE is now inscribed on the 'Net.

This was supposed to be a medium of free expression.

Instead, it has become a medium of surveillance. SUS LAWS!

GOOD ! I hope they read and learn - and no tyranny lasts forever!
Stalin, Hitler,Polpot, all those bastards are gone so will these misandrist bastards one day answer for their crimes.If they are reading - I hope they are.If your looking for terrorists go check out fundementalist muslims and other losers not law abiding ordinary men here among whom you will ask to die to defend our country although I wonder why should we bother?
I dont know about you Disaffected but I could not care less.If they are men who read this site then they cant fail to notice we merely speak the truth ....Its now high time they listened to their own law abiding MEN...