Wednesday, December 27, 2006


I've added a few (!) links. There will be more coming soon.

They are all taken from blogs I already had links to. I haven't read most of the content of most of the sites. I just tried to add links to sites with a focus on men's right or anti-feminism by whatever name.

I might delete some links later - if i find something that offends me enough. Then again probably not. I'm assuming you have a brain and can make up your own mind about any other sites you look at.

A lot of the sites I find that are against feminsim seem to have a christian or right-wing quality. For the record I am neither. The whole idea that politics is simply one dimensional (left or right) seems stupid to me. It is more complicated that that, and should be treated as such. Besides that all the main political parties seem to be pro-feminist and as a result anti-male. At least in the UK - they all stink. Labour, Tory and Lib-Dems.

I'm also an atheist. God in any shape or form just doesn't make any sense, but if you believe I don't want to argue with you. I don't want to sidetracked away from the main theme of this blog.

Saturday, December 09, 2006

Consenting Adults

I saw a program tonight on ITV - Tonight: Consenting Adults?

They had two 'juries' - one of men, one of women and showed them two 'rape case scenarios'.

First scenario.

A man and woman at a work Christmas party. She is new so he talks to her to stop her feeling left out. They spend most of the party together and she flirts with him and starts coming on to him. He pours the drinks for both of them. Later when the free booze runs out they go back to her hotel room to drink even more. On the way he kisses her. She says she thought he was married. He explains he has been separated for some time. They carry on to her room. The next shot is of them kissing in the room. She puts her arms around the back of his neck. He slides his hands down... Then both of them falling onto a bed, with him on top of her. With a voice over of her saying - 'he was touching me', 'he was so forceful' at a later date. Clearly at odds with the images.

Nobody on either 'jury' thought this was rape. The fembot presenter seemed surprised and shocked - "None of you thought that was rape!!".

It clearly was not rape. She was not in any way forced to have sex, she was not forced to drink so much, she willingly went up to her hotel room with him, she willingly kissed him outside the room, she willingly and enthusiastically kissed him in the room, and let him fondle her without any sign that she objected to it. In short she encouraged him every step of the way. I would call that non-verbal consent.

At least here the 'juries' gave what was clearly the correct response. Not guilty - no rape at all.

One woman also raised some a good point - what is a man supposed to do? Video the events on his mobile phone?

Second scenario.

Some students at a party. All of them drinking. One woman making eyes at one of the men, then she goes over and asks him to dance. Snogging - friends go without them. He walks her home, and supports her because she is unsteady on her feet. One women in the hall says something too her that she ignores - possibly because she was so drunk she did not notice (clearly the conclusion they want you to draw). They are shown lying on her bed kissing. In this last shot they were fully clothed.

Next a carefully crafted shot of her looking slightly distressed a few days later. She said she could not remember what happened on the night, but the next day she could tell something had happened, so she must have been raped. Following on with comments about how she had thought he was going to protect her - but instead he attacked her!

An alternative explanation of the events is that she consented to sex, then regretted it the next day. So she made up the story of being raped. She might even believe it. People are very good at rationalizing events after the event to make themselves look better than they were. I am tempted to say that women are even more likely to rationalize than men - but I won't.

I say carefully crafted because she was shown for the first time with no make-up and with her hair tied back, to make her look pale and frail and more 'innocent' than she had looked before. No doubt the lighting was also chosen to exaggerate the effect as well. All to generate sympathy, and promote the impression that this 'innocent girl' would never make up a false accusation, and would never have agreed to have sex with anyone.

Here six of the women said it was rape, and three of the men. The presenter then deliberately asked one of the women why she did not think it was rape, and why the men did not think it was rape. Tellingly - she did not ask why anyone thought it was rape.

One of women did try to claim the 'victim' was unconscious, although she clearly was not. One of the men pointed that out, but it was not followed up at all.

IMO the men did not explain their point of view very well. Neither did the women - but they did not get the same grilling as the men.

Of those people who thought it was rape, three said they would convict the man if they were in a real court. According to the presenter - 'only three!!!'. Shock! Horror!

That figure is actually far too high. In a real court case none of them would know anything about what actually happened in the woman's room, and she clearly admitted she could not remember what happened. She did not even know if she was raped, she just assumed it was rape after the event. A total lack of evidence that there was any rape at all - not even a credible witness. That should not be enough to convict anyone of rape, even if the hidden reality was a rape. For a conviction you need EVIDENCE, not assumptions by a self proclaimed victim.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

The Fawcett Society - part I

The Fawcett Society - part I

The Fawcett Society is a feminist organisation, that in their own words:

"campaigns for equality between women and men in the UK on pay, pensions, poverty, justice and politics."

That is what it says on the front page of their website. It is a lie, as I will demonstrate in this and other posts.

Their actual campaigns are to increase inequality between men and women (i.e. by getting more special privileges for women, and taking rights away from men).

This is there website address:

A couple of mouse clicks away there is this page:

Facts on the inequality gaps

There has been a revolution in some aspects of women’s lives over the past 30 years.

And yet, social and economic justice remains a distant dream for women in the UK, which is why Fawcett's work is needed as much as ever.

* Women working full-time are paid on average 17% less an hour than men (or 38% less if they work part-time)

* Women make up less than 20% of MPs and ethnic minority women make up just 0.3% of MPs.

* 96% of executive directors of the UK's top 100 companies are men.

* Out of every 100 rape cases reported to the police, just six end in the rapist being caught and punished.

* The number of women in jail has more than doubled over the past ten years - bacuse the courts are getting harsher, not because women are commiting more crime.

Factoid 1: Women working full-time are paid on average 17% less an hour than men (or 38% less if they work part-time)

The first statement is true, but only if you ignore the effects of lots of other relevant factors - qualifications, experience, type of work, total number of hours worked, etc...

It is equivalent to an 18 year old, with no qualifications sweeping the streets claiming they should be paid the same as a 30 or 40 year old lawyer, brain surgeon or rocket scientist.

The second statement is a lie - or at best a half truth. Women working part time earn less than men working full time. Are you really surprised about that?

What about men working part time? Do they earn more than women working full time? The answer is men earn less than women for part time work, but you will be hard pressed to find the statistics published anywhere. I know - I tried. That figure is just not mentioned on any website I can find. I saw it mentioned once on a TV news program, but only for an instant.

Factoid 2
: Women make up less than 20% of MPs and ethnic minority women make up just 0.3% of MPs.

That is probably true. But so what?

Are there any laws preventing women from standing for election? No.

Are women discouraged from being MPs?
Far from it -
We have women only shortlists.
We have the business of parliament being changed to allow women work less hours and go home at 5pm.

Factoid 3
: 96% of executive directors of the UK's top 100 companies are men

So what? There is nothing stopping women from being company directors. You just have to put in the effort. Maybe even start your own company. That is how men get to be company directors.

Factoid 4
: Out of every 100 rape cases reported to the police, just six end in the rapist being caught and punished

This is a distortion of the reality. The truth: Out of every 100 alleged rapes reported to the police, just six end in a conviction.

It is an important distinction. Not all alleged rapes actually occurred. Not all men accused of rape are actually rapists.

Still - maybe you are concerned about the low conviction rate?
Actually it is not all that low, most other types of crime have very low conviction rates. The rate for rape is a little lower, but that is exactly what you get in a fair justice system.

Most rape cases involve alleged events that happen in private. There are usually no witnesses. There is often no physical evidence. Physical evidence can only show if intercourse took place, not if it was rape. She says it was rape. He says it was not. Who do you believe?

Factoid 5
: The number of women in jail has more than doubled over the past ten years - bacuse [their typo - not mine] the courts are getting harsher, not because women are committing more crime

This is true - but completely misses the point because of the information it leaves out.

How many men are there in prison and how many women? Well, if you take the time to look there are many times more men than women in prison.

Have the courts become harsher? Absolutely.

Are women more affected by this than men? Yep. That's right to.

But, why? Because the courts are not being as lenient with women as they used to be. Women are being treated more like men - but only a little more. They still get shorter sentences than men for the same crimes. They still get let off without punishment more often than men.

Monday, November 27, 2006

Women Paedophiles and Question Time

There was a question about paedophiles on Question Time last week.

Someone asked about whether it was wrong for a 20 or 30 year old man to have consensual sex with a 15 year old girl, based on a statment made by a policeman.

The usually (rather pointless) discussion followed with all involved basically agreed that it should not happen. What annoyed me was that the reverse situation was not even mentioned - a women having sex with a boy.

The whole event just reinforced the idea that only men can be paedophiles, and only men are sexual preditors. This is complete rubbish. Women are paedophiles and sexual preditors as well, but it almost completely ignored my the mainstream media. Even when it is reported, it is downplayed and typically excused in some way.

This is the news report that reminded me:

Underage sex woman faces prison

A Male Pill

Some good news

Sperm-blocking contraceptive hope

Another possibility for a male contraceptive pill. There are several in development at the moment. When they actually become available it will cause a shift in power between men and women. This would give men the right to choose whether they wish to become fathers, and when they want this to happen. Dishonest women will no longer be able to 'forget' to take the pill, and get pregnant without their partners consent.

I predict that when this new pill becomes available there will be a sudden drop in the number 'accidental' pregnancies. There will still be a few - genuine accidents and duped men foolish enough to trust their partner to take her pill. There will also be an increase in divorces as more men become aware of their wives infidelity.

Doubtless there will also be many women complaining that their partner will not stop taking the pill so she can get pregnant. This is not exactly a new idea. I am pretty sure Angry Harry wrote a piece about this. I am sure you can find it if you do a little searching.

The dangers of becoming a father are well known and well documented on other blogs and websites.

A male pill will allow men to avoid these dangers, and will give men a stronger negotiating position.

Sunday, June 04, 2006


I'm going to add as many links as I can to other men's rights/anti-feminist websites, but just because I have a link doesn't mean I agree with everything or even anything said on that site. I expect you to make up your own minds.

If you own one of the sites, and don't want a link send me a mail. I don't want to piss anyone off. Well, apart from feminists anyway.

I'm adding links because all the search engines order results based on the number of links made to a site, and in this small way I advertise men-rights and antifeminism. If you have a site, and link to mine, you'll be helping too. I will probably add some references to feminist sites, but they won't be active links - I'm not giving them a free ride.


In case anyone cares.

I'm in my 30s. I'm not married, and I have a decent job. Actually I'm a statistician. I've got a Masters degree in statistics and I'm a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society.

One of the things that really annoys me about feminists is the way they distort and abuse statistics. They are just as bad, if not worse, than politicians. While I'm on the topic, Disraeli got it wrong when he said "There are lies, damned lies and statistics". What he should have said was "There are liars, damned liars and politicians". Or feminists, take your pick.

I've never really been a fan of feminism, but I'm getting less and less tolerant of it the older I get, and the more I learn. When I was younger I must have been quite innocent and naive. I can remember seeing "Women's Studies" listed in university prospectuses and wondering what it was, but not enough to actually find out. Why should I be interested in "Women's Studies"? If I'd known then, what I know now, I would have been pretty pissed off about it. These days I am really pissed off that my taxes are used in support that kind of thing in any way. That's one reason I agree with something I've read by Angry Harry (and probably others too). The most important thing to do, right now, for any MRA or antifeminist is to raise awareness of what is happening. To tell everyone they can the truth about feminism and all the damage it is doing to men and society.

Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Media Bias

The Independent: Leading article: Ignorance and denial still conspire to prevent action

You have to subscribe, or go out and buy a paper to read the whole article. Unfortunately the bits I quote are in the sections you can't read without subscribing.

A small example of the bias that slips into news reports. Men are almost always portrayed as the bad guys, and women as innocent victims.

"Hopes were raised this month that Pope Benedict XVI was poised to ease the Catholic church's opposition to condom use for married couples where one partner was HIV infected. This would offer crucial protection to women"

But not men? So women never have affairs? Never catch HIV?

Women are more susceptable to HIV infection than men, and at least as likely to commit adultery as men. Women are biologically programmed to be unfaithful. After they catch a 'good man' (sucker) to 'support them' (sponge off), the first thing they want to do is get pregnant by some bad boy. This is scientific fact - I don't make this stuff up (maybe I add just a little spin).

"the absence of female-controlled methods of protection is a key reason behind the growth of the epidemic."

Women can still insist on their partner(s) using a condom.

And besides that: Ever hear of the femidom ?

Welcome to my blog.

As you may have guessed, this is going to an anti-feminist blog. I'll probably use it mostly to vent, so be warned I could descend into a rant at any time.

I have tried setting up my own website before this, but my enthusiasm waned and I stopped updating it. It's still there ( Bad News ), but I won't be updating it except maybe the links pages. I think it was too ambitious for a one-man show, and a blog should be easier. We'll see.

Some of you might recognise me. I've made occasional posts on Matthews Antifeminism, CT4M and SYG as 'The Phantom'.

Felix: I have links to The Eternal Batchelor, Fred X and Davout already. Do you think I'm Duncan too?