Gender Issues

Guardians of the unborn

ArgusEyes — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:11:29 GMT

It is undoubtedly fascistic and totalitarian, yet I am surprised that a country like the Netherlands would consider such a proposition that actually inhibits women! Men sure - I'm used to seeing articles proposing things that are just a few hairs short of imprisoning all men out of the womb but one rarely sees such propositions against women.

This bit got me:

"I must admit that it shocked me that this law was the brainchild of a socialist. As a confounded psychiatrist friend who deals with troubled children put it, this bill is vaguely reminiscent of the eugenics and sterilisation programmes of the fascist era.

Really? When I saw it was a socialist who proposed this I thought "ah.. that explains it". I think Mr. Khaled Diab needs a little education on what socialism actually is. It is not always bad to be sure. After all, an amount of social programs and institutions help keep society civilised.

However, let’s take the example of the fascists. The Nazi party were undoubtedly socialists "Nazi" is short for their full name which is "National Socialist German Workers' Party" (you need to say it in German to see the link in the pronunciation). They were socialists, it is there in the title, it is undebatable.

Sperm donor bureaucracy introduced in the U.K. – Men walk and women get hurt

ArgusEyes — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 03:11:06 GMT

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081112160915.htm

ScienceDaily (Nov. 11, 2008) — A radical overhaul of sperm donation services is needed to address the critical shortage of sperm donors in the UK, say two fertility experts in an editorial on bmj.com today.

...

They believe that the removal of donor anonymity in 2005 may have contributed to the current shortage of donors.

...

The authors say increasing the number of families that can be created from a single donor should be considered. To prevent siblings born from donation later inadvertently having children together, UK law limits the number of families that can be created from any one donor to 10. But Hamilton and Pacey argue that this figure is arbitrary and not evidence based, and a more flexible approach is needed.

They point out that the size of the UK population is enough for a large safety margin to already exist. Interestingly, in the Netherlands, which has a smaller population than the UK, the upper limit is 25 offspring per donor, while in France it is five.

Basically remove anonymousness and reduce how many times donations can be made and you get a shortage. Wow, bureaucracy and government interference certainly helped women there didn’t it? I’m sure that Feminists will be lining up to blame men for this. How dare they be selfish enough to not put down their personal details so that they can get whacked for 10 sets of child support down the line when the next set of anti-male legislation gets passed?

Why Men Earn More - The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap

ArgusEyes — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:47:17 GMT

This is a talk given my Dr. Warren Farrel at the Cato (www.cato.org) institute on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 entitled:

Why Men Earn More
The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gapand What Women Can Do About It

A presentation from his book of the same name
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Men-Earn-More-Startling/dp/0814472109/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226349227&sr=1-1

Cato offers the real video stream of the lecture I have captured here on this events page:
http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=1834

I have reproduced this material without permission under fair use. The aim is to present information on how womens own choices lead to the wage gap which thus stems from their own liberty. I make no profit from these video views and all intellectual material is to Cato.

Synopsis:
Warren Farrell, the only man to have been elected three times to the National Organization for Womens New York board of directors, is the author of such books as The Myth of Male Power and Why Men Are the Way They Are. In his new book, he argues that women earn less than men on average not because they are discriminated against, but because they have made lifestyle choices that affect their ability to earn. Why Men Earn More argues that although discrimination sometimes plays a part, both men and women unconsciously make trade-offs that affect how much they earn. Farrell clearly defines the 25 different workplace choices that affect incomes--including putting in more hours at work, taking riskier jobs or more hazardous assignments, being willing to change location, and training for technical jobs that involve less people contact--and provides readers with specific, research-supported ways for women to earn higher pay.

I get email #1: A rambling critique of feminism

ArgusEyes — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 14:35:21 GMT

The original email:

ArgusEyes,

First off I wanna say I agree that there are some very radical feminists out there and can come across very strongly and some are even man haters. But look at the years of oppression they were fighting against… Imagine not being able to vote, to go to collage, looked down open because your gender, not being able to work where you want to work. Did you know that in the 1920’s if a woman was to become a teacher she would have very set rules (which a man didn’t) one example is she couldn’t drink any form of alcohol (which was common back then as strange as it sounds now) not even a glass of beer. She wouldn’t be able to find a partner and would remain a ‘spinster’ and then for that reason would be shunned. If you do more study you will also find out woman where put on opium to be happy whilst doing the house work and (heroine was named for this reason) after that basically took over woman another drug was used to ween them off it and this was called heroine NICE! I could elaborate on the history of that little incident but then this letter would be way to long.

When the men where all away at war the woman were allowed into the mans jobs and in one of the adds it said ‘remember girls you’ve still have to look pretty’ Even today woman are getting 84 cents to every mans dollar even if they have the same education and working in a similar or same position as a man. That is in 2008, so I am a little offended when you prattle on about how bad feminism is. I think that people have ruined the meaning of feminism anyone who says one gender is better than the other is not a true feminist! I do thrive for equality I love men and I love woman, I want to be able to become a scientist and get recognition even if I wasn’t a ‘beauty’, and yes I know men are seen in the media a lot today and they are judged on their looks to but you have to admit it is enforced in girls at a very young age. You get Tonka and army tanks and we get Barbie and a toy oven WOOOPY. So yes it is sexist on both behalves.

I am not sexist I respect your opinion but I think you need to open your eyes, think what if you weren’t blessed with the white male privilege (and I am sorry but that if what you have) imagine if you had to abide by these unfair laws, you couldn’t have your say without looking like a piece of meat (I wont get started on Hugh Hefner). You had to be beautiful and elegant and if you wanted the chance to run your country or even have a little bit of a say who did you were just laughed at.

Also when you discussed rape, I believe this is a very important issue to tackle even if it was only 1 in a million it should be STOPPED whether it be a male victim or a female victim. I am sure you agree I just wanted to say that.

Also I have to point out that there are men feminists you know. For example Ian MacKaye, John Lennon, members of the bad brains, Bob Marley, Joss Whedon, Jack White, The Beastie Boys, Eddie Vedder, Phil Donohue and I know many male feminists. The list goes on…

Also you said feminists where all man haters!?? That is a little sexist and stupid to say, you are contradicting yourself. You want this to stop yet it seems you have very strong issue against feminists…. (Correct me if I am wrong). Anyway you threw in some quotes so I will to but you see I wont just focus on the bad or the ones where they where obviously making a joke to prove a point of how most men have been through the 1920’s – 1950’s…. but anyway here they are: but first I looked for a few of those quotes and I found the Germaine Greer quote but others like Barbra Jordon and pretty much the rest I could not find. I am interested and (I am not being nasty) would like a link to them please. Oh and Marilyn French a woman of the 1920’s come on you have to understand her angry. I did find a good quote of hers I think you will like. And she actually said “All men are rapists and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes.” She is saying they take from us our rights, I don’t know how you can’t see how true that was in her day?? You should have quoted some more modern feminists.

“To ask women to become unnaturally thin is to ask them to relinquish their sexuality.” Naomi wolf

“Most urgently, women's identity must be premised upon our "beauty" so that we will remain vulnerable to outside approval, carrying the vital sensitive organ of self-esteem exposed to the air” Wolf again

The first problem for all of us, men and women, is not to learn, but to unlearn. - Gloria Steinem

For women... bras, panties, bathing suits, and other stereotypical gear are visual reminders of a commercial, idealized feminine image that our real and diverse female bodies can't possibly fit. Without these visual references, each individual woman's body demands to be accepted on its own terms. We stop being comparatives. We begin to be unique. – Gloria

How do we create a harmonious society out of so many kinds of people? The key is tolerance -- the one value that is indispensable in creating community. Barbra Jordon

“Anyone determined to find another person or group inferior can always find whole lists of grounds that demonstrate inferiority because we are all inferior to the ideals of humanness we have erected” Marilyn French

And I could go on and on but I have taken a lot of your time. I just really wanted to say all of this because I believe you have either met some really stupid “feminists” that only ever says ‘I hate men’ or ‘if woman where running the world there would be no war.’ Well once again I have to say feminism is not anti man, it really truly is a fight for equality between the sexes it is for both men and women.

You know I think Bob Marley had it right when he said “We sick an' tired of-a your ism-skism game”

I know this is none of my business and feel free not to answer but who was the douche saying that Zionists and Feminists are the same?? Oh and that Bill Maher clip was good I do love him, he is a fucking bitter old prick just like me! You also have really good taste in books, my town is so small I can’t even find animal farm anywhere! It kinda sucks when I have to scavenge in ever second hand book shop within a 30 km radius ha ha but still I will find it!

Anyway thank you for listening. Nat. :)

Cow running video removed due to copyright claim - reposted.

ArgusEyes — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 14:19:43 GMT

This video was removed by viacom due to a copyright claim. I have edited out the south park clip from the middle and reposted to TouTube.

Some days you read the news and wonder whether you were sucking down too many cokes the night before. After checking that it is not, in fact, April 1st and that the article in question is not from the the onion. Then, you have to, with an ashen-face, face the reality of the news item in question.

Women demand female Pamplona bull run, with cows

So they were allowed to take part in the normal runs..
So they want their own run with cows instead of bulls in a move that "would put Pamplona at the vanguard of traditional fiestas with equality for men and women."

Equality of outcome becomes equated with equality itself.

This story is a perfect parallel to the lowering of standards for women in the police force, women in the army, women in the fire-fighters. As well as the infantilization of women in the workplace and practically every other venue of life.

Women could run, they could run alongside the men and take part in the event on a truly equal standing. But no, they were afraid. They couldn’t compete. But they still had to have a slice of the male pie. So they cried and stamped their little feet and demanded that a little paddling pool be put alongside the swimming pool so that they could play at being adults.

So up is down and left is right and inequality is equality. George Orwell was right.

Hate Bounces: How man hating and man bashing harms women

ArgusEyes — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 14:13:58 GMT

http://www.geocities.com/rainforest/vines/3951/noback/hatebounces.html

Misogynists are not born they are made.

Once, a long time ago when the world was young, I loved women with all my heart and soul. I grew up among strong competent women who understood that all living things need to be taken care of and will flourish if that happens. The men I grew up with knew that as well. Everyone knew that people must live and work together and find ways to cooperate and just deal with the inevitable differences that arise and keep them in perspective. They knew that people are not perfect, but that most of them try to be as good as they can manage. They took the measure of a person in wholeness, and if there was more good than bad to a person, they accepted that person's faults as being part of the package which was still valuable, if a bit flawed. After all, nobody really is perfect. We all knew that.

Then, something happened. And that something was called feminism. I remember the early days of the movement when it was called "Women's Liberation" which was a high sounding and noble cause in a country which is founded on a document which cites liberty as one of 3 inalienable rights that every person has. No one with a sense of fairness and an understanding of civics could be against women being liberated and treated fairly. And, there was also the promise that some of the ways men were being treated unfairly would change along with it.

And, as the old joke goes: if you believe that one, then I have some lakefront property in the Mojave Desert I'd like to talk to you about.

I learned very quickly that feminism wasn't about liberating PEOPLE from their previously too restrictive roles which were assigned to them based on the plumbing they displayed at birth, but rather was founded on a number of absolute falsehoods which had nothing to do with freedom, equality, or fairness. The fundamental premise that men had MORE power, not just a different kind of power and in a different area of society as a whole, but MORE power in a complete and absolute sense was something that I vehemently disagreed with. I could come up with thousands of examples of circumstances in which women had more power than men did. And in every example they gave of where men did have any power, I could easily point out the uneven distribution of power among men, and how a few men at the top of the wealth/influence pyramid had a lot of power, but that the vast majority of men had very little.

The strangest thing was that most of the situations in which I was being told I had or was exercising "power" seemed absolutely ridiculous to me. When I was a college freshman, one day I was walking across campus toward the student union. I reached the door about a half step ahead of a female student so, as I had been brought up to do, I hastened my last couple of steps and held the door open for her. Instead of the smile and nod that I had been used to in response to such simple acts of social courtesy, she flew into a rage and started screaming at me about how what a male chauvinist PIG I was, that she was perfectly capable of opening that door for herself and didn't need any g-- damned MAN to do it for her, and kicked me in the knee.

"Shock" is a totally inadequate word to describe my response.

I was at a loss to understand any of her reaction. She couldn't have been any more totally, completely, and absolutely wrong about my motivations and purposes. I instantly assigned her to the categories of "mentally defective", "hate filled", and female. Over the next several years, a lot of women joined her company.

A couple of years later, a woman that I was dating described her feminist "consciousness raising" group as consisting of "perfectly satisfying man hating sessions." Again, I was bewildered. I asked why she found hating me(n) so "perfectly satisfying". I don't remember the answer she gave, but she soon proved to me just how true that statement was of her. Like the knee-kicker in response to having a door opened, it seemed that anything and everything I did was proof that I deserved her hatred and rancor. At least 10 years later, she called me out of the blue to apologize. She said she realized that she had just gotten swept up in a group consciousness of hatred and had finally realized what had happened and that I had not deserved the bile she had spewed on me.

It was, I suppose, better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, but it was too little and too late. Because, by then I had encountered so many other women who acted in pretty much the same way that it had simply become part of my view of what women were. Somewhere, deep down inside, either hidden or proudly displayed, women hated men. Women came in a variety of sizes and shapes, most had breasts and female genitals, but they all seemed to come with a hatred and fundamental contempt for men. One woman I dated while Jimmy Carter was still president, spoke of "my hatred of men" in the same mattter-of-fact tone that she might say "my nose". It was just an integral part of her.

Needless to say, this presented me with a significant paradox and source of internal conflict. Being a healthy heterosexual male, I had the natural and universal desire that men have to have a love relationship with a woman. But, how is it possible to love someone that returns hate for that love?

So, over time I began to develop a wary distrustful posture toward women. I still dated them, but I had become so conditioned to expect hatred from them that I simply accepted it as part of the price I had to pay in order to be involved with one. My desire for a relationship was still strong, but was opposed by a distrust and unwillingness to let someone who hated me get the upper hand over me. Thus, in my mind the concept of "commitment" became one and the same as "trapped in a relationship with someone who hates me." I was indeed one of those men who "wouldn't make a commitment."

The worst part of this, for me, is that it blinded me to the warning signals of some truly sick personalities. The hostility which I had become accustomed to enduring from women became only a matter of degree - greater or lesser. And, with a baseline of being kicked in the knee for the courtesy of opening a door, and learning how "satisfying" man hating is to some women, I had no yardstick to sort out the seriously sick and deranged women from any of the rest. As a result, I ended up in some relationships that were truly horrible and very damaging to me. And, of course, each of these left scars which over time built up so much emotional scar tissue that I began to lose all the positive feelings I once had for women.

That is the personal side. And, I won't bore you with the details of all the stories. But, there eventually got to be so many that I developed the attitude that the question was not "whether" a woman would burn me if let her get close enough to do so, but "when" and "how soon" it would happen.

On the political side, things were just as bad if not worse. About the same time I started becoming the target of violent physical attacks by individual women for what I perceived as courtesy, I also became the target of vicious verbal attacks by women collectively - just for being a man.

I remember the first time I saw the slogan "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle", I knew knew my face had just been spit in. Men were not just useless to women, we were irrelevant. We had no purpose in a woman's life, and did not belong in her world at all. It was a message of hate, dismissal, and refutation. But, I also saw it as a warning of what was to come. It was like seeing clouds on the horizon, and knowing that it is time to get under cover because a storm is brewing. And, since it was obviously smearing shit in my face, it was going to be a shit storm.

Soon it became apparent that women could say any damn thing they wanted about men - no matter how wrong, no matter how hateful, no matter how unfair - and that was fine, but every time I stood up to that and said "no, that is wrong, there is another point of view" I'd get some little fem-bot harpy in my face shrieking the same old tired slogans, like a mindless Chatty Cathy doll, about how I was threatened by losing my power, wanted to keep women "in their place", was probably violent, and was a misogynist. The dull predictability and regularity of it all was only kept from being terminally boring by the shrillness and sheer vehemence of the attacks.

There is a belief among those who believe in magic that one must speak a spell 3 times in order for it to become binding and true. It took being called a misogynist a lot more than 3 times to become true, more like 300+, but in time it did become true.

I began to see women as vicious creatures whose only agenda when it came to me, or any man, was to see how much they could get from the man - then when he had nothing left to give because they had taken it all, toss him out with yesterday's garbage. In short - as nothing but users. Feminist author Wendy Dennis came out with a book in the early 1990s called "Hot and Bothered: sex and love in the 90s." Among many other astute observations in the book was that nothing was more classically typical of the state of male/female relations than the woman who complained bitterly about every aspect of men, then couldn't figure out why she couldn't get one of these awful creatures to fall madly in love with her. I had observed the same thing so many times that I had simply concluded that such women were simply not very bright. In stark contrast to the mythology of how socially adept women are, I was baffled that such women were so stupid that they didn't realize that no living thing will respond to such projections of distaste, contempt, and hatred with anything except return animosity.

I took to avoiding women, particularly groups of them, because I could never sit quietly and put up with the bashing and would always challenge it, which ended me up in a lot of fights and added greatly the count of times that I got called "misogynist." I noticed that women seemed to do it habitually, without thinking, and would confront my female friends over and over until they learned not to do it in my presence.

And, after 3 decades of listening to it, and hating it, and trying to keep the animosity which had been building in me over it - when the husband of a woman friend of mine (who had been very dishonest about her motivations for our friendship and had been trying to harass me into turning our friendship sexual) threatened to kill me and she said "I don't know why you are making such a big deal about it", I caved in and began to really hate women.

Most of the time this hatred lies dormant. I figure that the best thing I can do for myself and for women is to keep the contact I must have with them to a minimum, and to keep as much distance between them and myself as possible. It is rather like hanging a sign on a fence that says "Beware of VERY bad dog." Stay outside the fence, and everything is fine. But, come through the gate at your own risk. Leave me the hell alone and I will leave you alone.

Misogynists are not born, they are made.

I am still baffled at all the women who seem to expect men to live on a steady diet of hatred and man bashing, and somehow magically metabolize this toxic diet into "love" for women and a desire to see good things come to them. When I work real hard, I can make the anger cold and take no joy when bad things happen to women, simply regard it with indifference. When I hear a woman whine about being victimized, I simply tune her out and go elsewhere.

When a woman smiles at me, I think of an old ethic bashing joke - "What does a ______ say instead of 'fuck you'?" answer "Trust Me.

I will not allow most women in my house unless I have known her a long time and she is old enough to have escaped being infected with the plague of man hating or is escorted by someone I trust, nor will I enter theirs except on the same conditions. If I pass a woman stranded on the road, I will not stop to help her because it is as likely as not that she will be afraid of me. That's fine. She's a fish without a bicycle - I have no place in her world, nor her in mine.

Man bashing and man hating harms women, because it makes men hate them back - eventually. A puppy returns love for love, but if you beat it will eventually turn mean and will one day turn on you when you raise your fist or your stick (or the club of words) to hit it. Men are no different. When women talk about treating men like dogs, I wish they would. It would be an improvement. Most women treat their dogs far better than they treat their men.

Somewhere along the line, I went through a metamorphosis. I changed from a man who loved women and thought they were just about the greatest thing in the world, to a man who can't stand them, or anything about them.

I'm sick and tired of the lies that women tell about men, I'm sick and tired of their victim games, I'm sick and tired of hatred and bashing I have to put up with when I am around them. I am sick and tired of the arrogant contempt in which they seem to hold me and all other men. I am sick to death of the way that some of them feel the need to seek me out to piss me off. A couple of years back, at the funeral of my uncle, as fine a man as I have ever known, some woman felt the need to start a conversation with me as I sat with my private grief. She wanted me to agree with her that men don't ask for directions.

How could anyone be so stupid and socially incompetent? When men came up to me to talk, it was always with something like "Your uncle was a fine man", not "aren't men headstrong and stupid?"

Invariably, when I tell a woman about all this, she tries to argue with me and say something like "get over it", or "why don't you take the gender out of it?" In return I ask, "why the hell don't you women get over it, and take the gender out of it?"

I would like nothing better than to be left in peace, and allow women to enjoy the absence of my company which they find so annoying and unpleasant. Every day, a few more men got through the transformation and become like me. We don't get our guns and shoot a few women; we don't beat them up; because what women have been saying about us all these years is just flat wrong. But, there's no point in trying to tell women that because they have become so certain of their superiority that the best way to deal with them is to leave them to it, and the company of their other fishy friends.

Idiotic viewer feedback #3 - This is obvious sexism.

ArgusEyes — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:20:17 GMT

I don't like how you failed to even acknowledge my debate on one of your videos. I think I made some very intriguing points. Again, I say this, do something constructive with your videos. Do not blame feminists for all your "man-troubles" in parenting. Blame the men who have made it hard for you. Your problems do not stem from feminism, rather you have an overall problem with women. This is obvious sexism.

My response.

Greetings,

I can assure you that I did not read your comments. For some reason the admin messages system does not report all the comments I receive on videos and I do not have time to check each video every day to see if there are new comments.

But this is YouTube after all, if you have something substantive to say then may I suggest you make a video and post it as a reply to any of mine? I guarantee that I will approve it and that I will make a video in reply to it. This allows us to make more rational arguments, see each other face-to-face and allow others to comment on our points. This is a better way to debate is it not?

Looking forward to your reply.

Sincerely,
Mark

More flies with honey. Or not, as the case may be here. No reply yet.

I Was Banned From an MRA Site: A response

ArgusEyes — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 08:52:35 GMT

http://punkassblog.com/2008/09/24/i-was-banned-from-an-mra-site/

This post highlights the principle problem with most blogs on the internet, we get a breakdown of the amount of time that glen mentions feminists, a disclaimer he posts on his pages and an account of a banning from some unnamed MRA blog.
Great. Mental diarrhoea straight from this persons brain to your eyes without the bother of editing in between.

But there was a slightly more pernicious message between the supercilious filler and that is exemplified by the following passage:

"I could do this all night, but I’m disinclined to. The examples are extraordinarily numerous. The point being, these are the guys that love Glenn, that feel Glenn speaks for them, that religiously read his articles and vigorously support him. What does that say about Glenn?"

I have this to say to Lisa Kansas:
To dismiss the reasoned body of work of a man who, in my experience, tries to be reasonable and fair at all times and to instead judge him by the cherry picked comments of the people who read his blog is nothing more than intellectual thuggery.

The Greener Gender: Are men worse for the environment?

ArgusEyes — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 08:50:00 GMT

In 2007 an author by the name of Gerd Johnssom-Latham penned a report to the Swedish environment advisory council entitled "A study on gender equality as a prerequisite for sustainable development". This video is a critique.

I originally made this a long time ago for a documentary. It didn't make the cut and I am releasing it now.

Here is Gerd's original study:
http://www.genderandenvironment.org/admin/admin_biblioteca/documentos/rapport_engelska.pdf

Palin, abstinence, teen pregnancy and political smears

ArgusEyes — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 10:28:43 GMT

Reactions from the left are to cackle and shriek. Take this video from a person who I am subscribed to:

This is not reasoned argument which, to be fair, he does provide a lot of the time. This is hand-rubbing. Obama made a very fair and respectable point that families should be off-limits in decent debate. He mentioned that he had said this before and he has, but he was talking about his wife. There is a problem with this and that is that Obama’s wife was actively inserting herself into his campaign and was giving speeches in rallies so Michelle Obama was definitely on-limits. Bristol Palin should be off limits because she has no political involvement in her mother’s campaign (to the best of my knowledge).

The left smears started before this so I don’t expect them to stop now. However, the legitimate question on this matter is the issue of teen pregnancy and sex education. Many have claimed that this is ironic. No. People may have different ideas on how to tackle pregnancy but most all people agree that teen pregnancy is something to be avoided. And no one method is said to be perfect, accidents will still happen. Ignoring this case of one for a moment – do people thing that traditional families like Palin’s will contain more teen pregnancy than non traditional ones?

Sex education and the acceptance of sex (as exemplified by in-school nurseries) has increased in the modern age. Do we have less teen pregnancy now? We do not. I don’t think ramping up sex ed will help, I don’t think that abstinence only sex education will help. What will help is decreasing the social meme of the acceptance of casual sex.

But whatever will happen, people will still make mistakes. What is important is how they get over those mistakes. Bristol Palin has announced that she will get married to the father and raise the child. This is the appropriate thing to do and does testify to the way that she has been raised.

I’m not a frothing-at-the-mouth supporter of the right. I’m the first one to bash creationism teaching in the schools. But the left has failed to show any class and have acted to this incident in the typical thuggish way that they normally do. We all have mini scandals in our families but to try to destroy Palin on this is disingenuous, I consider this an example of good values that Palin’s daughter has taken control of her situation which is ultimately what the people on the right believe in – personal power from within instead of power from without.

Your daily dose of Islamic evil

ArgusEyes — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:43:19 GMT

Burying of women alive defended in Senate

Balochistan Senator Sardar Israrullah Zehri stunned the upper house on Friday when he defended the recent incident of burying alive three teenage girls and two women in his province, saying it was part of "our tribal custom." Senator Bibi Yasmin Shah of the PML-Q raised the issue citing a newspaper report that the girls, three of them aged between 16 and 18 years, had been buried alive a month ago for wishing to marry of their own will. The barbaric incident took place in a remote village of Jafarabad district and a PPP minister and some other influential people were reported to have been involved. The report accused the provincial government of trying to hush up the issue. Ms Shah said that the hapless girls and the women were first shot in the name of honour and then buried while they were alive. She also said that no criminal had been arrested so far.

Burying women alive. That's fucking horrific.

There is this pervasive attitude in the politically correct portions of the western world. That multiculturalism is beautiful and we need to accept the values of these cultures as if they were no better or worse than our own.

Sorry. But that’s bullshit. The values of the western world are infinitely superior to the barbaric 7th century values of the Islamic world and we don’t need to pretend otherwise. Decent Muslims are welcome but if your aim is to change the values of this country to match your hideous theocracies then expect some resistance from me.

Feministing’s reaction to Palin fails to surprise.

ArgusEyes — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:28:04 GMT

I wrote in the last post about how interested I would be to read Feministing’s reaction to Palin. I have now done so and it is pretty much what you would expect.

http://www.feministing.com/archives/010705.html

The piece was written by Ann of the fuck you John McCain fame (will we see a “fuck you Sarah Palin”?).

Republicans are more open to a certain type of woman -- one who is strongly against things like equal pay, universal health care, and reproductive freedom. In other words, the party is pro-woman-candidates, as long as they enact anti-woman policies.

Oh I see. So republicans are only interested in one type of woman. One who is.. you know.. conservative!

Since when was opposition to universal health care an anti-woman policy? This statement is the kind of breathless stupidity you can expect from the feministing gals, a mix of lies and non-sequiturs. Its ground I’ve covered in my “feminism and the left” video. Feminism is primarily a left based political movement which has aligned its leftist values with being for women and thus to oppose them is being “against women”.

And what the fuck does “anti-woman” mean anyway? It’s your normal meaningless rhetorical garbage. Basically the leftist cant is “I like the fact that she’s a woman but..”. But what? If you’re a feminists then you should be pretty happy with this, but maybe that “but” betrays something else? That politics is more important than gender to you.

A sign to show I'm not dead - thoughts on Sarah Palin

ArgusEyes — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 10:57:09 GMT

Greetings the 10 guys who read this blog. My life continues to be stamped under the cruel foot of a massive project at work. Plus I am approaching a new format for my videos. I want to release something soon which will be a bit of an experiment.

But in the meantime. John McCain has nominated Sarah Palin to be his VP running mate. Being the cynical bastard that I am I though something to the effect of “this is a ploy to egg up the diversity of his campaign” and “this is a ploy to hook the disenfranchised Hillary voters”. One should about such knee-jerk reactions to things such as this though, one can speculate but ultimately such speculations are not built on much.

So digging further reveals that many on the right who I respect are very excited about the McCain-Palin ticket. Anyone who has seen my videos will notice a bit of a man-crush on Dennis Prager and Dennis is almost jumping up and down in excitement. Most reactions from the right are good.

The left has its smear machine in full gear. Which given that any critique of Hillary made us all sexists.. makes them a bunch of sexists. Anyone who the left hates has to be alright so I consider this to be very promising.

Whos Behind the Anti-Palin Smear?

Daily Kos - Sarah Palin Dominionist Stalking Horse

Sarah Palin and Creationism

But let’s be honest. Sarah Palin is an attractive younger woman (politically speaking mind) and this has undoubtedly had a huge amount to do with being picked. I do think that she has the political chops as well. And politics is politics so all in all.. I’m feeling pretty good about it.

I can’t wait to hear what feministing has to say about this.

Idiotic viewer feedback #2 - I hate childbirth!

ArgusEyes — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 23:09:57 GMT

This one goes way back.

Filming people having sex is not normal and therefore could never be consensual. When a couple are in love are they always want to keep it private.Pornography is the same as prostitution and prostitution is multiple rape/sexual abuse.Anyone who doesn,t believe that pornography should be eliminated is a coward and is afraid of that people might think of you as anti-sex prudish odd and 'not-with-it'That is cowardlyFeminists can see that porn treats women as not human.There can never be regulated porn because it is not natural for women especially to have sex without love.It would still be only men who would buy porn because they don,t go through pregnancy,childbirth,emotions. It is unacceptable to be racist so it should also be unacceptable to be sexist.This is what porn is-sexist.Also you seem to have forgotten the obvious which is that sexuality is for procreating children and for love-you should not ignore natures rules. Very un natural

If you cant understand that hen you have been brought up with a very distorted version of sex education-if it can be called that. Another reason why porn is so humiliating is because is because of the pain women go through when they give birth and the hardship of pregnancy. Porn trivialises a womans sexual parts(sexual parts being the same as her reproductive/procreative parts) which is why it is so cruelly and sadistically insulting.

If you cant understand that then at least think of the fact that you would not exist if you mother never conceived you,carried you for 9 months and then gave birth to you.So you think that women are inferior then it follows you think that your mother who gave you life is inferior to you and to all men.Dont even think that childbearing is not important in itself and for humanity because without it there would be no people.

By the way, I've put this in paragraphs. The original email was all one big block of text. I imagined if this woman were saying this that she would be talking very quickly and in a high pitched way.

Filming people having sex is not normal

Define “normal” many couples film their sexual acts for their own pleasure. Also who cares about normality, the rules are not defined to maintain the common opinion.

When a couple are in love are they always want to keep it private

Nope. Swingers.

Pornography is the same as prostitution.

Maybe, but why is prostitution illegal anyway? Is sex legal? Yes. Is free trade legal? Yes. Is selling sex legal? No. Work that one out.

and prostitution is multiple rape/sexual abuse.

Nope. If it is consensual then it's not rape.

Anyone who doesn,t believe that pornography should be eliminated is a coward and is afraid of that people might think of you as anti-sex prudish odd and 'not-with-it'That is cowardlyFeminists

Punctiation is your friend. Also, you can guage the emotional sophistication of an opponent by asking why those who agree with you disagree with you. If what you get back is an ad hominemn then they are a very wise and unsophisticated person.

There can never be regulated porn because it is not natural for women especially to have sex without love.It would still be only men who would buy porn because they don,t go through pregnancy,childbirth,emotions

Really? Well how about you stop defining what women can and can't do based upon stereotypes about them eh? Seriously, generalisations are O.K. I use them a bit meself but you've got to provide examples. This flawed woman's email is a litany of generalisations and stereotypes. It's a veritable Gish-Galllop of hysteria.

Also you seem to have forgotten the obvious which is that sexuality is for procreating children and for love-you should not ignore natures rules. Very un natural

You know what else is unnatural? Cars. Give me your keys.

There is a logical fallacy called the “naturalistic fallacy”. It basically means that a person assumes that something is good if it is natural and/or something is bad if it is not natural. Poison ivy is natural and space flight is unnatural, get it? We as humans are where we are because we have risen above out environment and harnessed it to our own means.

If you cant understand that hen you have been brought up with a very distorted version of sex education-if it can be called that. Another reason why porn is so humiliating is because is because of the pain women go through when they give birth and the hardship of pregnancy. Porn trivialises a womans sexual parts(sexual parts being the same as her reproductive/procreative parts) which is why it is so cruelly and sadistically insulting.

If you cant understand that then at least think of the fact that you would not exist if you mother never conceived you,carried you for 9 months and then gave birth to you.So you think that women are inferior then it follows you think that your mother who gave you life is inferior to you and to all men.Dont even think that childbearing is not important in itself and for humanity because without it there would be no people.

I’m trying as hard as I can to follow this woman’s train of though and I’m coming up dry.<.p>

I’m anti-birth now? I don’t know what I said to set her off let along if I said anything about child birth. As far as I know I’ve always been pro childbirth. Since she petered out like a yammering cat woman I will try to sum up my opinion on porn as succinctly as I can.

Porn uses women, it exploits their bodies for the sexual satisfaction of (mainly) men in the same way as my company exploits my enormous programmatic prowess and brain power to tap away at a keyboard for five days a week. Or that a city council exploits the proletariat to fling our garbage bags into a big truck. Lots of us are exploited for our abilities and efforts. It’s called work.

This is freedom. In freedom some people are going to do things you wouldn’t. Get over it. As long as they are not forced to do it then you shouldn’t butt into other people’s business with your sexual hang-ups.

Latest friday feminist fuck you. Can you guess who it is? Go on, guess..

ArgusEyes — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 15:59:40 GMT

To feminists, gender is more important than skill.

ArgusEyes — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 17:34:07 GMT

British men - You also need to wake up!

ArgusEyes — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 03:08:00 GMT

Boycott relationships. Your country wants you to do it apparently.

Feminism and the left

ArgusEyes — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:12:57 GMT

You know, I used to be subscribed to Feministing so I could get their latest videos but they blocked me so I have to remember to occasionally check back to see what those gals are getting themselves up to.

I checked back today and I see that they have indeed been busy, they have 4 new videos since I last looked, and I took a look at the titles and had a little thought, and that is that I was once criticised by a commenter because I had dared to say that feminism is normally associated with the political left.

I would have thought that the association between feminism and the left was obvious on the face of it – like looking at a tree and saying “that’s green”. And then meeting someone who says “how can you say that”. It’s as plain as the nose on my face and the person who cannot see that

I listen and watch hundreds of pieces, be it video or articles, on feminism and gender in politics every week. And there is one piece that I am kicking myself that I didn’t save, I have looked for it and cannot remember where I saw it originally so I will have to describe it to you. There was a video interview with someone who was a member of the national organisation for women, this was back when Hillary Clinton was still in the running and she was commenting on feminists and the political candidates that they support and she made the point that Feminists don’t always support the female candidate. And she cited a number of examples from the past where her organisation supported a man over the women, when the man was a democrat and the woman was a republican. I don’t think she even realised when she was saying it how much of an admission she was making. To a feminist, the one thing that will trump gender is politics.

There are many left politicians who confess their feminist leanings, not just saying they support feminism because a political candidate would be committing political suicide if they criticised feminism, but actually fully embracing and being a feminist, Hillary Clinton is a great example of this.

Feminists normally shill for the left political candidate. After Hillary was gone they reluctantly shifted to Obama. And whilst we are on Obama. Try this on for size. Type “feminists for Obama” into Google, you’ll get a bevy of support for him. Type “feminists for john McCain” and the Feministing videos which say “fuck you” to him will show up in the first and second places.

Go to a feminist’s blog and look at the advertising all over the place

Look at some of the different types of feminism. There’s socialist feminism, there’s Marxist feminism, there’s a very small subset which I agree with, called individual feminism and if you type “conservative feminism” into Google then all you will get is people laughing at the term and calling it an oxymoron.

Which political persuasion is likely to appeal to the feminist mindset more? The right? With its tendency towards personal rights and responsibilities, smaller government, more individual freedom?

Or the left? With its tendency toward equality as an encompassing whole, more government fiddling of the figures and the governmental intrusion to instigate social programs to change the sheep like masses until we finally reach utopia.

And in case you’re wondering, yes, I did insert my own personal bias in there. An in-depth discussion of the right/left political mindset is a topic that has been discussed by many greater than I. And is a topic for another day.

But it is clear to see that of the right/left mindset, the victim based worldview of the feminists finds itself drawn to one side over the other. In fact, I personally believe that the right is the political personification of the masculine mindset. And that is personal responsibility, individuality and strength, and the freedom to act on your own recognisance. And to also, be quite bull-headed at times and to not realise it.

And the left is the political personification of the feminine mindset. And that is groupthink, the protection of the group, the strive to not offend, to try and please everyone and the stifling imposition of safety upon those who must be mothered. And also, the attempt to be as kind to everyone as you can be, even if that kindness is enforced.

Now. Let’s examine the titles of the latest three Feministing videos.

Friday Feminist Fuck You: Heidi Harris
Friday Feminist Fuck You: Rush Limbaugh
Friday Feminist Fuck You: John McCain

This should put the nail in the coffin of any last stragglers of tough that feminism is not related to left though. Why is this important? Well it is the same effect that feminists approach you claiming that they are about equality and they just want the same rights for women’s for men - the usual canter. And then you ask them the same tired set of questions that we know will bring down every feminist such as, oh, I don’t know, if feminists are for equality then why don’t they support equality – little things like that. And you ask them about father’s rights and the ways men are oppressed and that the thing they say are oppression aren’t really oppression and then they let their guards down and they admit that - of course, they are FEMinists and of course they are for the advancement of women and the men can fend for themselves in their eyes.

Well, that’s not what you said in the first place is it sister? Where’d all this talk about equality go?

The refusal to admit that they are bound to the left is the same effect. If feminists admit to what they actually are, and that is a left leaning political movement that is for the advancement of women’s rights over men’s then they lose the benefit of some of that high falutin’ language about being for equality don’t they?

RE: Friday Feminist Fuck You: John McCain, rant on wage gap

ArgusEyes — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 02:01:32 GMT

Misrepresentatiion #1:

A lot of sources state that McCain “voted against” the law. In fact, McCain did not attend the vote at the senate. [1]

But don’t take my word for it. Ann from Feministing corrected her post. [2]. But not her youtube video. [3]

The proper way to respond to a mistake is to admit to it. Video descriptions are editable and a correction on behalf of the author testifies to intellectual credibility. [4]

Misrepresentation #2

The Ledbetter pay act would have guaranteed employers the right to sue for discrimination:

This falsehood is propagated by Ann at 0.48 in her video on the subject [3]. In fact there are many other remits under the law that can be used to address grievances like this such as Title VII and the Equal pay act [5].

Misrepresentation #3

This is an opposition of the equal payment for women:

To quote the Feministing website:

“And not holding businesses accountable for wage discrimination is the same thing as endorsing it.”

This is simplistic thinking. It’s a false dichotomy in the first place. Businesses can still be held accountable by the relevant investigative agency when a claim is filed. The Ledbetter law relates to an employee’s pay discrimination claims and increasing the time period where a claim can be filed this is not groundbreaking legislation by any objective means and it is dishonest to colour people who are concerned for the state of the law or increase in the litigiousness of society as being anti woman or anti fair pay.

Misrepresentation #4

Lilly Ledbetter was paid less because she was a woman, and she never received recompense from her case.

To quote the Supreme court of the united states document on Ledbetter v. Goodyear tire and rubber corporation:

“During most of the time that petitioner Ledbetter was employed by respondent Goodyear, salaried employees at the plant where she worked were given or denied raises based on performance evaluations.”

...

“There, Ledbetter alleged that several supervisors had in the past given her poor evaluations because of her sex;”

...

“Goodyear maintained that the evaluations had been non-discriminatory, but the jury found for Ledbetter, awarding back pay and damages.”

The question was on the status of her performance evaluations. The jury rules for Ledbetter and awarded back pay and damages. Ledbetter appealed anyway and this is when her claim was barred due to time constraints.

Misrepresentation #5

This law was solely about increasing the window in which claims could be made.

The law also had clauses to allow “someone other than the employee” to bring a claim. This may be a beauorcratic organisation. Leading open a huge legal hole which politically motivated groups and parties to insert themselves into a situation.

The decision on the bill is completely inline with partisan politics. With the political left aiming to increase the reign and affect that government can have on private businesses and with the political right acting to minimise the government intrusion.

I have included sources because I believe that issues such as this deserve the in-depth treatment it has certainly not received in the popular press.

In light of Feministing’s treatment of this topic I have to stand by my previous statements that Feministing as an organisation is intellectually vacuous, given to cheap and simplistic gender demagoguery and propagating hatred and false information in line with a radical feminist, sexist agenda.

Sources

[1] McCain Opposes Equal Pay Law – Washington post
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/24/by_juliet_eilperin_washington.html

[2] John McCain supports wage discrimination - Feministing
http://www.feministing.com/archives/009085.html

[3] Friday Feminist Fuck You: John McCain - Feministing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qjaXk-qCVw

[4] The problems with feminism, ArgusEyes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68l4XUeJYo0

[5] Nothing Fair About the “Fair Pay Act” - Hans Bader
http://www.openmarket.org/2008/04/29/nothing-fair-about-the-fair-pay-act/

[6] LEDBETTER v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., INC.-SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/05-1074_All.pdf

[7] Post Editorial for Changing Lawsuit Deadline Based on Factual Misunderstanding - Hans Bader http://www.openmarket.org/2008/04/23/post-editorial-for-changing-lawsuit-deadline-based-on-factual-misunderstanding/

Idiotic viewer feedback #1 - I live in my parents basement.

ArgusEyes — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:25:19 GMT

From My challenge to Jessica Valenti.

I'm not sure if you're aware but you come across as a pathetic infant, splutteing in rage and indignation due to the fact that you got caught out.

It's clear you're terrified of confident and capable women and wish to blame them for all your failures. In your mind if it wasn't for feminism you would be king of the world instead of still living with your parents.

I'm just glad that England has sensible gun laws otherwise you would be dangerous. Get some counselling

My Response:

I love when people go out on a limb and make a bunch of blind guesses. In fact you're the one who looks like a spluttering infant right now. Let's take a look at each one of your lies.

“…due to the fact that you got caught out.”

Caught out? What?

“It's clear you're terrified of confident and capable women.”

On the contrary. A confident and capable woman would not go anywhere near the kind of victim demagoguery Jessica Valenti peddles. It takes an incredible insecure woman to be on Feministing’s side.

“blame them for all your failures”

Failures? Of course you know nothing about me at all. In fact, the reason I’ve not released a video in so long is due to the amount of work (in and out of home) I’ve got on so nice try. When you don’t know someone but you’re going to make up something about them then it’s not just a lie, it’s the worst kind of slander as well.

“In your mind if it wasn't for feminism you would be king of the world instead of still living with your parents.”

Again you claim I am acting like an infant but you’re pretending you know what I think and do, you are a lying slandering piece of scum who talks shit on youtube. And, like all the worst youtube scum, you don’t have any videos of your own. To make a video would mean showing the world your face and standing up to criticism. And that would require a modicum of courage, of which you have none.

B.T.W. I left home at 18. I know lots of people who continue to stay at home, not me.

Tom Leykis on domestic violence

ArgusEyes — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:09:44 GMT

I haven't done a video in a while so I thought I'd phone one on in and release this interesting monologue from shock jock Tom Leykis. Some are going to complain but I don't relate to most of what Tom says. Occasionally he has an interesting topic like this.

I agree with a lot of what Tom has to say here, there is a limit of how much a person can be completely absolved from a situation. But to even voice thoughts of this kind is called "blaming the victim". Sometimes the victim deserves a portion of the blame. That is reality.

Say I was murdered for walking the docks at night. The person who murdered me should be caught and held to account for the crime. But I played a part in the fate that befell me. The same way that a person accepts the chances of cancer if they were to smoke. Don't cry afterwards because you decided to smoke and then got cancer.

A person who has committed domestic violence has committed violence -- that is illegal. In caring societies we should have laws against violence, and we do. In the past much of DV was ignored and the feminists changed attitude. We should also help people who have nowhere to go, like a housewife with no job skills.

We should help people but we should not capitulate to their helplessness. De-politicise DV, and realise that like all crimes, you cannot completely stamp it out. A lot of it stems from a state of mind.

I am not a fan of MRA's becoming victim mongerers. But I have two problems with DV as it stands in the modern zeitgeist:

1) The services provided are for women only. This is oppressive against men and violates the constitution of the U.S.

2) There are lies spread by the feminists to increase confusion and anti-male sentiment. Their way lies not in the truth.

He was survived by his wife...

ArgusEyes — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:56:36 GMT

A father's rights

ArgusEyes — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:51:22 GMT

A very interesting looking film.

Film webpage: http://g2rdistribution.com/

Trailer: http://g2rdistribution.com/afr.trailer.html

YouTube version:

Check out this guys channel as well, this guys is a campaigning divorced father with lots of videos relating to father's rights.

The trailer impressed me, you can go to the website and purchase the film for 15 bucks. I’m not sure how else this has been distributed. Be it on T.V. or in theatres but you can watch it online as well. I’m not really a fan of that, I prefer to actually own the product and there are issues with R1 vs. R2 DVD players (we use R2 in the U.K.). Also, I just forked out £260 (over 500 dollars) on a new exhaust and am not buying anything for the next month – guaranteed!

If I ever get this in the future you can be sure that I will review it but it does look promising. If any of you guys have watched the film then sent me your mini-reviews in the comments section.

To be a feminist's daughter

ArgusEyes — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:43:58 GMT

A very interesting article.

How my mother's fanatical views tore us apart

She's revered as a trail-blazing feminist and author Alice Walker touched the lives of a generation of women. A champion of women's rights, she has always argued that motherhood is a form of servitude. But one woman didn't buy in to Alice's beliefs - her daughter, Rebecca, 38.

Here the writer describes what it was like to grow up as the daughter of a cultural icon, and why she feels so blessed to be the sort of woman 64-year-old Alice despises - a mother.

Taliban Murder 2 Women

ArgusEyes — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:30:16 GMT

Islamic evil seems to be a popular topic in the AP today so here's another one.

AP Stringer Stands by as Taliban Murder 2 Women, Gets Snuff Footage

Shit like this almost makes me want to become a feminist

ArgusEyes — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:28:13 GMT

I kid.. We know that the feminists don't fight against the real evils against women. Which, seem time and time again to be Islam.

The Men's Coalition... Stealth feminist apologists?

ArgusEyes — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:39:00 GMT

http://www.themenscoalition.org.uk/Welcome.html

The Men’s Coalition is a new organisation that aims to put issues of concern to men and boys such as health, parenting and caring, relationships, education, employment, crime and violence firmly on the public policy agenda.

At the bottom of the page it states that the Men's Coalition supports the White Ribbon campaign which bills itself as "Men working to end men's violence against women. As anyone who has seen my videos should know, language like this gets me seeing red a little bit. Why just men's violence against women? If you read their F.A.Q. page then they specify that they are talking about DV and rape.

That is a bit dissapointing but there are many things on their website which seem promising. Could you guys weigh in with your opinion of this?

Watch these and then buy the book

ArgusEyes — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:48:59 GMT

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DD40D63DBCDFCA94

http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Male-Power-Warren-Farrell/dp/0425181448/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215776892&sr=1-1

Call for new rape inquiry squads

ArgusEyes — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:39:15 GMT

Consider this piece from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7496013.stm

What do you see in this piece? Objectivity? Balanced reporting? Gender demagoguery? Go on, pick one. I don’t have time to completely rip this to shreds but I’ll take the following paragraph:

He argues more expertise in the early stages of an investigation would improve the quality of evidence gathered and prevent rapes being wrongly classified as "no crime".

This is very telling. Basically, all accusations of rape are legit. Therefore if at the end of the process the conviction rates are low then that’s just a sign of the bastards getting away with it.

Mr Yates said rape was a difficult crime to investigate given that most cases involved people who knew each other, where consent was the primary issue.

Read: “We are coasting on the popular image of rape being some guy leaping out of the bushes with a knife and horrifically raping an innocent woman with the reality which is that the definition of rape has been greatly expanded to accommodate women who have sex, offer no objection, and then change their minds afterwards. Whilst the bad image of rape is still in the minds of the masses then we can push through any legislation we want to revoke “innocent until proven guilty””.

Are there stats in here about false accusations? Nope.

Also observe the usage of the word “victim”, which is aided by the pictire they chose. They are considered verbatim victims, any honest person would agree that “accuser” or “potential victim” would be better terms. I should mention that here in the UK, the BBC is tax-payer funded through a TV license, lovely.

My reply to MarquisMongaga

ArgusEyes — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:54:28 GMT

Note the thoughtful pose.

When feminist don’t care about the murder of women

ArgusEyes — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:33:44 GMT

A while ago I read a story to you about a young girl in Iraq who was horrifically murdered by her father and then thrown into a makeshift grave whilst her family spat on her body.

I have been sitting on this information for a while but I have a sad follow up to the story. The girl who was killed was called Rand Abdel-Qader, and now her mother Leila has been murdered also.

It was two weeks after Rand's death on 16 March that a grief-stricken Leila, unable to bear living under the same roof as her husband, found the strength to leave him. She had been beaten and had had her arm broken. It was a courageous move. Few women in Iraq would contemplate such a step. Leila told The Observer in April: 'No man can accept being left by a woman in Iraq. But I would prefer to be killed than sleep in the same bed as a man who was able to do what he did to his own daughter.'

Her words were to prove prescient. Leila turned to the only place she could, a small organisation in Basra campaigning for the rights of women and against 'honour' killings. Almost immediately she began receiving threats - notes calling her a 'prostitute' and saying she deserved to die like her daughter.

Even her sons Hassan, 23, and Haydar, 21, whom she claimed aided their father in their sister's killing, disowned her. Meanwhile, her husband, a former government employee, escaped any charges, and even told The Observer that police had congratulated him on what he had done.

It is not known who killed Leila. All that is known is that she was staying at the house of 'Mariam', one of the women's rights campaigners, whose identity The Observer has agreed not to reveal. On the morning of 17 May, they were joined by another volunteer worker and set off to meet 'a contact' who was to help Leila travel to Amman, where she would be taken in by an Iraqi family.

'Leila was anxious, but she was also happy at having the chance to leave Iraq,' said Mariam. 'Since the death of her daughter, her own life was at serious risk. And this was a great opportunity for her to leave the country and to fight for Iraqi women's rights.

'She had not been able to sleep the night before. I stayed up talking to her about her plans after she arrived in Amman. I gave her some clothes to take with her and she was packing the only bag she had. She was too excited to sleep.'

Mariam said that when she awoke Leila had already prepared breakfast, cleaned her house and even baked a date cake as a thank-you for the help she had been given. After the arrival of 'Faisal', the volunteer (whose identity is also being protected), the three left the house at 10.30am and started walking to the end of the street to get a taxi. They had walked less than 50 metres when they heard a car drive up fast and then gunshots rang out. The attack, said by witnesses to have been carried out by three men, was over in minutes. Leila was hit by three bullets. Mariam was hit in her left arm and Faisal in her left leg. 'I didn't realise I had been shot for a few seconds, because as I heard the gunfire I saw Leila falling to the ground and saw blood pouring from her head,' said Mariam. 'I was so shocked, I didn't immediately feel the pain.'

Since February 2006, two other activists from the same women's organisation have been killed in the city. One of them was reportedly raped before being shot. The other, the only man working for the non-governmental organisation (NGO), and a father of five who was responsible for the organisation's finances, was shot five months ago.

Read the full article.

I’m going to stop there. I recommend that you read the full story which I shall link in the video description and in my blog. It goes into more details of how Mariam had to take sedatives to help her sleep at night because of continuous nightmares, and how the police stated that her death was just a coincidence. I don’t buy it.

Here’s what gets me.

Feminists, apparently, are THE people who beat the female drum more than others do.

Apparently, they’re THE cheerleaders for the woman crowd.

This is to the feminists.. Doesn’t this shit piss you off?

When I made the original video all I got were dismissals to the argument, not one feminist stood up to the plate and rebuked this behaviour. Which was what my original point was, that feminists take pot shots at their own culture which reveres women above all others, and fail to criticise a truly misogynist oppressive culture.

They mainly said things like “the fact that there is oppression in other cultures doesn’t mean that we can ignore the problems in ours”. I’m fed up of being asked to defend a position I didn’t posit. This was not the point of my original video.

But I know why they made this point, the idea of criticising Islam so frightens these politically correct cowards that they will grasp at any straw that they can to avoid the real issue, this ranges from making strawman arguments like I read to you or discussing the wage gap. If you do this in response to this video then you are avoiding the truth because the truth is so ugly that it burns to look at it. It’s like the sun, it’s so painful to stare directly at that people will cast their glance askew to avoid it.

It hurts to look at abject evil, but we need to do it.

Also I want to say. Making a comment along the lines of “these oppressions exist in other cultures and doesn’t apply to our own” is not sufficient…

Do the Dutch not have to deal with the religious sensitivity of the Muslims because the Muslims are only in the Middle East? No! The Muslims are there in their own country.

Did the riots in France not happen because the Muslims are another culture? No! The Muslims are in France.

So the evils of Islam are applicable to western cultures. Because they are IN those western cultures. Maybe feminists want to reconsider their attitudes to Muslim immigration if the rights of women matter to them so much. Here in the U.K. the Muslims are gravitating towards implementing Sharia law into the law of the U.K. How does that bode for women’s rights?

Anyone of any stripe who does not have his or her head in the sand, needs to discuss these issues.

So I must reiterate, doesn’t a story like this make you angry dear feminists? It made me furious, I’ve not seen a feminists rebuke this and if you know of one then please let me know:

Rebuking bad behaviour is not difficult, all it takes is a little testicular fortitude. I rebuked the use of the term “feminazi” in a video. I rebuked the commenter who said that Wendy McElroy was just another evil feminist who was tricking us all. Wendy does good work on men’s rights issues and I value her contribution.

And I find it interesting that the one highlighting these issues is a Men’s Rights Activist, it should show you how far feminism has come. And of course, I’m pandering to the bigoted ideas of the radical feminists here because being a Men’s Rights Activist doesn’t mean you’re a misogynist. In fact, after the reactions I got to this horrific event I think we actually care more about women then the feminists do.

And if you want to help women, don’t donate to the western feminists, donate to this women’s charity in Iraq which helps women leave the country, I’ll try to find their identity. That’s all I’ve got to say. This video is in memorandum of Rand and Mariam Abdel-Qader, may they rest in peace.

A very important video

ArgusEyes — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:57:23 GMT

This is why we do what we do.

The story from the other side of the fence.

ArgusEyes — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:21:19 GMT

Links:
http://uk.askmen.com/toys/top_10_300/327_top_10_list.html
http://www.glennsacks.com/campaigns-detroit-news.php
http://www.glennsacks.com/volvo.php
http://www.davidandgoliathtees.com/index.php?mode=HCGT

Do as I do Jessica valenti

ArgusEyes — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:25:29 GMT

From Feministing (again):

"Yeah, a bunch of misogynist trolls have swarmed the site. I'm sorry to Feministing readers for the nonsense. I'm going to shut down comments for the weekend until they find something better to do (because I just can't spend all weekend online deleting and banning).”

“But in the meantime, this serves as a pretty good reminder as to why feminism is so needed! (Even if it does kill my Friday night occasionally.)"

Read: Thos icky boys are invading our little girl’s club and I need to expel them all. It’s the patriarchy!

Sorry Jessica, when you talk shit about people they tend to want to defend themselves. Not all defences are what I would call “cogent” but I’ll give you some tips to show you the kind of nice guy I am.

When it comes to opposing views. You can save yourself time and effort by not being a comment dictator and just letting them on there.

Your head is probably reeling right now, so I will try and say it again a little slower.
Just. Let. Them. On. There.

You’re faithful minions will have fun replying and saying things such as “you’re afraid of women” or “you’re not real men”. The furore will drive your traffic up.. It’ll be a regular internet bonanza!

And most importantly of all. You won’t come off as a prissy little girls who cannot handle opposing views.

Also. The line that “this shows why feminism is needed” is used to death by Jessica. As you should know by now, I read her bloody book and read her bloody blog and trust me – this is overused. EVERYTHING show that feminism is needed.

A word to the wise Jessica, one asshole or a bunch of assholes does little to prove systemic oppression of women which needs a left-based sexist socialist ideology to counter it. You make a living talking smack about men and when we reply in kind it is used as a proof of some societal evil. Pay heed to these words from a wise man.

Any loon feminist can accuse men of being rapists, killers, sadists, and Marines. These are pretty serious charges. A fellow could take exception to them. But if I say something comparatively innocuous in return, such as that I weary of being harried by a rat-pack of diesel-fired tarantulas who mostly look like Rin Tin Tin's littermates--why, they get mad. (Yes, I know, that was a three-animal zoological-automotive metaphor. Patent applied for.)

I figure if radical-feminist ladies can talk ugly about us, then we can talk ugly about them. And we're probably better at it, which they might bear in mind.

Another good slam of Feministing

ArgusEyes — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:39:36 GMT

I was sent this link to a good blog post that further demolishes the ladies at feministing.com

http://daltonator.net/durandal/blog/?p=122

There are some very good bits:

One source of these steaming shovelfuls is Feministing, a web site run by self-styled “feminist” writer Jessica Valenti, author of Full Frontal Feminism. While the site bills itself as a blog for young feminists, it is in fact a “me too” web page where Miss Valenti’s sycophantic friends and cultish followers get together to recite dogma, honor the sacraments, pledge their devotion and excommunicate or anathematize the unbelievers. Any who dare to disagree with or mock the more ridiculous dogma are branded heretics (or “assholes”) and abjured with the magic words “Fuck You!”, a devastating show of wit, no doubt.

And...

It is the act of pointing out that such thinking is harebrained that is unforgivable, according to what they call “Feminism 101″, the mere mention of which is believed by the faithful to counter all facts, reason and logic in much the same way that fundies counter all arguments with “The Bible says so!”. In fact, the denizens of Feministing draw “Feminism 101″ like Randolph Scott drew his six-shooter in his old Westerns, but like Scott’s revolver, it’s full of blanks.

But go and read it for more good stuff.

The article also raises some interesting points. At the beginning he raises a dictionary quote such as this one.

fem•i•nism –noun 1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

And then goes on to basically say that people who agree with this should reasonably be called feminists. I agree that most decent people agree with these principles. And if that is the case, do we need a term for us? Or do we merely need to shame those who don’t believe these things. I.e. we call people who don’t believe in equality between the races racist, we don’t call people who do believe in equality between the sexes pro-race. It’s not needed.

And we don’t need the term feminism, by the same logic. But, I would also like to say that the modern feminist movement is a political movement that has been very successful in appropriating this definition for themselves. So much so that if you go and ask a good young woman who would call herself a feminist such as this, and you ask her why she is a feminist then she will say something along the lines of “because I believe in equality”. The irony is that if you truly believe in equality then you have to go against what the modern feminist movement believes.

Just disgusting...

ArgusEyes — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 00:18:10 GMT