Youtube Videos

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.

A message to all the starry eyed Obama worshippers

ArgusEyes — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:08:55 GMT

This video got me called a racist. Please identify the racial slurs in this video.

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.

Sacred cows make the best hamburger

ArgusEyes — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:16:52 GMT

Greener gender video postponed for now.

ArgusEyes — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:50:56 GMT

On request from the documentary make, I have made the greener gender video private for now. I will try to bring it back online as soon as possible.

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

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/

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

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.

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

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.

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

Just disgusting...

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

Welcome to True Equality

ArgusEyes — Thu, 29 May 2008 00:26:54 GMT

Until now I’ve called my channel a susurration of a shibboleth. It was about standing out from the norm. That particular message has had its time and I think there is a new message I want to convey. My thinking over the past months has definitely been tending towards on thing and that is the continuous difference between those in the men’s movement and feminists in our ideas about equality.

This was pretty much encapsulated in my last video. Which, really, should have been the first video I made for youtube. It would be right at the top of my MRA 101 list because it encapsulates why us strange creatures called Men’s Rights Activists do not call ourselves feminists. I mentioned the differing idea of equality which is given by the following blurb:

What is equality? We in the men’s rights movement believe in equality of opportunity, that as long as the playing field is level then the outcomes should not matter. The feminists tend to believe that equality of outcome is what matters, that the columns under men and women must match for there to be no more sexism. So what really matters at the end of the day is what you are comparing. Rights or outcomes? This is the foundation of our debate.

Now, certain problems have nothing to do with this, I acknowledge that. However, this fundamental disagreement is present in so many arguments between men’s rights activists and feminists. Here are three examples of what I’m talking about when I talk about the feminists view of equality of outcomes.

Feminists use the gap between men and women in pay to support the idea of the supposed oppression of women.
Feminists use the gap between men and women in collegiate sports enrolment to support the quota-based law called title nine.
And, feminists use the differences between men and women in many professions. To make a case for the forceful insertion of women into those professions. A prime example of this is the FASCIST law passed in Norway where companies are forced to have 40% of their board of directors be female.

What does it take? What does it take to believe in these foolish ideas, and they are foolish. They hurt men, and they infantilise women. How can the neurons in the brain misfire to such a way so that people can support such idiocy, not only in practice. But to the extent that it gets encapsulated into law?

It takes the belief that men.. and women.. are basically the same. That apart from their physical appearance that they think in the same basic ways. This is foolish and any remotely normal person who has usual interactions with men and women will notice that we are fundamentally different.

Modern feminist may say. Oh no, I don’t support that idea. Well no shit. It’s untenable. But back in the heyday of feminist thought they tried this. They stigmatized raising boy children differently to girl children, they said that if you give the girl a truck and give the boy a Barbie then you can switch the roles. Nothing demonstrates the fallacy of this better than the case of David Reimer who was tortured in the name of feminist theory. His story will be made in a separate video. But needless to say that the theorising of the feminist fell down when empirically tested. It also falls down in the light of common sense.

I hope by now, that I have demonstrated fallacy inerrant in the idea that men and women are the same. We are not. So in this light the feminist ideal of equality is flawed. But what about my own ideal? Why do I think my own standards of equality are sufficiently better in order to make the claim that they represent “true equality”?

My system says, what you want to achieve as a society is equality of opportunity. This means that you do not deny anyone the opportunity to apply for a job, and a job is defined by a set of criteria. You want to become a fire fighter or a soldier? Great then there are a number of pre-requisites that you’ll need in order to do that job. You’ll need a certain level of fitness and you’ll need to be able to lift a certain amount of weight. No one is intrinsically blocked from applying but due to the requirements of the job you will see a number of patterns in who makes it in. Be it more men or more women, depending upon the particular job of course.

Now take the feminist model. I as a man am not fit enough to become a fire fighter but a women who is weaker than I might get in on the back of positive discrimination. What does this achieve? Well first of all it fills a slot with someone who is not able to do the job, it puts pressure on the other people in that profession to pick up the slack after her. Nothing demonstrates that point more than this article from Fred Reed about women in the military.

Fred--Your article "The Realities of Women in Combat" really struck a chord with my experience in the Air Force. I was a shop chief with the 28th Avionics Maintenance Squadron in the 1980s. There were two women assigned to my shop. One was really sharp at her job, but she couldn't change an RT-274/APN-81 without male assistance. The other couldn't even carry her own tool box to the flight line!

Supposedly, we supervisors were assured by the brass, these women were screened before being allowed into avionics maintenance by having to pass weightlifting standards. Yeah, right. They had to be able to lift 50 pounds. An RT-274 weighed in at 125 pounds plus. I don't know what the problem was with the woman who couldn't carry her own tool box. But I couldn't get rid of her due to pressure from the brass. So, I put her in a weight training program at the base gym. Until her honorable discharge and a pat on the back for a job well done, she never carried her own tools. She, therefore, was never able to pull weekend duty alone; there had to be a male assigned as well to carry her end of the job as well as his own.

Saving lives, fighting fires, fighting wars and protecting citizens are not areas where I want social experiments run. When you are being mugged, or your house is burning down you want the best person to save your life. It is beyond me why we give feminists credence in their clearly bad and erroneous ideas.

I also want to give a shout-out to my new blog I am creating. In the theme of this video I have called it true-equality and you can find it at true hyphen equality dot net. I have improved it so that I can more easily add blog posts and I will try to add a new post every day.

RE: Friday Feminist Fuck You

ArgusEyes — Wed, 28 May 2008 23:47:03 GMT

There is a youtube channel out there called Feministing, named after the famous feminist blog of the same name started by Jessica Vallenti.

On Fridays one of the Feministing team makes a video called “Friday feminist fuck you”. Which is basically a rant about some person or institution which has committed some sexist act which has irritated them.

Here is a list of the Friday feminist fuck you topics on chronological order, from the first to the most recent:

Grover Cleveland High,
Academy Awards,
Anti-feminism in the media,
Dr. Laura,
Fox and Other Race-Dumb Outlets,
Miss Bimbo,
Public Perverts,
The U.S. Army,
WNBA Public Relations

Dear women of Feministing. You are all cowards!

There is no courage in saying fuck you to the institutions and people in the freest country in the world who have committed some pathetic infraction that has offended your delicate feminist sensibilities.

There is one overriding and prominent evil that oppresses women in the world today. And it’s called Islam and most Feminists ignore the plight of women who need them the most.

Where is your “fuck you Saudi Arabia” video? Where women are not allowed to drive and are banned from voting.

Where is your “fuck you Hojatolislam Hassani”. Who is a top Iranian cleric who said that women who do not wear the Hijab should die. And not only that. The women, their husbands and fathers should die. So three people should be killed when a woman fails to wear a piece of cloth over her head.

Where is your video “fuck you Abdel-Qader Ali” who, well, let me read you this little story...

Two weeks after The Observer revealed the shocking story of Rand Abdel-Qader, 17, murdered because of her infatuation with a British solider in Basra, southern Iraq, her father is defiant. Sitting in the front garden of his well-kept home in the city's Al-Fursi district, he remains a free man, despite having stamped on, suffocated and then stabbed his student daughter to death.

It was her first youthful infatuation and it would be her last. She died on 16 March after her father discovered she had been seen in public talking to Paul, considered to be the enemy, the invader and a Christian. Though her horrified mother, Leila Hussein, called Rand's two brothers, Hassan, 23, and Haydar, 21, to restrain Abdel-Qader as he choked her with his foot on her throat, they joined in. Her shrouded corpse was then tossed into a makeshift grave without ceremony as her uncles spat on it in disgust.

'Death was the least she deserved,' said Abdel-Qader. 'I don't regret it. I had the support of all my friends who are fathers, like me, and know what she did was unacceptable to any Muslim that honours his religion,' he said.

Yeah, no, you’re right. Fuck you Dr. Laura. Fuck you Miss Bimbo. These are the things that matter.

And I want to hive a shout out to some honest feminists. In the UK there is a radio station called radio 4 and they have a program called women’s hour. I disagree with what is said a lot of the time but they are worlds more honest about the issues than Feministing is and they regularly feature segments about women in other Islamic countries.

Some of these Feministing videos deal with legitimate issues. For example, the one on the U.S. Army, although I find it interesting that you dealt with a legitimate issue in a cack-handed way that was about as deep as most feminist treatments of issues. Others in the series are just pathetic. For example, one of the videos was entitled “Friday feminist fuck you: public perverts”. I remember seeing that and thinking. “wow.. What a cowardly” sentiment. And it is. Do you think there are any people out there who defend perverts? No! Everyone is against perverts and you simply want to obtain the cheap heroism of gaining a knockout victory over such a decrepit target.

The annoying thing is that feminists use examples like Iran when you argue with them and they want to justify their existence even though they do no real work in fighting these injustices. Citing places like Saudi Arabia to back up your arguments which are primarily about the western world is a deeply dishonest act. Look at the titles of the Feministing fuck you series. Are any of them about real injustices that women around the world face?

At least Men’s Rights Activists fight proper injustices in the societies in which they exist. I, a men’s rights activist has done more to shine a light on the true oppression of women than any feminist I have seen on youtube to date. Western societies are the most free in the world for women, women in these societies have more rights than the men do so stop pretending that this is where the atrocity lies and point your efforts where they rightly belong.

Why I am NOT a Feminist

ArgusEyes — Wed, 28 May 2008 23:41:55 GMT

Not a day goes by without me getting a message in my inbox or a comment on one of my videos saying something along the lines of:

I am a feminist because I believe in equality and what’s wrong with that!?

Let me say something now that, for some reason, isn’t said enough. Apart from a few nut-jobs here and there, we all believe in equality. OK? It doesn’t need to be said.

People who say that feminism is about equality have some major misconceptions about what feminism actually is. Feminism is not a state of being. It’s not something you just are like you might be an jew or a homosexual.

It is an ideological movement. Ideological movements are movements that are concerned with ideas. Feminism is comprised of ideas and theories and hypotheses. These ideas can be evaluated on their individual veracity and then accepted or dismissed. And over time common threads are observed in the ideas of the feminists that testifies to the character of the movement. This is what I consider my primary role to be... To evaluate the ideas and trends of feminism. As I’ve made quite clear before, I don’t think feminists are bad, I think that in general they have bad ideas because they base them on false premises.

Why don’t I call myself a feminist? As I have stated before. Feminism is not a state of being. So you can believe in equality and not call yourself a feminist. And that’s what I and a lot of other men’s rights activists believe. In fact, a lot of us feel that feminists do not believe in the kind equality that we, and most rational people, believe in.

For those who are actually able to think, you will realise that the word equality doesn’t have a meaning that is a clear as people intent it to be when they bleat it out. To me, men’s rights activism versus feminism is about two conflicting models of what the word equality means.

To most feminists equality means equality of outcome. That if you add up the numbers at the end of the day, if the column under men and the column under women don’t match exactly then this is proof positive that women are being oppressed.

To most Men’s rights activists, equality means equality of opportunity. In that you should face no discrimination based upon your sex, race or sexual preference in a civilised society. And that if the system is fair, then the outcome vis a vie women vs. men, white vs. black. Etc. Doesn’t matter at the end of it because your own choices led to that particular outcome.

Which one of these views is correct? Obviously I am going to say the second one.

Life is rarely a dichotomous choice between two different ideas. But this is one of those times. You cannot have a completely fair system and then have the government stick its nose in afterward in an attempt to fiddle the numbers to make it appear fair. Fair is giving everyone the same chance. Fair is not raising those who didn’t put in the effort up on a pedestal to the level of those who gave a damn.

Unlike the two models of equality which I have mentioned. A lot of the time I believe in situations where you have a choice between two views, the truth lies somewhere along the middle path between the two choices. When you have two views of society which are given to you by two special interest groups, each of which represents one half of two possible sides, then each represents a side that the other will find it hard to relate to. In my opinion the Men’s rights movement grew from the extremes that feminism created and exists to present the problems that affect men. I’ve always been honest that I believe that. It’s time for the feminists to come clean and admit that they have a female-centred agenda as well. Instead of the usual B.S. about representing what is best for both of the genders.

Feminism is our ticket to true gender salvation? Salvation for both genders from a movement with a gendered name. Bollocks! Modern feminism, which is far from its more noble roots. Has had a total reign and has been having the say for both sides for far too long now. And the damage should be clear for everyone to see. They have damaged men, women and society. We need the other voice now. We need to hear the other side of the story. This is the main reason why I don’t call myself a feminist. Feminism does not speak for me! Feminism does not speak for me...

I recommend a brilliant essay which I shall link to on the left called “hate bounces: how man hating and man bashing harms women: The making of a misogynist”. The essay details the life story of a man who grew up to hate women due to feminism. It says so much that I want to say and it says it so well that I implore you to simply read it yourself. For now, I will read a part of the essay that applies directly to my life experience:

I remember the first time I saw the slogan "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle", I 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.

Now before you start psycho-analyzing, the quote made me angry and hurt my feelings a bit, but it did not have as much of an effect on me as it did on this guy. But when I first heard the famous feminist slogan coming from the mouth of a young woman on my university campus then I realised that part of feminism was hateful to men and it was seeping into the mind of young women and poisoning their view of men then I realised that I could never call myself a feminist. After realising this, I pondered the strange creature called the male feminist. How could one embrace an ideology that was so hostile to them?

Needless to say, the quote doesn’t even make sense. I have never met a woman who does not consider a relationship to be an very important part of her life. The reason I never took the quote too seriously is because I saw right through it to what it really was. It was posturing. It was the angry outburst of a foot-stomping child of a movement trying to convince itself that it didn’t need to rely on men, lying to itself to try and deny the truth, that men and women do depend on each other. It spoke to me of an immature movement driven by emotion rather than logic. A movement striving not towards truth, but towards anger, victim-hood and demagoguery.

So. Apart from the spit-in-the-face hostility to men, the one-sided treatment of gender issues and the flawed idea of what equality is. Why else don’t I call myself a feminist?

For the answer to that question, watch my older videos and stay tuned for the new ones because what I offer is the voice from the other side of the aisle. And that is a voice you are not going to hear from a feminist anytime soon.

Dennis Prager responds to Keith Olbermann on President Bush

ArgusEyes — Wed, 28 May 2008 23:37:03 GMT

This is off topic, but the truth has to be served.

Keith Olbermann, a far left thug, leads a dishonest slanderous television program. His every word needs to be treated with the utmost scepticism. I'm not a fan of Bush, but lies and distortions should not be used by anyone. This is a video reply to TurpisHaereticum who posted the Olbermann diatribe.

To leftists: Just because you differ with a person. That does not make that person evil. You need to lean the different between a differing opinion and a bad one. Likewise a comment that differs from you is not bad and deserving of being down-thumbed into a hidden state just because it differs.

Perhaps you would like to think about how much intellectual substance there is to a post that says "FUCK BUSH". Does that deserve to be thumbed up? If it feels like I am talking to you in a condescending way then stop acting like irresponsible children who need to be talked to as thus.

If Turpis has any interest in honest discourse then he will remove the thumb system from this video so that the leftist tendency to silence opposition will not find a niche in which to manifest itself.

Read the original transcript:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10316_Page4.html

Q Mr. President, you haven't been golfing in recent years. Is that related to Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it really is. I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the Commander-in-Chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be as -- to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.

Q Mr. President, was there a particular moment or incident that brought you to that decision, or how did you come to that?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life. And I was playing golf -- I think I was in central Texas -- and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, it's just not worth it anymore to do.

A Retrospective. A thanks. A forecast. A proper video

ArgusEyes — Sat, 10 May 2008 23:25:37 GMT

Sorry for the wind at the beginning. It gets better after a minute or so.

An update about what is happening with me. A thanks to the subscribers and my plans for the future.

That *pock* sound you hear in the background is a farmer dispatching our feathered/furry friends.

RadioCritique: Momager. Should a stay at home mom be paid?

ArgusEyes — Sat, 10 May 2008 23:24:35 GMT

Scott Sloan in for Mike McConnell on the Mike McConnell radio show. The first hour, should stay-at-home moms (mums for us Brits) be paid? My answer -- hell no and Sloan agrees.

This is a radio critique. I will be playing part of the show and inserting my own comments throughout. Apologies for the long wait since my last video as well as slurps, sneezes and speech impediments.

Download the show here:
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/CINCINNATI-OH/WLW-AM/MCCONNELL041708HR1.mp3

Scott Sloan:
http://www.700wlw.com/pages/onair_scottsloan.html

Mike McConnell:
http://www.700wlw.com/pages/onair_mcconnell.html

The gender card, Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan

ArgusEyes — Sat, 10 May 2008 23:21:50 GMT

Taken from the Tim Russert Show 4-5-08.

Dennis Prager deconstructs Hillary Clintons comments

ArgusEyes — Sat, 10 May 2008 23:21:08 GMT

A clip from the Dennis Prager show which discusses Hillary Clintons comments which I mentioned in my previous video. As you will notice, the opinion I stated in my last video and Dennis's opinion are the same. Dennis's comments here go more in depth than mine did and I see no reason to add anything else.

Don't vote for sexism in 2008 Hillary Clinton is bad for men

ArgusEyes — Sat, 10 May 2008 23:15:56 GMT

I have a dirty little secret. Hillary Clinton scares me, I was always aware of her feminist leanings but now that she is running for the president of the united states I think it's time to focus on Hillary.

And of course this makes me a chauvinist pig. If there is one thing that Hillary is using to death it's the female victim card, standard feminists phrases such as "glass ceiling" and a completely gynocentric campaign.

From what I've heard from Hillary Clinton over the past months. It seems to me that she is completely banking on the female and emasculated male voting base. Whether or not this will work - remains to be seen. But one thing is sure, that this is a small minded strategy, completely lacking in wisdom and sophistry. Of most campaigns waged throughout human history that target one particular demographic in a demagogic way have had foul intentions and foul consequences and I exempt Hillary from this in no small way. A Hillary Clinton presidency would be an extremely bad idea for men.

I'm not going to mince words here. In my mind Hillary Clinton is a female supremacist, a bigot and an ideologue. She is Cold and calculating and she is a feminist. Being the good feminist, Hillary seems to have a female supremacist streak. Making this statement in the Vital Voices' Women's Global Leadership Summit:

"Research shows the presence of women raises the standards of ethical behaviour and lowers corruption."

Maybe you could call this the Larry Summers effect. Make a statement about some inherent difference that makes men better than women in some regard then watch as the wailing begins. But turn the tables and claim the ethical or physical superiority of women then it becomes perfectly fine. Her claims may be true, but we live in a world where is a massive difference between what one can say about women and what on can say about men.

Hillary made an astounding in one of the democratic debates. Which I am paraphrasing as such:

"It's about time that someone started talking about what is good for women. Because doesn't that make a nice change?"

And of course everyone clapped like lemmings. The inanity of this statement is unbelievable. For as long as I can remember, all I have heard is what is good for women. It is virtually unheard of to hear what is good for men.

I put it to Hillary that most all political candidates mention "women's rights" in some way and if they do not then it's not that they are talking about "men's rights" in particular, it is more that they are simply not mentioning it. Men's rights are hardly ever mentioned in politics, and I put the word "hardly" in there in case it has happened but to be honest I cannot think of a time it has happened in the perpetuity of politics - such an event would be so rare that it would be emblazoned onto my consciousness.

The sad truth is that not talking about women, to Hillary, would be the equivalent of being sexist towards them. And to make things "equal" is the same as giving women more and more perks to hurtle them through that ever problematic glass ceiling. This is proven by the kind of commentary we see in the media about the sexism of those evil white men who would not vote for her, take the actions of the New York chapter of the National Organisation of Women criticising Ted Kennedy for not endorsing Hillarie's campaign.

The message is loud and clear: If you don't vote for Hillary then you're sexist. As an aside, I have one question for the democrats. When it comes for the time to vote are you going to be sexist and vote for Obama? Or are you going to be racist and vote for Hillary?

Does Hillary even live in the real world? For all her huffing and puffing about how downtrodden women are you would think that she still lives in the 1950s. But enough of the rhetoric. Is her talk merely hot air? What effect would Hillary have if she became the 44th president of the united states?

Unfortunately there is likely to be an unfortunate effect on men. It's not just about having another president who will surpass all the others in ignoring the issues that plague men - like we haven't had to put up with that forever. She has leant herself to a blatantly sexist proposition called the "Paycheck Fairness Act" which would:

"take critical steps to empower women to negotiate for equal pay"

The Paycheck Fairness Act is an equal pay for equivalent work law by which:

"employers could not pay jobs that are held predominately by women less than jobs held predominately by men"

The matter of the wage gap is something I have always meant to get into in a separate video so I will be talking about these issues in greater depth later but I will give you the gist of it here. Essentially it's all bollocks. You get paid based on how much and how hard you work, there is no shadowy cabal of men holding women back, all of us have mothers, sisters, aunts and female friends and I do not even want to think about what image people like Hillary have of men or how this will shape her. Would you let David Duke oversee race relations? Would you assign David Irving to the head of the holocaust council? Would you let Kent Hovind decide science policy? Would you let Hillary tell you about how sexist America really is?

You see, Hillary Clinton is what the old feminists would have called "sexist". She makes arguments for the superiority of women, she hosts women only and women centred events and campaigns. She makes bigoted statements about men and seems to dislike them and she would make laws that actively disadvantage men and advantage women. I would urge my American brothers and sisters who love true equality to not vote for her.

Sources
Is Hillary Clinton a Closet Sexist?
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/01/15/is-hillary-clinton-a-closet-sexist/

How did Hillary Become a Feminist?
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/30039.html

HILLARY PLAYS THE FEMALE SUPREMACIST CARD
http://www.newswithviews.com/Roberts/carey56.htm

Hillary Clinton, Cultural Marxist
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/29731.html

How did Hillary fall into the feminist fold?
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/080102

The (Anti-)Feminist Movement
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/14/135245.shtml

NOW WTF?
http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2008/01/now-wtf.html

National Committee on pay equity
http://www.pay-equity.org/info-leg.html

Why I don't agree with the term 'feminazi'

ArgusEyes — Sat, 10 May 2008 23:10:50 GMT

A lot of people in the men's movement refers to feminists, all feminists, as "feminazis". Where does this term come from and what does it mean?

The word feminazi was first used by Rush Limbaugh who is an American conservative radio talk show host. [1]

What does it mean? Well it is a denigratory term to refer to some or all feminists. You could say that it applies only to radical feminists, but it is not a mainstream term so you can use it as you wish. A particularly hateful masculist who I banned uses it to refer to all feminists, even someone like Wendy McElroy who is a person who agrees with most men's and fathers issues.

Now, why don't I like the term? Well first of all it's lame.

For some reason the Nazis has become the catch-all insult on the internet to call people you don't like.. You smoke cigarettes - you're a Nazi. You don't like the Beatles - you're a Nazi. It's childish and lame, it is simply an insulting term to belittle a movement you don't like, there's no meaning behind it.

But why the association with the Nazis? Because the Nazis are the archetypal representation of evil in our society. There are still people today who directly suffered from the war and holocaust. So by calling feminists feminazis the aim is to associate them with evil.

And this is the reason I don't like the term. When religious nuts say that Hitler did the things he did because he was possessed by evil then we close off our minds to understanding why Hitler could do the things he did. I try not to use the term "evil" because it is essentially a cop out - we say that there is that concept that encapsulates the bad behaviour. We are humans and we have the capacity for good and bad, and we need to understand the way that Hitler committed the atrocities he did, we need to understand how our minds work and can do things like the holocaust.

If we refer to feminists as "feminazis" then we are doing the exact same thing. We are simply dismissing the beliefs of feminists as just being "evil" and not spending the requisite amount of time understanding why they believe what they believe. An activist of any stripe is not evil, because they believe in something and are willing to act for their beliefs. I don't think feminists are bad people, but they adhere to bad ideas and a bad belief system, and incredibly bad things can come from this, such as the things I criticise in my other videos. But these bad things don't come from feminists being bad, but rather from their ideas being bad. And it's the ideas that we need to attack, not the person.

Sources
[1] Feminazi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminazi