The excellent Men’s Matters radio show on Express FM (UK), hosted by James Williams.

Important medical details about male circumcision (in children and adults) are discussed in this phone interview with Dr Peter Ball of Norm-UK – a charity concerned with preventing needless circumcisions.

• Medical details of the circumcision process and consequences
• Circumcisions in adults are mostly unnecessary
• Children and babies face serious risks with circumcision
• Nerve damage to the penis and sensation-loss due to circumcision

Links

Expressfm
NORM-UK
Previous MRM radio work by James Williams

Share

So, I was thinking about comedy while listening to the latest Bill Burr podcast and, like many times before, I wondered why it is that female comedians don’t really cut it in the same way as men. This is stand-up I mainly refer to, because there is an exception or two in the wider world of comedy.

I don’t have the time to go into this to any great degree, but I think it comes down to the same thing that it always comes down to when looking at the relative abilities and achievements of men vs women: it comes down to the element of risk.

As part of some new work, I recently interviewed the headmaster of a boys-only school in London. I was interested in how he might outline the differences between boys and girls and how best to educate them. In other words, what made boys tick? He confirmed what I already knew and added some new perspectives. It isn’t the Handmaid’s Tale; it isn’t getting in touch with their emotions, it isn’t empathising with the supposed plight of women down the ages.

Boys like risk. They like action. They like competition. And they like to win.

As we all know, to pursue victory, you risk defeat and defeat is typically more likely than success. But this has no impact, in the main, on boys willingness to risk failure. The rewards for success are often intangible and sometimes even seemingly pointless, but they matter all the same.

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve raced my young son to the front door of our house for no reason whatsoever. I’ve also lost count of the number of times he’s ‘won’. It’s important to me that he wins and enjoys winning, just as it was important for me growing up. Nobody instructed me to do this sort of thing with him, it’s just that I know, like every man knows, that winning and losing is an essential part of boyhood and manhood. I also think that winning is a habit and I want him to develop that habit.

The issue then becomes, of course, how we define ‘winning’ when it gets a little more complicated than getting home first. That’s the real challenge of fatherhood, I suppose, particularly with a son and particularly under Feminist governance.

Why ain’t she funny?

Anyway, as I’ve wondered for a long time, why do I not find female stand-up comedians funny?

Some years back, long before I had any explicitly defined concepts of men and women as I do now, I found it pretty uncomfortable to watch female comedians do their thing on stage. There was something forced and ill-fitting and simply unfunny about the women I saw trying to make the audience laugh. I could detect it in the audiences too. They wanted to laugh, they were  there to laugh; they’d paid good money to get some laughs. And yet, here were these women in the trade as stand-up comedians, but who were not really able to do the business.

In the time I’m talking about, there were only a few female comedians like Jo Brand, Sandra Bernhard and Joan Rivers. There were also some others, but I can’t remember their names and neither, I suspect, can you.

In the comedy of these women, men were very much the target of comedic abuse. It was all they had and they went with it even when it wasn’t funny; a sort of snatching, abrasive desperation. Back then, I thought the same thing I think now, although I didn’t have the advantage then of the framework of male psychology I’ve developed now. What it was then, as it is now, is that female comedians do not generally take risks.

What we look for in comedy is a line and edge and direction that may not work, but the guy puts his heart and soul into the attempt. It works or it doesn’t. You love him and you buy his DVD, or else you forget his name as soon as he walks off stage.

These men put themselves in the firing line. He’s saying: “this is me, take it or leave it”. Women don’t like to put themselves in a win or lose situation like that and they don’t like to put themselves in the fierce light of scrutiny. That’s why they wear make-up and push-up bra’s and high heels; she wants to maximise the field of those who will accept her. The idea of being rejected for who she is anathema to her. She expects and needs to be accepted on her terms and comedy doesn’t much allow for that.

Women don’t like these consequences and they definitely don’t like the odds. Further, women don’t like to be laughed at and you need to be impervious to that before ever stepping foot on the comedy stage. Perhaps more importantly, we don’t like to laugh at women, but we are very comfortable laughing at men. Add to this the sheer amount of work one needs to put into a comedy career just to put beans on the plate, never mind the few that eat caviar, and it becomes clear why so few women enter comedy at all, why so few end up staying and why so very few could genuinely be called funny.

Let’s be honest; in our world, women don’t have to work that hard. They don’t need to take risks in order to achieve; in order to attract a mate; in order to procreate (and practice it frequently) etc etc. After all, no woman is selected by a man because of her achievements in her chosen career. Life is quite short , particularly if you’re a man, and people tend to go with what works to get along or to get ahead.

For women, that means concentrating on herself to make herself attractive. Climbing the slippery career ladder does not add to her attractiveness . For men, achieving means concentrating on doing something outside of himself to accomplish the same goal.

As I’ve said before, men are human doings first, and human beings a distant second. In contrast, women are not human doings at all. They are what they are and what they are is everything. They don’t want to be success objects and men wouldn’t care if they were. This is so well established now, it’s almost becoming old hat.

There can be only one

In my experience, I can only point to one female comedian who I think is genuinely worthy of the description. There are many nearly-funny women, but only one who I categorise in my mind simply as a comedian, the same way I class Eddie Murphy, Richard Pryor, Chris Rock, Bill Burr, Ricky Gervais, Russell Peters, Dave Chappelle, Doug Stanhope, etc.

She’s Catherine Tate and as far as I know, she is specifically a character and sketch artist and is not a stand up comedian. That means she is automatically in the second tier of comedic achievement, as far as I’m concerned (at least in the recent era of comedy, who can say about the old time greats whom we only know from the character-based comedy?).

Catherine Tate, excellent comedienne.

Nevertheless, this woman is simply funny and she is a very good comedian (I’m speaking specifically about The Catherine Tate Show, I’m not familiar with her other work). When I think of why that is, it comes back to risk and what she is willing to do to get laughs. She is not precious, she does not aim for the female market only, she has no fear,  she does not take herself too seriously and she succeeds as a result. This is behaviour only rarely demonstrated by women; they do not need to go there and very rarely make it if they try.

It could be that she has a male-patterned brain (See Simon Baron-Cohen), but this might be a bit misleading. A good comedian isn’t funny because he’s male, he’s funny because of what it means to be male. I’m not sure if male-brain patterning would go far enough because her experiences in life are still those of a woman. So, we’ll just call it great talent and leave it there.

I also have to say that I recently watched a film called Bridesmaids (research material, honest) which has elements of self-abasement humour that suggests that more women can achieve real comedy at last, at least when it’s written for the screen. The scene where the bride-to-be ends up taking a dump in the middle of a busy road in a wedding dress is hilarious and is simply not how women generally behave in order to get laughs. This is traditional male comedy being successfully delivered by women. Rare, but perhaps on the increase.

To sum up, men succeed in comedy because the nature of men makes it possible. Women generally don’t succeed in comedy because they are not accustomed to risk and simply don’t have the trial-by-fire experiences of being a man to forge any comedic potential.

Let a woman walk a mile in his shoes, or maybe 3000 miles to represent his life, and then maybe she’ll be funny. But typically? To borrow from the mindset of all too many women: stand-up comedy needs a woman like a fish needs a bicycle.

Share

I’ve been involved actively in men’s rights since 2002 when I commenced work on a video project which extended to seven years of work to complete. I’ve been an online presence since 2009 when I started this site and have been on Youtube since early 2010.

Why the historical notes? Because I’ve long meant to write something to serve as a preface to the original video series and to support and explain issues and criticisms arising from it. In other words, this is the article where I say why I do this and why I’ve taken the approach that I have. Additionally, it aims to more completely explain the objective than the about section, the about the project page, the youtube description and even the introductory video to the project which only touches on the philosophy behind the work.

This is a long article and so here is a contents page to help navigate. Feel free to skip to the Q & A for the gist of the article if you must, but the whole thing counts as my response to criticism and my own criticism of some of my critics. It’s like the Terms and Conditions of reading this site and watching the films.

The joys of criticism

I’ve come in for a significant amount of criticism and vitriol here and there because of both the documentary and the content of this site. Some of the criticism has been valid, however, most of it has been misplaced because it is so obviously the result of wilful misunderstanding.

The work has been mis-characterised and misrepresented sometimes due to genuine mistakes, but most often, due to deliberate smearing and/or an inability by many to look beyond the first thing that might cause offence.

The root cause of most of the problem here, is my chosen approach in the presentation of the issues of men’s rights. The language is sometimes harsh and the phraseology is sometimes abrasive. It is a strongly presented series of films and this site is the same. This approach stem from the simple fact that the films were never meant to be public in the way they are today. For some reason, I always conceived of the films as being shown to friends and interested people as part of a dialogue, like a normal conversation or debate. I would be there talking about what’s on screen with viewers, clearing up any missteps or misunderstandings along the way.

Instead, the films are public for anybody to see and draw their independent conclusions. But with films on this volatile subject matter, presented in this in-your-face fashion, that’s trouble with a capital T.

Don’t hate the MRA, hate the game

I find it astonishing that many women who watch these films manage to come away feeling offended by the way certain women are described or the manner in which certain salient truths are presented. They tend to take it personally. The responses from women have shown clear over-sensitivity to turns of phrase and the tendency to shoot the messenger before even hearing the message.

The films are about men. If you watch them and become offended, it can only be because you are ignoring what the film is about and are too wrapped up in yourself to see the topic for what it is. If you come away thinking: “You know, in that segment where you talked about the men who committed suicide due to being falsely accused of rape, I was really offended by the way you described the women”,  you need to seriously refocus your thinking.

If you want to be offended by these films you certainly will be. If you look for something to upset you, you’ll find it. But what you should be doing is looking at the topic.

If you keep in mind the subject matter of the film, and keep in mind that the film is not about you, then you might understand the purpose of it and both free yourself from needless upset, and free me from your misplaced vitriol: a win-win for me and you! Surely a no-brainer, right?

But alas, no. Generally, women watch, get offended in the first 60 seconds and classify it as ‘hateful’. Sigh.

These films need to be watched with an open mind. Several films need to be watched to even begin to understand the scope of the work. A woman wouldn’t read three pages of Pride and Prejudice for example, and believe she had the measure of the book and could deliver a worthwhile review. Yet that’s exactly what women have a tendency to do with these films.

Men are less sensitive about these things, because their sense of their own psychology is less well developed. Men can watch material demonising them all day long and not react (they watch television after all), but women are far more sensitive to any negativity – real or imagined – and it shows. It’s a deeply selfish phenomenon and I encounter it enough that I now ignore it and accept it as part of the female-condition, which is as prevalent as it’s male equivalent.

As an example, I had one piece of work contact me about the very last sentence of the film on rape. Now this is a 45 minute film and the woman said she was positive about all of it… except the last sentence. She then characterised the whole film as being hateful towards women despite it focusing overwhelmingly on issues to do with men. Now, yes, I suppose that you could watch 45 minutes of a documentary and then take the entirely wrong message from it based on the final few words… but only if you’re an idiot.

If people want to assume the worst about my motives, I can’t stop them. If they want to pretend to themselves that these films are about disparaging women, they can certainly support their misconceptions by wilfully misinterpreting the work. But when they do, it’s time for them to question their own motives.

Within this site and more importantly, within the documentary, I ask that people stack presentation against content. Use your brain. Don’t make the political personal. Take from them what is of value and ignore the rest.

Mystifying

What could lead a person to watch a film about some topic concerning the poor treatment of men and take from it only the perception of what the film says about women?

It’s the sort who have no regard for men or the male experience whatsoever.

For example, I focus on men being killed and injured disproportionately in the military and in the police due to being exposed to more danger and yet receiving the same pay as women who are protected from danger. And the result? Women get offended about the portrayal of women.

The issue – the deaths of men – is irrelevant to this sort. How she feels that women are portrayed is all that matters to her. What she takes from the film is a bad taste in her mouth and the feeling that this film hates women or the filmmaker hates women. The dead men the film focuses on is as nothing to her in the face of her hurt feelings. The lady thinks I’m offensive.

Well, I find women like that offensive. Women so wholly wrapped up in themselves that they are completely incapable of understanding the message because they are too busy getting upset that I was disparaging about certain women here, or did not give women sufficient praise there. It beggars belief that women can do this and not see that whilst they mud-sling and claim that hate lies within the films or this site, they utterly fail to see that this lives only within their own imaginations. The real hate (or at least failure to see the real hate that is under discussion – misandry) lies within them.

The ALL police

If you think I mean all women when I say something, you have to ask yourself if I’m the idiot for implying all women, or if you’re the idiot for thinking I could possibly mean all women.

For example, if I was to say that men are taller than women, what can this mean? Is it possible that this means that all men are taller than all women? Obviously not. I expect people to use their common sense to realise this. You know that I can only mean most men. Even a four-year-old would know that I meant most men.

So why would anyone make the claim that I was saying that all men are taller than all women? Because they choose to see it that way, that’s why.

Similarly, if I say (in context of false allegations of rape) that: we live in the age of the toxic female, what can this mean? Is it sensible to interpret this as all women are toxic? No. The only people who could take it that way are people who want to take the wrong message for their own reasons. They would let the men-are-taller assertion go because they know full well how to interpret it; but they choose not to interpret the toxic female remark in the same way because they are hateful and want to ascribe hatred to me

In the conclusion to the education films – I end by saying that well  educated girls will do fine in life and achievement, but that well educated boys might change the world.

Is that disparaging of females? No, it’s reality. The next Google, the next leap in energy technology, the next [insert major scientific achievement here] will be made by men. It’s simply the way it is and the reasons for it are well understood both here and in the science of biology.

We can pretend it’s not true and that a future Susan is just as likely to change the world as a future John, but that would be equivalent to pretending to ourselves that the winner of the coming 2012 Olympic men’s 100m final is just as likely to be a white man as a black man. It could happen, I suppose, and if it does, so what?

But if it comes down to a bet, I know where I’d put my money. And I might actually be disparaging about a white sprinter’s chances. But does this mean that I hate white people? Do I have issues with white sprinters?

In Rape I say that we are living in the age of the toxic female.

Does this mean that all women are toxic? No, it applies to the women under discussion and also to the ease with which any woman can falsely accuse a man. What it says is that in our society, women are encouraged and enabled to be toxic. In the areas of divorce, DV, false rape, sexual harassment and false child abuse allegations, some women take to that encouragement very well.

In Feminism, I say that women are stupid.

This is a contextual assertion that only applies to the specific women under discussion – Feminist women. Let’s go through the boring pre-school level thinking process again, for those folk who wish to claim that I am hateful for saying something like that.

Are all women stupid? No.

Is it even possible for all women to be stupid? No.

Therefore, can that expression apply to all women? No, it can’t.

It is impossible for it to apply to all women, so why ascribe such meaning to those words? And right there, you nail their own prejudices and hateful thinking to the wall.

They would rather believe the impossible rather than extend me the same understanding as they would when discussing anything else. They would rather pick and choose when to take me literally and when to engage their brains just so that they could feel righteously offended or say that I am offensive.

These same women that feel so offended at my work, will happily leaf through hateful article, after hateful article, after hateful article about men, have a laugh about men getting their penises chopped off or being treated like dogs, gloat about boys under-performance when exam results come around, excuse a woman when she is a rapist because she’s a woman, and then smile when men are blamed for the financial crisis. All of that is fine with her. She won’t be making accusations. She won’t be sending any emails in complaint. She won’t cite ‘hate speech’. She won’t react at all.

But how dare I speak disparagingly of any woman ever! That’s hate speech, right?

Q & A

Do you hate women?

Normally, I wouldn’t respond to such a ridiculous question. I mean, would you respond to a question like: Do you hate air? Do you hate the ground? For me, this type of irrational question is mystifying. I mean what kind of malicious idiot would even pose such a question?

However, since I’m the one posing the question on this occasion, I suppose I should answer.

No.

I don’t actually hate anything or anyone except maybe Feminism and possibly traffic wardens. But that’s where it ends. Nothing I’ve done could even suggest hatred of women except in the minds of those predisposed to hatred themselves. People seem very intent on finding what they’re looking for in the films and on this site. And they find it even though it isn’t there.

That said, of course I’m aware of how the use of certain language and broad terms can be misinterpreted even by the fair-minded, but I maintain that in the context of the films and this site, it is abundantly clear that my issue is with Feminism and its adherents, not whole populations and entire sexes.

Good grief, surely this is obvious?

Alright, so you say you don’t hate women, but you clearly have issues with them.

Hold your horses there, Tex. I have issues with women? Once again, this is 99 parts invention to 1 part evidence.

In a way, yes I do have issues with women, the same as I have issues with men, with government, with the media, with charities and perhaps with other entities. But in reality, these issues boil down to a single central problem that runs through all of the rest. It’s about Feminism and Feminist governance. It’s about misandry and male-disposability. It’s about an ideology that is literally killing men and blighting the lives of those men who have the temerity to live and breath. Yes, it is that serious and I have laid out the evidence to prove it and have more on the way.

It’s not directly or only about women, and I don’t advocate or support arguments that it’s a battle of the sexes, or women are the enemy or any unsupportable tripe like that. The actions of most women – the primary and most avid adopters of Feminism – are certainly a part of the problem, but in reality, men are as much of a problem as women. I do have issues with the ideology of Feminism and the various institutions it infects. I don’t have issues with women in and of themselves any more than I have issues with the air I breathe.

But you say that women are toxic! You say it right here on this site!

It is not possible that the behaviour of all women can fall into the descriptions of the toxic women I identify and so it is therefore not possible that I can be referring to all women. To assert that I am saying that all women are toxic is to assert that I am stupid, ignorant, hateful or all three. And I am none of those things.

If I’m breathing air and the air is poisonous, then I say “the air is poisonous”. Of course not every molecule I breathe in contains the substance that is poisonous, but not even a mindless pedant would say: “some of the air I’m breathing is poisonous, not all of it mind, perhaps not even most, just sufficient an amount that the result of breathing it is poisonous to me”. This is fairly obvious. What is also obvious is that the more toxic the substance, the less of it you need in the air around you to make all of the air poisonous.

The women who are toxic create a toxic environment for everyone.

Do you think that women are less than men?

No, I don’t think that women are less than men. That’s idiotic. It’s like saying your upper arm is worth less than your forearm. Men and women complement one another and measures of absolute worth between them are not logical.

You can say that men do certain things better than women and in fact there is a great preponderance of things that men do better than women; but that is not the same as saying that men are worth more except in the strict ability you’re talking about. For example, a man will generally be worth more to an employer in many jobs (most jobs in fact), due to a combination of things discussed at length in the pay gap. But worth in a job does not have any bearing on  absolute worth as a human being. It’s only in the malicious minds of idiots and ideologues that anything else could be the case and I reject any such nasty and baseless assertions.

Do you think that women should get back in the kitchen?

Asked and answered. In brief, no, that’s ridiculous and unsupportable. Plus, that’s bad for men and things are already bad enough for them as it is.

Do you want a return to traditional roles?

Asked and answered here and here. In brief, no. That’s virtually always crap for men and sometimes crap for women as well.

Why are you so disparaging about women?

Remember, these films are not about women. What’s really going on is acknowledgement of men.

I have highlighted the accomplishments of men relative to women in certain areas of endeavour and discussed the differences in male and female abilities at length. The question is, does this mean I’m being needlessly harsh to women?

There are a hundred-and-one ways I could have approached this business and I chose angles of attack that are bound to cause upset in some people and may even lead some to question my motives.

The reason I chose to put things in the way I have can probably be traced back to the inception of the project. I remember the moment I decided to actively do something about misandry. It was when I became so incensed at the volume of lies about men in a documentary on domestic violence (DV) on Channel 4, that it put me off my dinner.

In the show, men were little more than caricatures of human beings. They were abuser objects and nasty pieces of work that were held to be representative of most men. It was also asserted that any man could be violent to their loved ones like this. Now there’s the real hate speech, broadcast to millions, that people might dare to accuse me of. But it wouldn’t occur to them to even notice it because the targets are men and it’s on national TV. So that makes it OK, right?

On commencing full research into DV and the larger scope of misandry, a pattern emerged that put men down on every occasion and boosted women on every occasion. This came from everywhere and was highly consistent. Men were pitted against women in every field and every area you could imagine; from cooking, to working, to driving, to dress sense, to eating habits, to hygiene, to even waking up in the morning. Women were brilliant and men were losers.

But my research led me to completely different conclusions. Men were not worse than women at x, y and z. They were not losers, nor were they obsolete, dying out, useless, criminals and less intelligent than women.

The reality is that men have never wished to be pitted head-to-head with women and be in competition with them. It makes no sense and is an artificial state of being. It is a small subset of women that have created this rivalry, aided and abetted by a small group of men, but with the eager support of a multitude of enthusiastic women and an equal multitude of bemused men.

The fact is that when men are artificially put in competition against women, men win virtually every time. There’s is no other way it could be and so what happens is that the results are fudged and skewed and ignored and misrepresented to present the false image of female superiority. In the work place, on the sports field, on the stage, in words, pictures, art or science, in music in philosophy in the creative fields – in virtually all areas of working life where men and women can be measured against one another, men come out on top.

But here’s the thing: it doesn’t matter.

The issue – the real issue – is that this simply doesn’t matter. Or at least it shouldn’t. Men and women were never meant to be in competition with each other. The results when they do compete are meaningless and disruptive except to people who seem to have no idea of how the human race got where it is today. People who have no real idea of men and women and what they want from each other and so choose to impose a hate-riven ideology instead. People who, unfortunately, are in great control of all of our lives.

The films and this site are focused on tackling misandry. Any disparagement of some or all women is not the purpose or even a significant part of the work. Women do come in for some criticism and the truth is not dressed up or softened for the sake of women’s sensibilities. The films are about men and for men, and they tell the truth. The real truth. Not the politically correct truth. Not the Oprah truth. Not the BBC truth. Not the advertisers’ truth. Not the manufactured truth. Not the invented truth.

If you watch them as a woman, and if you read this site as a woman, don’t be so shocked that it’s not the usual BBC fare telling you that women can do anything men can do. And do it better. And do it in heels.

You have an entire article here on Toxic women. Only a man who seriously hates women could write something like that!

Oh really? It so happens that the toxic women article is the second most read post on this site,  behind one on false allegations. The reason it’s so often landed on is that it presents a stark viewpoint on the issues with women who are toxic in the general population, but who are never regarded or described as such.

Once again, it’s a matter of approach and I took a very hard line with the presentation of certain real-world issues. It is a partly satirical and deliberately extreme view of genuine problems with the behaviour of a great many women in our society. Ask a man who’s been through divorce; ask a father who’s ex-wife prevents him seeing his children; ask an employer sued for spurious sexual harassment; ask a man who finds out 10 years down the road that his kid isn’t actually his; ask a man who’s girlfriend ‘accidentally’ gets pregnant; ask a man falsely accused of domestic violence; ask men who have spent time in prison because they had consensual sex with a woman who then decided to cry rape.

However, to be absolutely clear, and much to the disappointment of those malicious individuals who think that the article refers to all women, it does not.

You are married, so why do you speak out against marriage? Are you a hypocrite?

Asked and answered. Marriage suits me because my wife and I are unusual cats. But marriage in general is dead and women killed it, encouraged by Feminists of course. Every woman that smiles as she nails her ex-husbands ass to the wall on divorce and thinks she’s won something wouldn’t smile so broadly if she could see the target she has allowed to be drawn on her own ass.

Any woman who embraces the legal system against her erstwhile husband and thinks the system is her ally, is sadly deluded and can’t see how she weakens herself and the future of her children. The government is no friend or ally to anyone except itself. Men instinctively know this, women instinctively don’t.

You say that women are stupid? How is that not misogynistic?

Once again, I’m talking about some women. Certain women. The women at issue. The women I’m talking about. How many different ways can I put it when it’s so obvious in the context of the film anyway?

The women I’m talking about are Feminist women. Any woman who calls herself a Feminist and/or supports Feminism I regard as a stupid woman. This is irrespective of any kind of qualification like equalist Feminist, equity Feminist, orphan-loving Feminist, not-like-those-other-Feminists Feminist etc. This is not misogyny, it’s merely an appropriate description. Incidentally, the same applies to male Feminists of course.

How do you feel about being thought of or labelled as a misogynist?

Intellectually, I know it isn’t true and that most sensible people will know it’s not true and I can dismiss such accusations.

However, on the other hand, it is still a horrible smear and a label that it completely misplaced, completely unwarranted and completely unfair.

So, in response to the online accusations I might come across, I reject them utterly. They are the empty allegations of the simple-minded bigot and I have to let these go and just ignore them.

However, in response to any such accusation in my personal life, I don’t see any way that I could accept it in the same way. There is no ignoring it and no brushing it off.

For anyone who knows me to dare to call me such a thing, or to treat me as a hateful person, is a person I regard as beneath contempt. For me, who has spent years crafting and presenting my thoughts in a very complex area of human relations, it would count as one of the worst insults I can conceive of. It could only be the result of an ignorant, knee-jerk mentality and I don’t need people like that around me.

Anyone that came at me with this would be treated like the piece of work they are. I would reject any such accusation and would have to reject them as well, regardless of consequences.

Will you be producing more of the same in future?

Yes and no. Future work will be markedly different because I am a different person to the one of several years ago and my understanding of the issues has changed. The Truth, Lies and the War on Men project has served a purpose in the current time. Future work, however, will probably be quite different.

A rude awakening

To sum up, in our society, women are wholly unfamiliar with being described in anything other than glowing terms. At the same time women are also unfamiliar with men being described in anything other than negative terms.

Elsewhere, men are rapists and abusers and paedophiles and controlling and harassers and stalkers and all round mean individuals. In contrast women are great, women are strong, women are wise,  women are special and women are oppressed. When women do wrong it’s probably the fault of a man. If they kill a man he deserved it. If they murder their babies, she’s a wonderful mother with a tragic psychological problem. Hell, women are so virtuous, even when they are convicted criminals we don’t think they should go to prison.

So, I can fully sympathise with the adverse reactions of  women coming to these films and this site and encountering genuine descriptions of male and female behaviour: it’s a form of culture shock.

These Cosmo chicks swim in mainstream media sycophancy towards women and the wholesale demonization of men. Yet here, men are the builders, the architects, the engineers, the scientists, the street sweepers, the electricians, the sportsmen and the writers and so I do understand how all this may be too much to compute.

Positivity about men which they probably haven’t encountered before + negativity about women where deserved, which they most definitely haven’t encountered before = shock, anger and denial.

To you I say, ask yourself why you find the material so uncomfortable. Ask yourself why you feel it is hateful or unfair towards women,and perhaps even toward you.

Now imagine this discomfort or anger you feel, due to one youtube channel and one website (that is but a blip in the world) multiplied by a million. Imagine it wasn’t just one or two or a dozen websites that spoke negatively about women where deserved, but literally millions of sites speaking negatively, even when not deserved. And this same hatred played out in the media, in Hollywood films, from the president and prime ministers of nations, from charities, from businesses, from the UN and from the school system in which you were educated.

That’s what it is to be male under Feminist governance, yet you expect me to give you the time of day because your feelings are hurt by the language used in my films?

Why I do this

What led me to commence this work which has taken so much time and effort to produce? What motivates me to continue with more and better work going forwards? Where does the energy come from when there is so much else in life to be getting on with?

I do it because there is little else that I regard as more important to me, my son, and my family. I know what lies in store for my boy in our institutions and I’m thankful that my knowledge means that I can hopefully spare him the worst of it. When he’s treated to government presentations that demonise him, or made to walk a mile in her shoes, or made to pledge he will do his best not to follow his bestial male nature and rape women, when even as a 5 year old boy, the school system – which has little interest in his education anyway – will try and convince him he’s a born abuser etc, etc

When these things occur as they will in some form or other, I will do what I can to ameliorate it and explain why it’s happening. I will try my best to help him understand why so many women (and some men) collude in it, rationalise it and excuse it and even attack me for having the temerity to point it out and not just suck it up.

I’m trying to find a way forward for me and mine, just as every man tries to do.

Related

As a side note, it so happens that Paul Elam at a voice for men has written a similar article regarding the issue of meritless attacks against MRA’s and the chosen tactics of the MRM.

Share

So, I attended the UCL debate on Tuesday 28 February and filmed most of it, although not under ideal circumstances.

I went along to support Tom Martin and was also encouraged to go by several MRA contacts who recommended it to me. I spoke directly with Tom and he also invited me down. In due course, I will incorporate some of the footage from the debate into other work, but this is to note some thoughts on the event, and more particularly, an incident which occurred afterwards.

The Main Event

I no longer generally debate Feminists for the simple reason that I have never found it to be very productive. My understanding of Feminism leads me to conclude that debate is not relevant to fighting it in any large part because the argument is already won on an intellectual basis. In fact, there simply is no argument on a rational basis. Of course, therein lies the rub: Feminism does not draw its power from rational argument, it draws it from our feelings, which in turn are drawn from our biology.

The bottom line is that Feminism works because people believe in it, not because its true. They believe in it even when presented with evidence showing that it’s categorically not true. They believe in it in the same unconditional way that parents love their children.

The debate was titled: “Is Feminism Sexist?”. To me that’s like a debate called: “Is Racism Racist?”

Estelle Hart (self-described radical Feminist, left), chairman (centre), and Tom Martin
(NB See end of article for a fuller debate summary)

The debate ran as I would have expected and there were no surprises. Tom Martin gave a good account of himself; Steve Moxon attempted the impossible and tried to explain the complexity of evolutionary psychology in under 1 minute (please read his book); there were a number of “can’t we all just get along?” types; a couple of male-feminists who were disappointed in the comments from men (hell, let’s be more honest; they were disappointed in being born male); lots of emotion from a couple of women about how discussing false rape meant that genuine rape was being trivialised; and the good, old fashioned man-hating types embodied by the substantial Estelle Hart.

Sigh. Nothing to see here.

The Aftermath

The debate came and went and then it was off to a restaurant for further discussion for myself, Tom Martin, Steve Moxon, and a few other guys who shall remain nameless – on threat of launching legal action against me, no less.

Yep, you heard that right and let me be clear: I was invited to the debate by Tom Martin; I took time out of a very busy day to attend an event that had little value to me as an MRA and almost zero value to my research; I filmed the event and the restaurant discussion at the request of Tom Martin to help him make a documentary. And the reaction from several of those individuals present was to threaten me with legal action should their precious mugs make it into the public domain.

They would sue me in their fight against the ravages of Feminist-ideology. This is the way they chose to treat me, with threats to one of their own trying to make as much of a difference as humanly possible. They could smile and shake the hands of any of the Feminists they encountered that night, but me, they choose to threaten. You couldn’t make this stuff up.

I don’t get angry easily regarding this business, I’m more of a quiet simmer-er who will get annoyed, ruminate on it, and then put it into a film two years later. But these guys really pissed me off.

I have heard many stories of men’s groups collapsing due to infighting and ego’s and bad attitudes and strong philosophical differences etc, and the behaviour towards me of these miserable specimens makes it clear to me how this comes about.

As the naked panic from these individuals traversed the room at the thought of publicity, I wondered if it was because they specifically didn’t want to be associated with any of my work personally i.e. “Appear in one of your rubbish videos? No thanks”. But it turned out that it ran deeper than that.

Alongside me, there was another guy there obviously at Tom’s request, with pro-video kit, filming everything too. I imagine that he was then at a loss as to what he was even doing there when 6 out of the 8 men around the table all demanded that their identities not be revealed in any way at all, even with pixellation.

Now, I myself have withheld my full identity from my work (for now), and so I fully understand the basis of the fear that these men were displaying. Livelihoods are at stake, after all. My issue, was that even when I gave assurances that the footage would only form part of my own research and would not be made public, they still harped on about my not using it and then one waste-of-space author decided to offer the threat to sue me, and then another worthless specimen decided to chime in with the same threat.

The idea that I would ever, in a million years, seek to cause harm to other men in the movement is so obnoxious, so deeply antagonistic and so utterly contemptible, that it took my breath away. I tried to keep my temper under control and understand that this was not about me personally, it was not even about my work (which would be of no concern to me anyway: You don’t like my stuff? Your business). It was the idea that I was some sort of subversive or infiltrator, rather than being someone on the same team that I found intolerable. This is just one aspect of the male condition I suppose, but it is really misplaced and I find it unforgivable.

Does the MRM even exist?
My most recent experience says no.

One idiot, the aforementioned waste-of-space author, said that I hadn’t announced myself as manwomanmyth. I said that I was invited to the debate and the meal by Tom and you can see you are being filmed. You even did an introduction to the camera for over a minute about who you were and what you believed (I didn’t speak this last part aloud), and it didn’t occur to you to think the footage might be used? And ascribed to you, the man who just gave his name and introduction on camera? Good grief, it’s great to know that the MRM has such distinguished rocket scientists on the team.

The fact is, with the limited equipment I had, the room was too dark to get valuable footage and so it was purely research material. However, even if it was top quality and usable, I would be entirely disinclined to use my time and efforts to do anything whatsoever for such nasty, acrimonious, underhand, piss-poor excuses for MRA’s.

Based on their pointless and intellectually defunct arguments over the the very language that should be used to define the MRM (yes, this was what they spent most of the time I was there discussing), these tossers can rest easy that I have no interest now, nor would I have any interest in future in hearing their opinions, filming them or even wasting hard disk space with their precious points of view.

As I packed up to leave, two or three individuals, including one of the ignorant, threatening twits, wanted to tell me that they really liked my material and thought I was doing a great job. Really? Cheers. And you know what else? Fuck you.

Right now, I feel the need to repeat something I said sometime to someone, that is clearly (and sadly) still true. The only reason I do this work (and it is a lot of work) is for me and more recently, my son.

If it was for men, or the MRM, or for characters like those people I unfortunately wasted my time upon today, it wouldn’t be worth doing.

_______________________________

PS I would like to make clear that this article does not relate to the author Steve Moxon, whom I admire greatly. It refers solely to some other unsavoury specimens I was unfortunate enough to meet after the debate.

Addendum – A fuller debate summary

NB This is from someone else and his name will be added later.

Debate: Is feminism sexist? Held: Tues 28^th February 2012

Tom Martin vs Estelle Hart at UCL in London

Summary:

It was a lively debate from audience members. The MRAs had a good representation but were outnumbered by the pro-feminist students (female and mangina males). The event was filmed and was due to be continued in a nearby restaurant afterwards.

There was a sudden change of lecture theatre at the start due to numbers and I originally sat centrally in front of a row of feminist students. I moved because I found some of their talk irritating. Nevertheless I did pick up that they had classified the MRAs present as a bunch of middle aged men losers. The male students would not identify with such a group of losers and naturally sided with their female compatriots. Any young fem supporter that said anything in favour of feminism received enthusiastic applause. There was a clear division from the start.

The problem with debates is that as an audience member you only get one crack at a comment when what you need to do is engage in an exchange.

Tom Martin opened with an intense 10 minute citation of the case for why feminism was sexist. He had done a fair bit of preparation and presented a volume of statistics to support his case. Estelle Hart’s counter was basically to pour scorn on his facts, but also to plead that feminism was about reasonableness and fairness for men as well as women. The direction of the feminist attack was to try to show the MRAs as a tiny and unsupported fringe movement of middle aged men who had no case to answer and that life was all fair. However, they would not support such things as male officers in universities. They had not read, nor were interested in reading any MRA literature. They rejected or ignored any research presented by MRAs.

There was tendency to regard MRAs as non-mainstream and this influenced one or two who claimed to be neutral, but not well read.

I had warned Tom about the standard emotional feminist, who at some stage stands up to decry rape and sure enough on queue one delivered her statement with tears in her eyes. It was a bit like the stereotypical ‘pregnant woman’ you see in disaster movies.

I think it clearly shows how our young people have been contaminated by feminist dogma and see feminism as ‘cool’ and the norm. They have accepted it without questioning it. They see laws and the enactment of those laws as fair. MRAs are out-of-touch and griping about things that are not real to them. I couldn’t help but feel that some of the young men are some day going to get a rude awakening when they are accused of a sex crime or decide they would like children. The thing is though, I doubt whether any of them will marry anyway. Many will probably stay away from actually producing babies unless they are conned. All I can say is watch the video when it comes out.

UPDATE

13 March 2012

I have been contacted by one of the men at issue in this article, the first one that threatened legal action against me. He has explained at length what led to his threat, he has apologised unreservedly and says that he thinks I was justified in responding the way I did in this article.

I have since reviewed the audio recording of the meeting and I’m positive that the thrust of the article stands, including the language I use within it.

That said, his explanation goes some way towards ameliorating the situation. He explained that it was partly to do with a belief that I was from the Fawcett society which was due to someone suggesting this as a joke. I didn’t register it at the time but that ‘joke’ is indeed on the recording. However, it was clearly established later in the discussion that this was not true and I was vouched for by more than one person present. That makes this weak mitigation.

He said he had no idea who I was because he had not come across my work before, so he felt that he simply over-reacted due to not enough information about what was going on. However, the recording makes it clear that  my position was known to the extent that another person even said to him after his threat that “this guy does not deserve this hostility”. But it fell on deaf ears.

So the situation is complex because all was in agreement about not using the footage, people had gone out of their way to calm things down and vouch for me, and then for no reason whatsoever, the legal threat was made.

But he’s made the effort to explain and I think he is honest. On balance, I am willing to accept his explanation and apology and that he got carried away, and I have said to him that we should put it behind us and he agreed.

Personally, I think that Tom should have been the one to sort this all out before it became a problem, and he admits as much in the recording. But he had his hands full with the debate and he was the person we were all there for anyway, so it counts as one-of-those-things that can happen in this business.

However, none of this applies to the other piece-of-work at issue here. The recording shows his complete familiarity with my work to the extent that he even recognised my voice from the videos. And a quote from him? Nameless prick says: “I know you’re one of us, you’re one of our guys”. And then the tool proceeds to threaten.

There is no excuse whatsoever for his behaviour in joining in the threat to sue. This character is precisely the ugly truth of the MRM I was so surprised to uncover. So, unfortunately for me, I am left with the reality that with certain apologies and explanations aside, the article must stand.

Share

I am on a break from much in the way of men’s activism whilst I research and gather more material for some new films.

So this is just a short one to heap copious praise on a consummate MRA and one of the best comedians around right now – Bill Burr.

I liked this guy’s comedy from some time ago, before I really twigged he was an MRA and that attests to the quality of his work and delivery. He sends fantastic messages, is very supportive of men, he understands the reality of misandry and institutional bias against men, and his analysis of women and female behaviour is exceptionally accurate.

He gives no quarter when describing what he sees in female behaviour and this is best exemplified by his video on the heinous Kobe Bryant divorce settlement and also his podcast on divorce.

I’ve enjoyed all his stand-up routines and many of his podcasts, but the video that led directly to this article was his analysis of the McDonalds Beat-down. It is second-to-none, razor-sharp delivery and I laughed out loud on the first, second and third listen. And when I’m done writing this, I think I’ll watch it again.

If you’re not into Bill Burr, get into him now. Support his stand-up, subscribe to his podcast, buy whatever shit he’s selling, dye your hair red in homage – do what you’ve got to do to support this all-too-rare species of man: the MRA.

And even more than that, an MRA in full effect and in the public eye, who is funny as hell and getting better all the time.

The MRM has a genuine hero on the front line, and his name is Bill Burr.

Update

And more from Bill Burr on divorce – this guy is just too good.

Share

I’m an Englishman who’s been following the progress of US Presidential candidate Ron Paul with some interest.

He’s a stranger in a strange land: a man of principle in a country which – let’s be honest – has long lost any real sense of principle in its leadership. I’m not out to bash Americans or the whole American establishment (UK, pot, kettle, black and all that), but a lot of the problems begin there and spread elsewhere on the back of dead men, bombs and Hollywood.

The knives are out for Mr Paul and there is a concerted effort to dismember him because of the threat he poses to an establishment that is very comfortable sitting on the people and has no wish to move or even so much as shift its weight. However, I thought it worth noting that the sharpest and most vicious knife has yet to be drawn. It is the knife called “women”.

When ‘women’s groups’ decide that there is a real danger likelihood of Ron Paul getting to the White House, the Feminist lobby composed of Feminists and women who are not quite comfortable calling themselves Feminists (but who are very comfortable in grasping all the benefits corruptly won by them), will attack him.

Ron Paul won’t be brought down by tales of racism or other mud slinging, nor will he lose to the motley collection of war-mongers and useful idiots standing against him. He will be brought down by women who realise what a Ron Paul Presidency would look like.

Ron Paul is a civil libertarian. He is against collectivism. He sees people as individuals and not as groups. That kind of thinking is kryptonite to Feminists and women.

Special interests of all kinds will be shown the door, and this is not just the military industrial complex and other hard-core lobbyists, it’s also VAWA and the council on women and girls and affirmative action for women. It is this ‘anti-victimhood’ that will sink Ron Paul, should he make it into real contention.

He will be asked the question: “What would President Ron Paul do for women?”
He will answer: “No more than I would do for any other group.”

And that will be the end of his candidacy. Women want to be treated like victims and no politician will get anywhere doing otherwise.

The misandry bubble cannot and will not burst in a democracy, because women would never vote for it. Let’s face it, whilst we have what we laughably term ‘democracy’, we will have the one special interest group that is going nowhere; the special interest of women.

And that’s why we’ll sink into the ground under debt and war-mongering and excessive spending and female-focused education policy and wrongheaded reallocation of resources to women – because women will keep voting for it and will vote against anyone that does differently.

When more than half the voting population (women) votes near-exclusively for their own interests, and the rest (men) are also concerned with voting for women’s interests, it is not rocket-science to determine the inevitable result.

Just kidding, of course.

The tyranny of the majority

A question that has to be asked in our times is: “Can Feminism be effectively fought in a democracy?” It’s a question with most likely a horrible answer.

For Ron Paul, Feminism will come to have a very significant meaning. Where the snarling media, the establishment, the other special interests, the other candidates and his own republican party will likely fail to stop him, women massed under the banner of imagined oppression, will stop him stone cold.

You go, girl.

We can therefore look forward to more of the same corruption in government. More young men sent to die in far off wars, more corporatism, more welfare, more big government, less freedom, more spending and more self-destruction.

Gotta love democracy. Makes what we call ‘tyranny’ seem mild in comparison.

UPDATE

10 January 2012

He finally said it out loud (Youtube clip at 0:45s):

“I, in a way, don’t like to use those terms: gay rights, women’s rights, minority rights, religious rights. there is only one type of right, it’s the right to your liberty”.

Well said, Mr Paul, but the special interest group of women won’t agree with you.

Share

“Once you see what Feminism really is – you cannot unsee.”
- MRA proverb

Dramatic and powerful expose of RadFem Hub a Feminist coven populated by a number of women who wish to see men exterminated or enslaved. Literally.

These women are not some strange breed of cave-dweller with a screw loose, these are authors, tv personalities, academics, child-care workers, teachers and lawyers. Fairly ordinary Feminist women whom you might come across anywhere. Someone you work with. Your boss. Your assistant. A colleague.

Here, these women are named and shamed for the hateful bigots they are.

An MRA infiltrated their network and has collected huge amounts of damning material showing the hateful core of Feminism to all who care to look. It demonstrates the fact long known to the Men’s Movement, that from it’s deepest roots to the tips of its highest leaves, Feminism is a virulent cancer.

Feminism breeds hatred, begets hatred and is composed of people consumed with hatred. Open your eyes and see Feminism for what it is and always has been.

A few examples of Feminism’s true colours:

Men are defective	Boys are predators	Blow men up!	Eliminate or cull men

• Background information on the expose
  
• Announcement of the release of the files
  
• Agent Orange website
• Download Agent Orange files (zip)

Some light video entertainment for your typical Feminist.

Starring the following bigots:

• Josefin von Zeipel Segerberg
• Elin Danielson
• Emma Orn
• Matilda Bordin
• Sara Ostebro
• Ellen Lindhagen
• Kaisa Liisa Strand
• Johan Wik

Share

Film 48 – Health
26m 32s

Looks at the disparity in health spending and health promotion between men and women and the female-focus in the activities of charities.

What are the consequences for men of society’s indifference to male health? (Read more…)

This video is posted on YouTube and is also available on the eDonkey file sharing network. See File Sharing Links for more details.

This film marks the end of the documentary series ‘Truth, Lies and the War on Men’.
More films are now in production, under a new working title of ‘Moving Forward’.

Share

Welcome to a round-up of new laws and initiatives coming to a legislature near you, very soon…

The Presumption of Future Divorce Act

Marriage law is now changed such that signing the marriage certificate brings forward the wholesale transfer of assets from husband to wife that more usually takes place upon the future divorce.

The new Presumption of Future Divorce Act states that in order to make any future divorce more efficient, men must transfer all bank accounts, businesses and property into the wife’s name on signing of the marriage certificate. It is hoped that this new legislation will bring down the cost and stress of divorce and allow women full control of their husband’s assets immediately, without the extended delays common with the divorce process.

Businesses celebrated the new law by offering all newly-wed women a special pampering weekend for only $4999 (specially reduced from $5000) and an unlimited line of credit at fashion stores. They said the take up of the offers has been phenomenal. One newly married woman exclaimed: ”I could never have afforded this without this great change in the law. My husband would never spend like this and the financial freedom I now enjoy can only strengthen our marriage.”

When asked, husbands-to-be shrugged and cited that it was not something that bothered them because: “divorce is something that happens to other people, and in any event, my future wife is not like that.”

The DNA Contributors Act

Government today formalised what has always been unofficially practiced and enforced by the family court and stripped all fathers of legally presumed parental rights.

The new law means that all fathers are now officially renamed DNA Contributors and their sole legal right is the responsibility to pay for their child’s upbringing. Women’s groups said that this was a perfectly fair arrangement as “no mother would deny a man access to his child if he was a decent DNA Contributor”, and it would greatly simplify custody hearings because such hearings would simply no longer be necessary.

“Formalising the arrangement between mothers and sperm donor in this way, makes it much easier for mothers to deal with DNA Contributors who are not behaving as she would like”, said Charlotte Harpy of the campaign group ‘Mother Knows Best’. “And it also makes it easier for the DNA Contributors, because they now know ahead of time that they will fail to see their children if they go to court, rather than kidding themselves over years and years of court appearances, that there might be a chance. Everybody wins.”

DNA Contributor groups did not offer a comment as they were too busy designing a logo for their new name: ‘DNA Contributors 4 Justice’.

The Legal Human Castration Act

Hilarious Katherine cuts for pleasure.

From today, it is legally permissible for a wife to castrate her husband or boyfriend if she has suffered abuse from him in the past. The evidence required to prove that she received abusive treatment from the castrated spouse, is a sworn statement from the woman that he was indeed abusive and/or made her cry.

The minimum required level of abuse for her to be acquitted, is set at shouting and/or door-slamming. Dame Brenda Hale was also said to offer that: “periods of ignoring her for longer than 60 minutes and the purchase of one or more unwanted gifts for the woman would also count as abuse severe enough to justify castration.”

Further, the man would not be permitted to ask that she actually prove that he was abusive, because the Legal Human Castration Act presumes that in enduring the unpleasant task of severing his testicles, she has suffered enough.

The All Female University Act

All-female universities are to open now that so few men are doing well enough to attend university.

It is thought that bringing proper focus to women – who now make up the vast majority of students – would help bring equality to education by delivering more appropriate tuition to women, who are continually denied this when men occupy the same campus.

University doors and entryways can now officially be painted pink, rather than just metaphorically and university staff have come out fully in favour of the new measures. As Samantha Smeghead, professor of Gender Studies remarked: “Women will finally be able to express themselves more freely with the patriarchal agents removed from the classroom and, anyway, men tend to make the campus look scruffy.”

It is also thought that incidences of campus sexual assault and rape should be much reduced, seeing as the only men on campus will be janitors and gardeners. All such staff will be required to work in pairs and made to wear police monitored electronic tags. Additionally, an armed female supervisor will be close by, ready to respond in case of any attempts of sexual harassment by the men, or even worse, any attempt to enrol.

Women’s groups lauded the proposals and it is expected to pass into law without opposition. Men’s groups could not be reached for comment, as it was Superbowl weekend.

The Women’s Prison Closure Act

Women’s prisons are to formally close their doors to women with immediate effect. Existing female prisons will be converted to men’s prisons after being renovated to make them less comfortable.

The government has fully adopted the proposals put forward by the Women’s Justice Taskforce in 2011 and has decided that prison is not the right punishment for female criminals. Women will now not face the arduousness of trials for their crimes and will instead face a three-woman panel to decide what level of community service she will need to serve, dependent on the severity her crime.

Murder will carry a maximum sentence of 3 years service, which might consist of working most weekends at shelters for battered women or similar severe punishment. She will also be required to write an essay, explaining why what she did was wrong.

The Presumption of Abuse Act

Murder of a husband or boyfriend will carry much less severe sentences than other murders under the new Presumption of Abuse Act, which affords women the legal presumption of acting in self-defence whenever she kills an intimate male partner. This will save the court’s time and tax payer’s money, by fast-tracking women who kill their male partners and sparing them the trauma of a long investigation or trial, or having to demonstrate a syndrome.

Men’s groups sent several emails in protest, saying that this made them “second-class citizens”. The Prime Minister responded in parliament that men needed to: “stop whining and man-up! Women would not go back in the box and if you are unlucky enough to be killed or castrated by your spouse, then you undoubtedly deserved it.”

The Extended Abortion Act

Women can now no longer be prosecuted for killing their children, provided that the child is younger then 3 years old.

The new Late Abortion Act allows women to extend her existing licence to kill a child, from the current maximum 24 weeks after conception, to the new maximum of 3 years after birth, providing she can find a women’s advocate to testify that she is afflicted by one of the 216 distinct syndromes that are claimed to only affect women.

It is expected that most women will still use the favourite Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy when they murder their babies. However, others are expected to try out the newer Abdication of Responsibility Syndrome and  Temporary Loss of Adulthood Syndrome. Still others, might go for the brand new Comprehensive Female Multi-Spectrum Generic Temporary Loss of Any and All Responsibility Disorder Syndrome (by Proxy), which is a cutting-edge catch-all syndrome, to help women who cannot be adequately protected from punishment by using one of the other 215 syndromes.

“With this newly invented safety syndrome”, says its inventor Beverley Simpleton (known in academia affectionately, as BS), “It is hoped that no woman who is unfortunate enough to have killed her children, might suffer the indignity of being punished for it.”

The House of Commons erupted into laughter at the idea that men’s psychology should be investigated to find out if men might have equivalent syndromes to explain their murders of children or spouses, saying that it was: “a sickening attempt to subvert justice by hiding behind faux psychology.”

“It is misogynistic attitudes like that”, added one MP, “that are holding women back and preventing real equality.”

The Rape Allegation Act

The burden of proof in rape cases has been officially moved onto the accused man in rape cases and now, any women who claims to have suffered rape, has only to identify the rapist to secure prosecution.

Investigations to establish prima facie guilt are no longer required and nor is any forensic evidence. On being charged with rape, it is now wholly up to the man to prove he did not commit the crime.

Women’s groups heralded this decision as a victory for common sense, citing the well established fact that a woman “would never lie about rape” and that this saved the tax payer money at a time when we can ill afford to spend it “defending men from crimes they undoubtedly must have committed”.

Men who find themselves unable to prove that a rape did not occur, will now receive a mandatory 20 year prison term without need for an expensive trial. A win-win for the British economy and women’s rights.

When asked, men said that this “didn’t seem right, somehow”, but then again, “it wouldn’t happen” to them and there were more important things in life, such as “the NBA Finals and breasts.”

The Sexual Harassment Protection Act

Sexual harassment law received a boost today when a tribunal ruled that a woman could be sexually harassed by an unborn baby boy.

The woman, who remains nameless for legal reasons, claimed that she felt and somehow just knew that the unborn baby boy, in only his second trimester, was: “looking at me through his mothers belly and seemed to be undressing me with his eyes”. The distraught complainant has received undisclosed damages, and the unborn boy has been pre-expelled from school and placed on the sex offenders registry.

In another case, a woman has won 5 million dollars from McCrapalds restaurants by claiming that she was sexually harassed by a customer more than six years ago, when he ordered a burger and said: “Hey, you have really nice eyes”. The unnamed victim has been under medical supervision ever since the traumatic incident and cannot sleep due to the recurrent nightmares.

McCrapalds has stated that they would be taking all necessary steps to save women from compliments and all unwanted attention from men by building special screens in all restaurants, so that no one could see anyone else and also installing audio equipment that would automatically screen out all words that did not involve ordering burgers, nuggets or fries.

Male customers will have to email their orders from the front of the store and robot arms will hand the food to them through hatches to avoid any possibility of female workers experiencing unwanted physical contact with male customers. Female customers, however, would enter through a different restaurant entrance and order direct with staff as usual.

Women’s groups claimed that this was an important victory for the rights of women in the workplace, who should be able to work “without fear of being spoken to or looked at by men in any way at all.”

Men’s groups, headed by contributors at ‘Reddit – should men have rights?’ (also known by the misnomer, ‘Reddit men’s rights’) agreed that the rights of women should be paramount no matter what small inconveniences befell men.

“To disagree with such an arrangement might cast the men’s movement in a bad light”, opined the folks at Reddit. “We are not here to upset women or stand in the way of women’s rights no matter what they demand. We stand in support of men’s rights as long as they come behind women’s, children’s, animals and plants rights. We know our place.”

Women’s groups seemed quite surprised at this and only added: “They took the words right out of our mouths.”

The Women’s Health Act

The government today agreed that health spending for women, currently eight times that of men, and up to 100 times that of men in some areas, was not sufficiently addressing the health needs of women.

The Minister for Women and Girls stated that: “it is the priority of any modern society to invest in the well-being of women. It is abominable that women are not receiving adequate funding towards this aim, while men continue to receive funds that could be better spent on women.” To this end, the government announced today, that all spending on male health will cease with immediate effect, with all funding re-allocated to female health.

Spending on female health would receive a further boost with the diversion of funding currently used to reduce workplace deaths, suicides and homelessness. Women’s groups celebrated this, stating that: “as women are barely affected by these other issues, it is only right that the money should instead go into female health where it would save women’s lives.”

The Pension Reform Act

Women sure have it rough.

Women’ groups were delighted today as the government reversed their decision to bring women’s retirement age into line with the age for men: “This shows that government is finally listening to the needs of women who suffer discrimination at every turn.”

Instead of equalizing the retirement age at 67 for both sexes, men, who have worked until 65 years of age since 1950 in England, will now be required to work until age 75 to make up the shortfall in taxation, whilst women stay at their current retirement age of 60. With men’s life expectancy in England currently being 76 years, women’s groups were quick to point out that men retiring at age 75 still afforded the average man “the luxury of a full year of retirement to enjoy with their families. What more could a man want?”

A spokeswoman for women’s advocate group ‘Women have it Rough: Always Have and Always Will’ said: “Whilst it’s true that men have for the last 70 years, worked until age 65 whilst women have retired at age 60; and whilst it’s true that disproportionate spending on women’s health means that women live longer and therefore have a long retirement, whereas men die soon after retirement; and whilst it’s also true that it is mainly men who contribute the bulk of money to pay for retirement benefits that only women live to enjoy, the fact remains that women should be getting a better deal.”

The women’s group ‘Women, Women and Only Women’ added:“The fact that women are female must be of overriding significance to any civilized society. Women deserve more.”

Men’s groups said that they would much prefer that men didn’t have to work right up to the average age of male death in order to fund women’s retirement. However, they accepted that it’s a man’s duty to do whatever he can for women, particularly because “women have it so bad in our society.”

In a rare show of solidarity with men, women’s groups fully agreed.

Share

A big thanks to followers of this site and the Youtube channel, shout-outs for other channels and a brief update on future plans.

Highly Recommended Youtube channels:

• Chapin’s Inferno
• A Voice for Men
• barbarossaaaa
• HelperDogFromHell

Related articles

• About the Video Project

Share