Archive for October, 2013

You’ve all seen the meme – women hold up signs that say I need feminism because and then underneath is written a reason that shows how horribly oppressed women are in the western world. Do they comment on important things, like being shot in the head for criticising the Taliban? Hell no, they complain about things like the ‘stare rape’ and refusing to be ‘another female stereotype’. Not quite sure what they even mean to be honest. A lot of what these pictures do is highlight just how ridiculous western feminism is. Stare rape? Way to undermine actual rape you complete dullard. Don’t want to be another female stereotype? Then…don’t be one, I don’t see how it’s that difficult. You don’t need an entire movement to help you not be a stereotype for fuck’s sake. Here’s how you stop being a stereotype – you find out what you consider to be a ‘female stereotype’ and then…just…don’t be that person. Simple, no?

I’m a metal drummer (as in, I drum heavy metal music, I’m not made of steel), I have long hair and, depending on my mood, a beard. Pretty stereotypical rock drummer. But here’s the deal-breaker, I’m a secondary school teacher, so I tie my hair back every day, put on a shirt and tie and go and teach some kids. Not a very stereotypical thing for a rock drummer to do. Break the cycle on your own, you don’t need anyone to help you do that. You don’t want to be stereotype, don’t fucking be one, it really is that simple.

All these memes show, to me anyway, is how much of a victim culture feminism has created. They talk about why they need feminism, but a lot of what they say is mind-numbingly stupid. Take a look at some of these: need feminism because

Your mom taught you calculus? It should be accepted that men are for women’s rights? Making a comment like ‘you’ve got the man gene’ is insulting? Rape is rape shouldn’t be radical? Wolf whistling is degrading? The only one of those that even slightly has any merit is the last one, and you know what, if you don’t like being wolf whistled then tell the tool who’s doing it, don’t run to your pen and paper and write a whiny little note about it.

If your mum taught you calculus, that’s fantastic, I don’t see what feminism can do with that one seeing as most secondary school teachers are female. It should be accepted that men are for women’s rights? Who says they aren’t? Just because men don’t call themselves feminists doesn’t mean they aren’t for women’s rights. Those who fight unequivocally for women’s rights by blindly believing everything the feminists say are called manginas, not heroes. Making a comment like ‘you’ve got the man gene’ is simply a little play on the stereotype that women can’t read maps. When I’m asked to go and get something from the store cupboard at work I get told to ‘make sure I don’t just have a man look”. Do you see me with my pen and paper? Nope, because I have a sense of humour that’s why. I could go on, but the absurdity of the statements on those pages just boils my brain. Ultimately, what this meme boils down to is women (or more specifically, feminist women) will take any situation possible and play themselves as the victim.

It doesn’t do anything to highlight their cause, for me anyway. What it does do is insult those women who don’t have a victim complex by implying that women need the protection of feminism to walk down the street. It insults the intelligence and sense of humour of those women who can take a joke, and who can accept that some stereotypes exist. Women can’t read maps and men can’t multitask. Gonna get pissy over that? Go ahead, your tears are delicious!

Normally I can just laugh off these daft pictures, or console myself with the fact that there are women out there who make the ‘I don’t need feminism because’ pictures. But sometimes, just sometimes, a picture appears that makes me stop in my tracks. One of these insipid pictures appears that makes me do a double take and, just for a moment, makes me angry.

These are two pictures I saw recently, both extremely similar in wording and expressing an identical sentiment:

I’ll quote the first one, for the simple reason that it’s said by a man which will automatically piss the feminists off, “If it would destroy a 12 year old boy to be called a girl, what are we then teaching him about girls?” Now that quote is attributed to Tony Porter. One cursory glance at Google shows me that Tony Porter is a massive mangina, so automatically his words need to be taken with a giant handful of salt. However, it’s a sentiment that has obviously caught on with the feminists, as the second picture shows. The thing is, this picture could go either way, and I’ll explain why in a minute. But first, let’s take a look at the victim complex. Look at the use of language in both pictures. Words like ‘destroy’, ‘worst’ and ‘ever’ just show how manipulative these pictures are trying to be.

This is my point, the feminists can always spin something 180 degrees and, even if it’s nothing to do with them, and make it 100% about them and they way they are made to feel. I can think of so many things that, as a 12 year old, would ‘destroy’ me much more than being compared to a girl. Being told I couldn’t go round to a friend’s house, being told I wasn’t allowed to play rugby or go on the N64 if I’d been naughty, being told I wasn’t allowed to go to the shops because they were too far, being accused of something I didn’t do, being bollocked for something I did do, being bullied for being ginger, being bullied for being fat, being told I suck at a subject in school, being shouted at by a PE teacher for not being fast enough, and the list could go on and on. When you’re 12 years old, it’s pretty easy for something to ‘destroy’ you, so I would really like the feminists to get off their high horse and start complaining about things that actually matter, you know, like, terrorists shooting little girls in the head. That’s something worth getting your pen out for!

The second thing that this particular meme fails to consider is the 180 flip of that statement. Let me show you:

“If it were to destroy a 12 year old girl to be called a boy, what are we then teaching her about boys?”

Could we not apply the exact same sentiment to that version of the argument? Why are we always focusing on one gender’s side of things when such inflammatory comments can be applied to both sexes? I feel I’m in a great position as a teacher to see the kinds of things that both sexes go through, things that the feminists just don’t, or won’t, see. I teach 12 year old boys and girls and, let me tell you, comparing one sex to the other either a) never happens, or b) is met with a simple cry of “euuuuurgh” and the whole thing is laughed off. It says a lot about the feminist movement when 12 year old boys and girls have a better understanding of humour and sarcasm than grown men and women. 12 year old boys and girls are pretty good at shrugging stuff off, they’re pretty resilient. I’ve seen enough Vulcan death grips and ear punches that result in immediate apologies to know that, sometimes, you just gotta deal out some swift justice there and then. If a 12 year old girl whipped a pen and piece of paper out every time sometime said something she didn’t like I’d never finish a fucking lesson!

And then there’s the third thing – why shame the male character? Why shouldn’t a boy be offended if he’s compared to a girl? If he’s born male, identifies as male and is treated as a male by everyone he comes in to contact with, why should he see it as acceptable if someone compares him to a girl? Why should anyone be accepting if compared to the opposite sex? It would destroy him because he’s not a girl, and he never will be. It comes down to another feminist victim complex – anyone who doesn’t see the female sex as superior is sexist. What are we teaching little boys if we tell them it’s not the worst thing to be compared to a girl? We’re teaching him that his personality and gender mean absolutely nothing, that he should be honoured to be compared to the superior sex, not offended or outraged that somebody is not seeing the worth inherent within him just by being a man.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with identifying as male, in the same way I can understand how frustrating it is when women get compared to men. If women are allowed to get pissed off when we consider them to have ‘manly’ or ‘masculine’ traits, then why should we be so outraged when a boy feels the same when feminine traits are applied to them.

Here’s an idea: let boys be boys and girls be girls. Let them grow and develop in their own way, and let’s stop trying to shame them into dismissing their own identity because it’s seen as dirty or somehow not as worthy as being a girl. If it destroys a boy to be compared to a girl, perhaps look at the reasons why that boy is destroyed, perhaps look at how that completely erases any male identity he may have, perhaps look at the implications of a phrase that effectively says “you should be grateful to be compared to a girl because girls are superior”.

By playing the victim and implying that being compared to a woman is the ‘worst’ thing that can ‘ever’ happen to a boy you are completely twisting what is a natural feeling and simply creating an even bigger victim complex. Let’s just take it forward 10 years, that 12 year old boy is now a 22 year old man, I can sure think of a few more things that would ‘destroy’ him more than being called a girl:

False rape accusation

False domestic violence accusation

Being laughed at as the victim of domestic violence

Being laughed at as the victim of rape

Being demonised for earning more

Being demonised as a potential rapist

Having his child taken away by a corrupt family court system.

The list goes on

I’m pretty sure, in the grand scheme of things, being compared to a girl is a pretty minimal thing to happen to him in his life.

Victim complex, thy name is feminism.


So, the next couple of blogs (hopefully I’ll get one up tonight (Sunday) and one tomorrow (Monday) will be about, you guessed it, feminism. Although, not as prominently about feminism as past blogs entries. This time, feminism has given me the starting point, and it’s made me think about something related, but not altogether encompassing feminism.

That is; what exactly is my attitude towards women and equality? I’ve made enough blogs on here about how rotten I think feminism is, but I’ve not really made any comments about women specifically. Feminism and women are two completely different ideas in my mind. I can hate feminism without hating women. I can hate feminists without hating women, in the same way that hating Leicester Tigers doesn’t mean I hate every rugby team.

Just to stick on that analogy for a moment, if you don’t like rugby or have no idea of the inner workings then this might fly over your head. Simply put, substitute rugby for any sport and every time I mention a law (we call them laws in rugby, not rules) that is broken, substitute it for a rule in your sport and you should be fine.

Anyway, Leicester Tigers are a very successful team, possibly the most successful professional English rugby team ever. They’ve won numerous premiership titles, numerous European titles, have players representing countries all over the world and are pretty much always in the top 4 of the table. Their influence is pretty huge, much like feminism. They also cheat. A lot. They also get away with a lot of cheating, simply because they’re Leicester. There are a lot of times when they’ve won games because referees haven’t penalised them when they should, or been overly harsh to the other team. They moan a lot when they don’t win, always finding an excuse to explain it away, anything than admit they were beaten by the better side.

Can you see what I’m getting at? Leicester are a huge team, very much a casual fan’s team. The mentality of ‘I don’t really watch a lot of rugby, but Leicester are a good team so I want them to win’ takes over. Much like feminism. I see similarities between the two. Lots of power, lots of influence over others, very successful, always around in the media, lots of controversy around some of their members, some lenient treatment when they transgress, people who believe what they say even if they don’t really know what they’re all about and, to cap it all off, the most one-eyed supporters in the entire country. Sound familiar?

But, here’s the caveat – Leicester Tigers are one team out of hundreds in the country. I hate one team out of hundreds, probably thousands of others. One team. Do you see where I’m coming from? If we take Leicester Tigers as an allegory for feminism, then the thousands of other teams that permeate the country represent the rest of women, and I have no problem with the other clubs. Sure, there are some amateur clubs out there that I don’t particularly care for, but they aren’t significant to make an impact on my or others’ lives.

The point of this blog is to highlight, after that long winded introduction, that I don’t hate women. I’m intelligent enough to separate my hatred for feminism and my feelings for women in general. I grew up with a mother (funnily enough) and a sister who were very strong-willed, very independent, very fiery and, you guessed it, not feminists. They’ve never needed to identify as feminists because they’ve never had a victim complex, they’ve gone out there and taken what they wanted, got where they wanted to be and to hell with anyone who had anything else to say.

The point of all this is, I came across this picture on Facebook:

It was posted by Women’s Rights News. I have the exact same problem with this as I did with Moose Allain’s Twitter post a few weeks ago (check previous blogs for that response) – it’s a completely ignorant statement to make. First of all, it’s using highly emotive, manipulative language. The implication is very clear – only feminists are for equality, therefore if you aren’t a feminist you must hate women. It’s presented in such a black and white way as to be completely counter-productive. It alienates those people who deliberately don’t identify with anything and places a label on them that they don’t wish to have. It also completely ignores the intricacies of its own movement. By claiming everyone who wants equality is a feminist it paints a sweeping brush over the entire idea of equality. It would be like me saying everyone who eats cod is a fish lover and there’s no two ways about it. Well excuse me, I hate salmon, that doesn’t mean I like cod any less, it just means my love for seafood isn’t all consuming.

I’m not a feminist because I disagree with what the movement is trying to do, not because I disagree with equality. In fact, it’s because I agree with equality that I don’t call myself a feminist. As I’ve said numerous times, feminism is a disease; it’s a corrupt movement that preaches ‘equality’ in the form of superiority.

Moose Allain said in his blog that nothing would ever stop him calling himself a feminist. Well, regardless of what other people say, or how arbitrarily they slap a label on me, I will never, ever identify as a feminist. You can call me one all you like, the truth of the matter is I’m not, I never will be and you can’t change that. Trying to shame me into identifying with a movement I detest will not work, using snide remarks to try and guilt me into identifying with a movement I detest will not work and trying to add an unequivocal slant to an entirely subjective movement will not convince me otherwise.

You only have to look at the comments on any picture that Women’s Rights News puts up to see just how subjective feminism is. Even the slightly sane feminists on that page are completely blind to the hypocrisies and untruths prevalent within a movement they so blindly support. Any time a comment is posted that highlights a hypocrisy, or an untruth or a blatant lie the feminists are straight on the defensive. It’s very rare they will actually address a counter-point that has been made, often they will come right out with the abuse.

Point is, I love women, I don’t see them as second class citizens, I see them as just as capable as men. They can be smart, they can be funny, they can be strong, they can be generous and kind and giving and loyal and loving and dependable, just like men. On the other hand they can be lying, manipulative, demeaning, sexist, bitchy, confrontational cunts, just like men. If we want true equality then that means I shouldn’t have to be weary every time I criticise a woman. Criticising a woman is not sexist, it’s a necessary part of life. If you go through life not expecting to get criticised and getting pissed off every time you do, well that’s called a victim complex. It insults hard working, smart women every time the feminists put forward the agendas of affirmative action and gender quotas. It insults all those women who don’t need help getting to the upper echelons of a company. Not only that, it insults the women who don’t want to follow that type of career. Where are the feminists demanding that more women stay at home to look after the children? They claim to be for equality, but they are just as damaging to women by implying that women need to be in CEO positions to be worth a damn to society. If a woman wants to stay at home and raise a child then what fucking business is it of the feminists to get involved? If 4 people go for a job interview and it just so happens that the one woman is shit compared to the three men, why should the company be made to hire her just to make the feminists happy? What does that achieve? Nothing, it undermines the company, it insults other hard working women who don’t, and shouldn’t, need the helping hand and it instantly harbours an environment of resentment. Everybody will know why that one woman got the job at the expense of someone better, but they can’t do anything about it, because not having enough women in management positions is inherently sexist, skills, aptitude and general suitability for the job role can go to hell.

I’m not a feminist because I believe if a woman wants to programme games or become an MP or be a CEO then she should be able to do so without the helping hand of a misguided campaign. It’s not going to be easy, but what do they expect, do they think the men get an easy ride just because they’re men, or did they suffer a little bit of hazing too? I know I did when I was training to be a teacher. They make it hard to test your resolve. If you go crying to your ‘sisters’ every time it gets a little bit hard, or go running to the courts because some dickhead men gave you a hard time about your heels then it possibly shows you weren’t up to the job in the first place.

I’m not a feminist because I do believe in gender equality. Claiming to be part of a movement that is for equality, and then conveniently ignoring all the hypocrisies that surround that movement, that cloud the true meaning, that only bog it down in a mire of confusion and uncertainty is blissful ignorance. That doesn’t help anyone. It doesn’t help the men that are constantly demonised by feminism, it doesn’t help the women that are falling into the perpetual victim trap that feminism is creating, it doesn’t help the person themselves when they will readily believe something that totally isn’t true, just because they want to believe it’s true.

I think that’s the real problem here. People believe in feminism because they want to believe it’s a force for good. They want to believe it really is for gender equality. They want to believe it’s the only force for women that’s worth a damn in the world.

I’m sorry, it’s not. If you can prove that feminism is truly for gender equality and doesn’t actually persecute people based on their gender, then I’ll consider labelling myself. But, judging from comments left on most posts by Women’s Rights News, that is, at the moment, something that is a long way off. Lowering yourself to nothing statements, trivial corrections of grammar and complete avoidance of anything resembling a cogent rebuttal is not a way to convince me that feminism is the force for good that you claim it to be.

In short, I hate feminism, I love women, I am not now, nor will I ever be a feminist, and nothing you can say will ever change that.

Rape Culture is the idea that rape has become so normalised in a society that we trivialise, excuse or even condone it. It’s a system where we blame the victims rather than the perpetrators, we are constantly reminded that 1 in 4 women will be raped in their lifetime, that women can’t even walk the street alone at night without being raped, that rape is, apparently, worse than being killed. And yet, through misguided campaigns like Dont Be That Guy, we are also constantly reminded that rape is a predominantly male crime, with predominantly female victims. Or so the feminists would have you believe. Females are incapable of raping males, or so the feminists would have you believe. Women don’t falsely accuse men of raping them, or so the feminists would have you believe. Rape culture, let’s talk about that!


Much like my last blog, I think I’ll start with a link. Just take a minute to peruse that link. As if I haven’t already given it away, I’m going to talk a little about Rape Culture, something the feminists claim is rife in western society. Well, guess what, I don’t agree. I don’t agree for one particular reason – feminists seem to think that Rape Culture only applies to women, as ever.

Just to focus on that one site for a moment. First of all, are you having a laugh? That site seriously exists? Rating female sex offenders on how attractive they are? Basically, what this site does is perpetuates the myth that female sex offenders are hot, and any man who has sex with them, no matter their age, are lucky bastards who probably enjoyed it. To make it worse they blatantly mention the double standard that this who article revolves around, and yet don’t feel any guilt about going ahead with it anyway. “Oh, I know rape is wrong, but let me just publish these pictures of women getting raped and rate their hotness. She’s ugly, she probably loved it!” How long do you think that site would last? And just the final nail in the coffin, that is only 25 sex offenders, try this one:

Yep, double the amount of depraved, callous, evil but ultimately sexy shitheads.

 It also proves two things; 1) women can be just as monstrous as men and 2) they serve extremely lenient sentences, if any at all. Now let’s clear a couple of things up so there are as few inconsistencies in this post as possible – there are a couple of women in that article who did serve serious jail time, but none served more than 10 years. In fact, only one served 10 years, most of them got off with either suspended sentences or probation. There are a couple whose crime was sleeping with an 18 year old student in the state of Texas, where such an act is illegal even if the act is consensual. What it doesn’t state is whether the act was consensual or not. It doesn’t matter if the student is 18, or if the law’s a bit backward, without quantifying whether the act was consensual it was still rape. And another thing, the law is the law, no matter how backward it is, you don’t break it. If you do, expect to get punished, it’s as simple as that.

With that out of the way I want to bring up another point, how many of the women were charged with rape or statutory rape? 4! That’s it, 4 out of 25 women were charged with rape or statutory rape. The wording of the other 21 is symptomatic of how we look at female sex offenders. They were charged with ‘sexual assault’ or having a ‘sexual relationship’. Any time there are reports of a female raping or sexual abusing a young male it’s always portrayed as a sexual relationship, or sexual contact, but it’s very, very rarely described as rape or sexual abuse, even when it’s clearly rape or sexual abuse. If it’s a man arrested then it’s rape all over, no doubts, nothing.

It’s this attitude difference towards male and female sex offenders that is the real issue. In sexual abuse cases, the accuser is afforded anonymity for life, the accused often has their name splashed all over the front page of the newspapers, especially if they’re a man. It gives newspapers free reign to print pretty much whatever they want, whether it’s mere speculation or not. As long as they prefix everything with ‘alleged’ or ‘allegedly’ then it’s alright because they aren’t saying he definitely did all those things, just that that’s what’s been alleged. It can destroy lives, it can ruin careers, it can break apart families and it’s something that needs to be addressed.

There’s been a definite push recently, especially in the case of Michael Le Vell, the UK soap actor acquitted of 12 counts of abusing a child, for keeping all parties involved in rape accusations anonymous. That includes both accuser and accused. Of course, that hasn’t gone down very well at all, with people claiming that the fact that the accused’s name has been published has, in the past, convinced other people to report past crimes. If that shows one thing, it’s male disposability. Let’s not give this man anonymity because there’s a chance, by throwing him to the wolves, it might inspire other abuse sufferers to come forward.

I’ll say it now, rape is abhorrent. It’s a truly despicable crime that, rightly so, is condemned by pretty much every rational thinker in this country (this country being the UK). As I said in my domestic violence blog, I’m not trying to deny its existence, there are some animals out there who commit rape, there are some animals out there who deserve to be put away for a very long time, possibly never to taste freedom again. But, and this is a rather large but, in fact it’s a huge motherfucking BUT, that is not all men. Men are not solely responsible for being rapists. Shock, horror, women can rape too. And women do rape. But have you ever seen a front page news story of a male being raped? No, me neither.

Much like domestic violence, numbers on rape are sketchy at best. With an ever-changing definition of what actually constitutes rape, and the feminists flat out refusal to enter into any form of mature debate about the grey areas of when it is and when it isn’t rape it’s nigh on impossible to really figure out true statistics. We are constantly fed the ‘1 in 4 women will get raped in their lifetime’ routine, but so many studies have either completely debunked it or shown the initial collation of statistics to be so flaky that, even at absolute best, it’s sole purpose is to show how statistics can easily be manipulated to fit an agenda. It’s impossible to lend any credence to it whatsoever.

But what of rape culture? The idea that rape is so prevalent it’s become normalised, accepted even. I will counter that by saying – where have you ever seen any news report, or advert, or TV programme, or magazine, or music video where rape is actively condoned. Never, that’s when. There are forms of media out there that do show rape, Downton Abbey being one recently and I believe, Coronation Street has done a rape storyline recently. Pretty much every major soap has. Hollyoaks had a male on male rape storyline, Coronation Street had Toyah Battersby raped, Eastenders has one of the Slater children raped by her uncle when she was young and Emmerdale had Lisa Dingle raped. However, those storylines are not dealt with in any manner other than dead serious. There’s no comedic angle, there’s no laughter or mirth in any of their presentations. The media rightly treats the stories with the respect they deserve and after every show the channel they are broadcast on will offer an advice line for people affected by the show’s storyline.

A TV show showing a character being raped does not, and never will, re-inforce, or prove, that we live in a rape culture. No more than seeing a character mugged or hit by a car proves we live in a ‘mugging culture’ or ‘hit-and-run’ culture. Just because something happens, it doesn’t mean it’s prevalent in society or that we base our entire culture around it.

One interesting thing to note, though, one majorly interesting thing to note, is that, aside from the Hollyoaks storyline, every victim was female, and every perpetrator was male. If that says anything about ‘rape culture’ it’s that there is such a one-sided view of rape that we don’t bat an eyelid when these storylines keep happening. We live in a culture that perpetuates the myth of man=rapist/woman=victim. In researching which soaps had rape storylines I found out that Hollyoaks is planning another rape storyline for 2014, this one dealing with male rape. Interesting, you may think, a storyline about a male being raped, maybe times are moving forward. Well, no, obviously it’s a male on male rape storyline, because anything else would need to challenge the status quo and present men as victims of women, which we can’t possibly allow. We can’t possibly show women to be evil, or vindictive, or evil because that’s not society.

I put it to you like this – if we constantly push only one side of the rape coin, if we constantly show women being raped by men, with the occasional man raped by a man, because that shows we’re being conscientious of other types of rape too, how are you promoting anything other than an unfair stereotype of male sexuality and masculinity in general. If rape culture does exist, and I don’t believe it does, then the feminists have it completely backwards.

If we take the UK as an example, rape in this country is not accepted, it’s not condoned, it’s not normalised. Any time rape threats have been issued on Twitter they’ve been deleted and, in some cases people have been arrested and charged. Is that indicative of a country gripped by rape culture? When storylines on TV deal with rape, advice lines are given, the press covers it in a supportive manner and the characters in the show are all supportive. Rapists are vilified in the press, they are condemned and ostracised, careers ruined completely. Is that the modus operandi of a normalised rape culture? Talking about rape does not equal rape culture.

The one thing I’ve conveniently missed out of the above paragraph is the gender to which it applies. Everything in the above paragraph is all about women. When it comes to rape of men, by women, there are no soap storylines to raise awareness and therefore no supportive characters, there are no advice lines made public and no press coverage. Surely, if we live in a rape culture, it’s a culture that ignores the rape of men? Surely if we live in a rape culture it’s one that believes only men commit rape and, on the extremely rare occasion a man is raped it’s always by another man. Is that not perpetuating rape culture? The myth that rape is solely a male crime? I have three examples of how rape of men is normalised. Two of them in the same film:

Super – a film starring Rainn Wilson about a man who becomes a vigilante after losing his wife to a local crime boss. There are two rape scenes in this film. The first one is when Rainn’s character thinks he’s about to get arrested and daydreams about being put in prison, where he is quite graphically raped by another man, all whilst crying pathetically. It’s a scene played for laughs, the way Wilson’s character is crying, the way the rapist is laughing, it’s supposed to be over the top. The second is when his sidekick, Boltie, rapes him on a settee before they go out for their final battle.

The scene in question:

Now, comments are disable for that video, so I found another one:

And another one:

Read the comments there. Better yet, read those comments and the comments on this IMDB thread:

That scene, to me, is rape. No two ways about it. In that scene, Libby rapes Frank. Yet, online there are people who are flat out refusing to call it so, people who are saying they were actually aroused by seeing an attractive young woman having non-consensual sex with a man who is clearly trying to force her off. What the video doesn’t show you is right after he pushes her off, Frank runs to the bathroom and vomits. It was about as perfect a rape scene as you could want. Predatory woman, non—consenting man, sexual intercourse and vomiting afterwards. How are people confused?

My third example – Mad Men. Now, I’ve never seen Mad Men but I came across this article:

Again, seems like rape to me, and yet there are people out there who are saying it was ‘sex’ or that he ‘wanted it’. Wait a minute, aren’t those the reasons that feminists give to suggest we live in a rape culture towards women? If you follow the links in the above article to the features on the ‘gray rape’ scene (from another show I’ve never watched) you can see the attitude towards ambiguous sexual encounters when the female is on the receiving end. It didn’t read much like people were condoning it to me, yet the complete opposite is true for the Don Draper scene.

We go back to the link at the start of this entry. Male rape victims are constantly undermined by society’s fascination with attractive female rapists. Every time you say ‘wow, she’s hot’ you completely destroy what little self confidence that victim had. Effectively, you are questioning the victims own sense of being by questioning why they wouldn’t want to have sex with their rapist. When have you ever seen that happen with a female victim? That’s right, never. Off to Google I went and typed in ‘sexiest male rapists’, the exact opposite of what I typed in to get the link at the start of the entry. This is the 1st page of results:

See how many pages there are dedicated to sexy male rapists? No, that’s because there aren’t any. That’s because the whole idea is fucking deplorable. How can you possibly explain creating a site that rates rapists by attraction? It’s scum, it achieves nothing, except to devalue the worth of any victim of female-on-male rape. “What, you didn’t enjoy being fucked by her? Well, you’re obviously not a real man, a real man would know how lucky he was”. Seriously, you think that’s a good implication to be sending out there in to the world? I understand that questioning the victim is a necessary part of any crime, the fact that rape victims had to relive the ordeal makes it more traumatic, but it’s not something that can be avoided. However, by then taking that traumatic experience, an experience the feminists would have us believe is the most traumatic experience a woman could experience, and turning it into a form of sexual gratification is only furthering a hugely damaging myth.

Rape Culture? No. Criminally negligent under-reporting of a hugely traumatic, life-changing event. Fuck yes. If we are a society that is raised to hate women, I hate to think what you’d call what we do to men. If refusing to acknowledge male victims of domestic violence wasn’t enough, we claim to acknowledge male victims of rape, but only when it’s committed by other men, because, isn’t it obvious, women can’t rape. I know it, you know it, we all know it, these women certainly know it:

The rape of women is rightly treated with the respect and sorrow it deserves. Rape accusers are given anonymity, they’re given advice lines to call, they have TV storylines that help raise awareness to their cause, a feminist campaign that raises their supposed suffering to levels of apoplectic hyperbole, they have the feminists to defend them when they cry rape, they have the feminists constantly dictating what is and isn’t rape whenever it suits them, to the point that I actually have no idea what UK law constitutes as rape. Last time I checked female rape of men wasn’t rape, but fell under a separate category that was, in all but name, the same as rape, but not rape. Confused? Me too.

UK law doesn’t recognise female on male rape as rape, how fucked up is that?! We live in a rape culture that normalises rape towards women, so much so that careers have been destroyed through accusations of rape, even if the accused has been found innocent. We live in a culture that trivialises rape towards women, by having major national TV shows using rape storylines as a way of raising awareness. We live in a society that condones rape by blaming the victim, except we really don’t and using the insipid opinions of a few arseholes on Twitter proves absolutely fuck all.

What we do live in is a culture that refuses to believe women can rape, and when they do rape, refuses to actually charge them with rape. We sexualise female rapists, rate their attractiveness, acknowledge double standards and then plough on regardless, treat clear female on male rape as an anomaly that is so extremely rare as to not be worth mentioning, treat clear female on male in a film as ambiguous or ‘arousing’, trivialise prison rape by making it a joke, condone female on male rape by calling it ‘empowering’ or saying the male victim ‘got what he wanted’!

Rape Culture? No, you can fuck off with your continuous victim culture. You want to expose rape culture, try by accepting publicly that women are depraved fuckers just as much as men, that rape is not solely the domain of men, and, for fuck’s sake, stop acting like every little slightly ambiguous sexual encounter is rape. Rape culture is not the condemnation of rape of females, as happens in this country, it is not the mass support network available to victims of rape, or the laws that help prevent it from happening, it is the outright refusal to accept anything outside of your own beliefs. Feminists I’m looking at you. Open your eyes, drop the victim culture, understand that not all men are animals, and not all women are saints, and actually understand that the rape culture you so eagerly talk about has got nothing to do with you or your stupid cause, but everything to do with the victims you so callously ignore. The victims you ignore and leave to their own trauma, while doing nothing to condemn the numerous sites out there that sexualise female rapists. That right there is condoning rape. That right there is your rape culture.

Now, get off your fucking high horses, stop being so God-Damn blind and do something to help ALL rape victims, regardless of gender. Until then, fuck you and your pathetic victim mentality.

Addendum – A site you might find interesting, I haven’t managed to read all of it, but there is some really good stuff on there:

October, apparently, is Domestic Violence Awareness month. It’s all over Facebook. It’s also, apparently, Breast Cancer Awareness month. That’s all over Facebook too. I see so many of these kinds of posts on Facebook I’m not sure whether to believe them or not. It seems every couple of months someone posts a ‘this week is autism awareness week’ or ‘this week is anorexia awareness week’ or something similar. But let’s just take it at face value that October is indeed breast cancer and domestic violence awareness month. Both are things that affect women. Both are things that affect men. But I’ll leave it up to you to guess who’s getting the most attention.

Now, breast cancer isn’t what this blog is about, but domestic violence is. Just because I’m too lazy to keep typing domestic violence (and because I’m always spelling it as ‘domestiv’ by accident), I shall henceforth be referring to it as DV. DV is an issue that is always in the media. Here in the UK it’s almost a daily occurrence in the papers. But it’s massively one-sided.

Numerous studies have shown that women and men commit DV at pretty similar rates, look at the search results on Google if you don’t believe me –

 There’s always a small discrepancy that shows women are victims slightly more often, but it’s usually no more than 3 or 4% which, when you take in to account the probable under-reporting by male DV victims, would probably shrink to nothing. DV is a horrible thing, I definitely share the opinion that you shouldn’t hit a woman, but I generally like to expand that opinion and feel that you shouldn’t really be hitting anyone, regardless of gender. Of course, that doesn’t mean people don’t deserve a good slap now and then, or that fights don’t happen. I watch enough rugby to know that, sometimes, a good punch in the mouth is the best option. However, a punch on a rugby field, that everyone knows will soon be forgotten about, is massively different to a punch elsewhere. And that’s where the problem lies.

Feminists claim we live in a society that is brought up to hate women, yet seem to ignore the fact that any violence towards women, be it domestic, sexual or otherwise, is abhorred by the entire nation. Hit a woman and that’s it, no turning back, you’re a coward, a scumbag, an arsehole, you’re nothing, you’re worse than dirt, and rightly so. Hit a woman and, 9 times out of 10, there will be a pack of men nearby foaming at the mouth, just waiting to mete out some justice of their own. You only have to look at the ‘how can she slap’ video to see that mentality, or the recent video of the Jets fan punching a woman after being punched by he

Anybody who thinks they can solve a problem with violence, or who is so unable to cope with their own problems that they have to take them out on someone else is a scumbag. But guess what, that also applies to women. Women who hit other people because they’re angry or upset are just as scummy and low as men who hit women for the same reason. But, of course, one is far more widely accepted than the other. Again, you won’t need many guesses to figure out which one.

Case in point, I sometimes go and watch local theatre groups put on performances. These are small groups who put on performances in social clubs and other really small venues. 50/60 people capacity at absolute best. I like doing this because I’m watching people who are acting because they love acting, not because they are paid shitloads of money. The admission fees
probably only allow them to break even after they factor in room hire and any costumes they have to buy. One recent production at a local social club was a play called TWO. I can’t remember who wrote it but, basically, it’s about a pub and each piece of acting is between two people – the landlord and his wife, the old married couple, the young couple about to get married, and the two violent relationships.

Yep, TWO violent relationships. One in which the woman was violent, one where the man was. Can you guess how they played out? That’s right, the man was a monster; abusive, controlling, shaming, demeaning, predatory, outright abuse played very straight, very matter of fact, very disturbing and, ultimately, extremely well acted. So well acted in fact that two women actually started crying, one to the extent that she had to leave the room and didn’t return for a good ten minutes. Male on female domestic abuse presented as perfect as you could want it, as perfect as the feminists could want it.

But then there was female on male abusive relationship. This time, however, it was an absolute hoot. The man was an idiot, a loser, a geeky, nervous, shy, awkward wimp of a man who was lucky to have a woman at all, let alone the beautiful, successful woman he did. Many of the same characteristics were present in the woman, she was abusive, predatory, controlling, shaming and demeaning, but it was presented in such a way that, somehow, the man deserved it for being such an absolute wuss. When they first enter the scene, she sends him off to the bar and spends a good 2 or 3 minutes, with him out of the way, soliloquising about how she likes her men rough, tough, chiselled and strong, all while he is trying to best to impress her, completely in vain. She laughs at him, chides him, calls him worthless and is generally an evil bitch, yet we are supposed to laugh. Trust me, I didn’t laugh. Unfortunately, I was the only one not laughing. I was as angry about others laughing as I should have been watching the previous domestic scene.

And that’s the problem, DV against men is so deeply ingrained as something that is acceptable that we find ourselves laughing without even realising it.

Another example – Friends. After Ross sleeps with the copy girl he and Rachel have a huge argument, at one point she starts hitting him with a newspaper. He takes them off her then, after saying something that he knows was wrong, gives them back to her and allows her to carry on hitting him. The implication is that he deserves to be hit because he slept with someone else, a fact that he is well aware of and implicit in as he willingly hands back the newspaper. Fair point, you might say, but what if the genders were reversed? What if a woman cheated on a man, like, for example, Kathy did on Chandler in series 4 (I think), and the man hit her? What if Chandler had slapped Kathy before walking out after learning she cheated? Would we have laughed then?

One of the main problems is that DV (or even domestic abuse as some like to call it) now encompasses so many things that it’s pretty much impossible to keep up. Things like being mean to your partner, not giving them money, excluding them from seeing their family and even withholding sex all come under the DV/DA umbrella. At least, they do if it’s a man committing them. Women are pretty much allowed to get off scot-free when it comes to beating a husband.

What’s the reason for this – somehow, some way it’s always the man’s fault. If a man hits a woman, he’s scum. If a woman hits a man, it’s because he’s scum who probably deserves it. There are enough videos on Youtube that attest to that. Just type in ‘public reaction to women hitting men in public’ and ‘women hitting men in public prank’ for evidence. Regardless of the situation it’s apparently always the man’s fault. How about that for privilege?!

I see it in my job every damn day. Teenage girls who think it’s ok to hit teenage boys for the most trivial of reasons, but who are the first to complain if a boy hits them back. Teenage girls who actively goad and taunt boys into hitting them, then scream at the top of their lungs when he complies. And guess what happens? People, usually other men, are all too willing to join in. Without fail, it’s the male who gets the more heavy punishment while the female, who started the whole thing, will either get off scot free or with a slap on the wrist. They want to be able to hit with impunity, but want to be protected when they are met with retaliation. And this is across all the years, from year 7 right through to year 11, 11 year olds to 16 year olds, the same thought processes, that it’s ok for girls to hit boys, but not for boys to hit girls. Where are they getting this information from? And why do they think it’s acceptable? Is it the films? The TV shows? The TV adverts? The music videos?

Enter Natalie Portman. Yes, that Natalie Portman. Hollywood actor, star of some very big films, active shit-spouter. She recently claimed in an interview that her slap in Thor 2 was ‘for all womankind’, payback for all the times that men have gone out with her friends then not called them or rejected them or some other trivial bullshit. Boo fucking hoo. Your tears are delicious! Like women have never behaved like shits to men after first dates, like women haven’t deliberately agreed to go on dates with men they aren’t attracted to because they know they’ll at least get a free meal out of it, like women haven’t been complete arseholes in the past to men who deserve better. Such a short-sighted statement from someone who should know better. How many times have male celebrities said something off the cuff and daft and been forced to apologise. John Inverdale anyone? Yet where’s the lynch mob for this loudmouth twat? No, I don’t see one either.

I’ve been part of the dating site Plenty of Fish for 4 years. I very rarely go on it anymore. Why not? Because all it does is allow women to reject me without even having to say a word. I send a message, they don’t reply. I send another, they don’t reply. They look at my profile, but don’t reply. I read somewhere that 90% of women on dating sites never have to actually send a message because they’re constantly being inundated by chumps like me who think being a nice guy is worth a shit! “Where are all the nice guys” they say. Well, if you replied to my fucking message you’d know they were right under your fucking noses! Honestly, sometimes I could scream. And that’s what they do when they shack up with some abusive cunt who is the only one available in their narrow-as-fuck view on  desirable men.

Every day we are plastered with images and messages telling us that it’s not ‘real men’ who hit women, that it’s not ‘real men’ who take their frustrations out on their partners, we are constantly bombarded with one-sided, shaming, guilt-tripping campaigns that serve to remind us that men are evil bastards who will punch anything in sight if necessary just to get their own way. Yet, every day we are also plastered with images of women hitting men with absolutely no repercussions at all. Women hitting men that is met with laughter, not shock, that is met with approval, not condemnation, that is met with a smile, not a grimace. Violence that perpetuates the myth that it’s ok to hit men because, more often than not, they’re probably misogynistic arseholes who deserve it anyway.

But it’s not just physical violence. It’s all the other little things as well, withholding money, refusing to allow your partner to see their family or friends, withholding sex – all things that both sexes are guilty of, yet only seem to be committed by men. If you really want to, visit me in my hometown. I’ll take you round the supermarkets and you can have a little taste of how people treat each other. I’ll tell you now, it’s very rare that you see a dominant male. Whether that’s because the woman is ‘in charge’ of the shopping I don’t know, but I’ve heard a lot of women threaten a lot of men in the supermarkets. If that doesn’t fall under the umbrella of ‘emotional abuse’ then I don’t know what does. I live in the middle of England, an ex-mining, very working class area. How much that says about the social structure when it comes to DV I don’t know. That fact is irrelevant, though, as class and social structure, according to feminists, is not an issue, it’s the mindset overall that needs changing.

The picture above is from a news article dealing with the rise in successful businesswomen and the effect on their love lives. I’ve just screen-capped the most blatant admission of domestic abuse by a woman, an admission that has gone completely unnoticed, completely uncommented on and completely ignored. She states that, until he gets his business off the ground she is going to withhold sex. She doesn’t want to go to work, pay the bills and then, in her words, ‘suck his dick’. Could it be that, finally, women are beginning to experience what men have experienced for countless years – be the breadwinner, main provider and yet still expected to be a lover as well.

When women do become victims of DV/DA, when they do get with some arsehole guy who treats them like shit, they have so many options. There are charities and shelters that cater for women only, thousands of them, there are telephone lines you can ring, there are laws that will help protect them, a society that will look out for them, a media that will look out for them (you only have to look at the recent Nigella Lawson/Charles Saatchi case for proof of that), an entire ideological institution that will elevate their problems to top priority in a society that already condemns violence against women.

What do men have? A future of ridicule, of laughter and derision, of shaming and embarrassment. No options, few shelters, few charities, telephone lines that will offer you advice on how to fix your anger problems rather than helping you escape the abuse. We go back to Friends again, an episode where Joey’s new girlfriend keeps hitting him, to the point that it hurts. If that was a man, immediately people would be saying it’s classic domestic violence. Joey owns up to being hurt and gets laughed at and humiliated by a group of people that he himself admits, numerous times over the shows 10 seasons, are like family to him. If that’s what men have to look forward to, is it any wonder they don’t report their abuse?

Erin Pizzey, the woman responsible for opening the first battered women’s shelter in the 1970s, has stated numerous times since then that, of the first 100 women who entered her shelter, more than 60 were as violent, or more violent, than the men they were escaping from. Since then, Erin Pizzey has become a voice in the Men’s Rights Movement. When the woman who opened the first shelter for battered women turns her back on her own achievement to help the other side, and openly accuses feminism of hi-jacking her agenda, who are we to argue?

I’ll leave you with a quote by Bill Burr – “There are plenty of reasons to hit a woman, you just don’t do it.” I think that sentiment can be applied to both sexes.


I’ll just let you peruse that article for a minute. Please, read it all, and then read the comments, before reading the rest of this blog. Context, as is so lacking in that article, is very important for this blog.

Finished reading? Good. Onto the blog:

Are you fucking kidding me?! Since when did Google, of all things, become the moral arbiter of how the entire fucking world feels? I honestly don’t know whether to laugh or get angry. I see so many of these posts on Facebook these days, ones that present something as so encased in truth as to be irrefutable, that I find myself getting angrier. I used to be able to laugh, haha look at all the short sighted people out there who haven’t got enough about them to think for themselves. Look at those people who just take shit at face value without thinking there might be more to it. Woah, wait a minute, when did that little pocket of ignorance become a fucking majority?

I can see the sentiment behind the campaign. We are lead to believe, every day, that women are oppressed and men are the oppressors, so why wouldn’t the UN women’s division want to highlight that. I can understand where they’re coming from, unfortunately it’s the same place that every other feminism-inspired and feminism-driven campaign comes from – a completely world-blind view of everything else that is happening. I’ve photographed bits of the headline from the report linked above, just to give you an idea of what I’m talking about. Lots of loaded language that implies this one particular search engine seems to know, without question or equivocation, just what the entire world thinks of women.


They also start the article by listing three of the most well known fallacies relating to feminism – The wage gap, education and violence. All three of those, numerous studies have proven, have either been debunked or have shown to have discrepancies in how they are reported. Not a very good start to this particular article. Then there’s the comment about ‘entrenched sexist attitudes’ that still persist today. It seems TIME has already decided, much like a lot of online articles, which side they belong on.

If you look at the pictures the UN has put out, those searches do seem extremely derogatory. They suggest people search for ways in which to shut women up, ways in which to control them, ways in which to ensure we take away their voting rights, ways in which we can keep them chained in the kitchen. But let me just put a spin on it – I am in the middle of writing a blog about domestic violence. In order to research this I put some very dangerous terms into google. I searched for ‘men hitting women’, ‘do women deserve to get hit’, ‘what is domestic violence’, ‘men abusing women’ and other similar word combinations.

This is why I say context is so important. Basically, the way Google autocomplete works is to take recent searches and have them as suggestions. It doesn’t mean people have actively searched for “women shouldn’t have rights”, it means that a search around that topic has taken place. If somebody saw my search history they would think I was an animal who was just researching ways to subjugate women. Not the case at all. Google is a search engine; its job is to make it as easy as possible for you to find what you’re looking for among the billions of internet sites. It’s not up to Google to apply context to the searches, it’s up to Google to gather information on recent searches and put that as a suggestion. Search ‘the Holocaust’ and one of the options is “the Holocaust is a lie’, that doesn’t mean you actively believe it, it just means you searched around the topic of the Holocaust being a lie.

But, of course, that kind of logic doesn’t help the UN Women’s division, because it makes things far too simple. It removes any of the victimhood this campaign allows them to place on women, it removes their ability to shame and guilt-trip the rest of the world into thinking that women need to be freed from oppression and that men are the ones who need to look at their lives and re-evaluate why they’re such twats.

As I said before, if I could just get away with laughing at the gullible shits who buy into this kind of drivel it would be alright, but a cursory glance at the comments section just shows what we already know – that people are actively believing this kind of manipulative tosh. People see something that implies women are the oppressed sex and instead of going ‘hang on a minute, that seems a bit outrageous, I’ll go and have a look for myself’ they immediately buy into the mentality. It’s so easy to go and do a little research and see for yourself, but people refuse. They don’t want to be proven wrong, they want to live in the little protective bubble that allows them to claim perpetual victimhood. It allows the manginas and white knights to continue with their crusade to protect women from all the misogyny.

One positive thing is that, in the aforementioned comments, there are women who are calling the UN out on their bullshit. Women who understand how a Google search works. That’s a positive, a step in the right direction. We just need others to step up and do the same.

I’ll admit, when I first saw the pictures I was taken in, much like I was with the rape statistics and the wage gap myth, but then I decided to apply some logic and do what I did with every other statistic or campaign I read it – I went to do some research myself. So, for about 10 seconds, I went on Google on my phone and typed in ‘men shouldn’t. Some rather interesting results came up. Then I typed in ‘men aren’t’ and some more interesting results came up. Then I decided to move away from men and broaden my spectrum a little bit, because I had a hunch that you can type pretty much anything into Google and something negative will come up. I typed in ‘muslims should’, ‘islam should’, ‘doctors shouldn’t’, ‘ladies shouldn’t’ and ‘humanity is’ among other things. Guess what? That’s right, loads of negative searches came up. What a surprise.


Then, I decided to actually see if the UN campaign was being entirely truthful, so, whilst I’ve been writing this blog, I typed in one of the searches on the UN campaign. As you can see from the picture, absolutely none of the searches that appear in the campaign appear on my search. Does this mean the UN have cherry picked the worst of the predicted searches and edited them together, deliberately editing out the ones that don’t fit their agenda? It definitely seems to.


If the UN wants to show how Google searches highlight the entrenched misogyny of society, then they must also comment on how Google searches highlight the feelings of misandry, islamaphobia, misanthropy and anti-children sentiments that appear on searches. By refusing to do so, they are perpetuating the unfair stereotype of women constantly being the victims. They are playing up the victimisation of women and ignoring the victimisation of every other aspect of society. Once again, we have a campaign that is full of half-truths, omissions, false logic, cherry picking and feminist theory that is misleading and dangerous. It would appear some people are now beginning to see through this misty veil of fear and recognising how manipulative certain campaigns are.

If you want to draw attention to aspects of misogyny in society, and I won’t deny they are there, you simply cannot lie about how widespread it is. You must be completely honest, that is the only way you are going to get everyone to sit up and listen. By promoting one aspect of society’s problems over another you are damaging the quest for true equality. If you go by the UN’s reckoning, and use Google as the standard by which we measure discrimination, then we also need to campaign for the creation of UN men’s division, a UN muslim division, a UN misanthrope division and any number of other government departments.

It is a constant source of irritation that logic is routinely lacking in its application to stories like this. A little bit of research, 10 seconds on your phone or computer, is all it takes to actually allow yourself to discover how murky stuff like this is. It’s a convoluted campaign presented as if it were crystal clear. Unfortunately, there are too many people drawn in by the shiny crystal who don’t want to muddy themselves in the swamp of enlightenment.

All crap metaphors aside, the UN have this one wrong.

If I’m not an anti-feminist, am I an MRA?


A couple of weeks ago I posted what quickly became my most popular blog entry – why I’m not a feminist and why I’m writing this blog anonymously. It was a fairly long entry and I still don’t think it covers every reason for me holding the beliefs I do. But another blog expanding on that is for another day.

This blog will talk about another movement that I can’t quite place myself into – The Men’s Rights Movement. If I don’t actively label myself as an anti-feminist due to the associations inherent within the wording, do I label myself as an MRA (Men’s Rights Activist)?

The short answer is no. While I do agree with a lot of what is said by people who are part of the Men’s Rights Movement, and trust me, there’s a lot of good people and a lot of good work being done, I find it hard to identify myself as one. If I could explain the reasons in any great detail, or with any deal of clarity I would, but, unlike my reasons for disliking modern feminism, which are numerous, I can’t seem to put my finger on this one.

Like I said, there are a lot of positives out there. One thing I need to be thankful for is that there is actually a Men’s Rights movement at all. That is easy to explain. When I was 18 I went to University, as a lot of people do. When I was 19 I was in WHSmiths (A stationery shop for those outside the UK) and saw loads of merchandise with things like “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them” and other unsavoury phrases. It was possibly the first time I really became aware that there was an undercurrent of sexism towards men in mainstream UK culture. The trouble was, at that time I had no idea how bad it was, I knew there was something that bothered me, something, for ages afterwards, that was just gnawing away at me inside, but I just couldn’t figure it out. What I do know is that it bothered me so much that I started writing about it. When I was 19, before I really knew what blogging was (don’t forget, I was 19 in 2005, so the internet was still very much in its infancy, even then), I started writing what I now think are pretty much blogs. But I was writing them on Word and just saving them to my PC. My dream when I was 19 was to become a writer (something I still dream about), so I figured this would be a good way to get started. I never actually finished my entry, as was par for the course with most of my entries, but I did make a start. Here is what I wrote when I was 19:


“I have a question. Why is sexism towards men became such a big hit in the media lately? It seems that grouping all men in the same category, blaming us for everything, encouraging violence towards us and generally laughing at our expense has become the new craze.

                I mean I was in WH Smiths today and I saw a ring binder (or whatever they’re called) that read, “boys are stupid, throw rocks at them” and “boys smell.” now if I were to say that about a girl I would be lynched. Some people would just tell me to lighten up…”


I put the ellipsis in there just to show where my entry ends. As you can see, I didn’t get very far. I can’t remember the exact reason, but I have an idea. Sometimes, when I’m writing, and this is something that happens with the entries in this very blog you’re reading, I get halfway through a sentence, stop, re-read it, decided I don’t like it, save what I have, exit the document and then go and do something else. More often than not, I’ll come back and finish what I started. Obviously I didn’t here.

The point is, I knew there was something wrong, I knew I felt something, I just didn’t know what. It was something that didn’t sit right, and in the years since (and I’m pretty sure the more time I spend amongst like-minded people, the more I realise I always knew something felt off) that feeling of uncertainty has increased. It got to the point that I thought I was alone. I thought I hated women, that because I disagreed with the media, the newspapers, magazines, TV shows, the news programmes, my friends, teachers, work colleagues and 90% of the general public I was somehow part of the problem. It was an incredibly difficult life to live. Silently rolling my eyes every time someone rolled out the 1 in 4 rape statistic, or every time a murderer on CSI turned out to be a woman who had a sob story, or the male body being laughed at was the only thing I could do. I couldn’t talk to anybody, I couldn’t raise my views, I couldn’t disagree in public because that would make me a douchebag.

But then, slowly but surely I began to see I wasn’t alone, and I have the internet to thank for that. I found the page Exposing Feminism on Facebook, looked through a few pages and had what can only be described as the biggest epiphany I’ve ever experienced. I wasn’t alone after all, other people shared my views and, perhaps best of all, there were reasons for those views to be had. It wasn’t just me refusing to accept my privilege and being an oppressive twat. I have a lot to thank Exposing Feminism for, it was through them that I found other sites, other people that had taken the metaphorical pill and had their eyes opened. It was because of Facebook that I started this blog, finally I had somewhere I could vent and write what I wanted to write. I’ve mentioned in previous blogs how I’m currently hiding behind a veil of secrecy due to the nature of my job and the incendiary nature of my views, but what starting this blog, and being on Facebook has done has allowed me to have a little bit of confidence that I’m not an arsehole, I’m just someone who sees things that are unfair and wants to bring a little bit of attention to.

I have a lot to thank the MRM for, I have a lot to thank Facebook for, and I hope people don’t think I’m a brown noser, people like GirlWritesWhat, TyphonBlue, The Amazing Athiest, Prentice Reid, Liz Guerrero, Dawn Cardiff, Tanis McCalla and Jochen Zeige who have all just confirmed what I already knew – there is need for a Men’s Rights Movement.

So, if I have a lot to thank the movement for, why do I not identify myself as an MRA? Again, it’s hard to explain, but I’ll try. I mentioned in a previous blog that I don’t identify as an anti-feminist because I think that label has a certain stigma attached to it – that if you’re anti-feminist you’re automatically anti-woman. It’s this kind of ignorance that means if you admit you’re an anti-feminist it doesn’t matter what you say, people automatically dismiss your opinions as the ravings of a misogynistic arsehole. The trouble is, it’s an ignorant point of view that is shared by a lot of people. I feel the same way about being an MRA. A post on Facebook might have finally lead me to an answer:

“I have a problem with some of these anti-feminist pages……….I’m not sure if you’re against the ideology or if it’s just about making fun of people who are overweight or not pretty. I don’t see how poking fun/being mean to people for how they look has anything to do with the ideology??”

That was a question posed by John Mangina Doe on Facebook yesterday. A lot of feminist pages on Facebook are actually anti-male, despite their frequent, vocal, claims to the contrary. They claim to be feminist, they claim to be for equal rights, yet they post statuses, photos and videos that are a constant source of one-upmanship, constantly belittling men to empower women, constantly reminding us how women want to be equal by posting pictures of how women are actually superior. I feel this way about some MRA sites. Whenever a hypocritical feminist status or picture is shared or highlighted on Facebook there’s, inevitably, some moron who comes in and makes a derogatory comment that does absolutely nothing to help the cause at all.

It’s possibly for this reason I don’t identify myself as an MRA. For every 5 people who are thoughtful, intelligent, well rounded and insightful in their posting, there’s 1 absolute fuckwit whose only desire is to demonstrate how short-sighted they really are, one fuckwit who goes over to the feminist pages in question and, instead of highlighting their hypocrisy in a way that is irrefutable and damaging to feminism, wades in with exactly the sort of response the feminists want. The sort of post a feminist can cherry pick and re-post as a fine example of the misogyny they have to face on a daily basis. 2 steps forward, 1 step back. We claim to be better than the feminists, we claim to want to expose their lies and hypocrisy, we claim to want to make the world truly equal, but there’s always one loud mouth arsehole that doesn’t understand this and thinks the best way to respond is to abuse and insult, the very thing the feminists are absolutely desperate for. By doing this, we play right into their grubby, rotten hands.

I don’t know what I identify as. I really don’t. I want equality, I want equal rights. I believe, to a very large degree, western society already has that. Sure there are problems, what society throughout history hasn’t had problems, but I don’t believe they are problems that feminism is the cure for. I don’t think feminism is a cure for anything. I think it’s a disease. But that doesn’t necessarily mean I think the MRM is the cure. There are bad eggs in the MRM that, I think, hinder the movement’s progression. Men’s Rights have enough of a fight convincing the western world they have a cause worth fighting for, the last thing we need is people within our own ranks fucking that up for us.

Sure, there are dipshit feminists out there whose anti-male rhetoric and bias is clear for all to see, but unfortunately they have a much larger platform already established in society. A platform that is already so ingrained that a feminist can spout her anti-male bile and people will pretty much accept it anyway. The MRM doesn’t have that luxury. Yet.

Everyone knows the story of The Titanic. In April 1912 a cruise liner called Titanic set sail on its maiden voyage from Southampton to New York. In the years that have followed it has been claimed numerous times that the ship was noted for being ‘unsinkable’. However, it is disputed as to whether this was actually part of the official marketing and not just a name given to it by the public, or even attributed much later. Point is, as pretty much everybody on the planet knows, 4 days after setting sail, the Titanic hit an iceberg and sank. Just type in Titanic on Google and see how many websites come up. It was one of, if not the, worst peacetime maritime disasters.

The thing that sticks out for me is, much like WWI, just how recent it is. 100 years, in the grand scale of human history, is nothing. It’s so little an amount of time that it was only 3 years ago, 2009, that the last of the Titanic’s survivors died. Much like WWI, we are only just entering a period of time where we don’t have some kind of connection to an event that happened over 100 years ago.

So what on earth is this blog about? Surely I’m not just going to write another in a long list of blog entries about the Titanic? No, I’m not. That brief intro was just a way of segueing into this point – ‘women and children first’.

There’s been a lot of discussion about the women and children first rule, particularly in regards to the Titanic. People generally seem to believe it was a law that women and children were to be the first people evacuated if something was to go wrong. Feminists absolutely hate this as they feel it devalues women and portrays them as weak. Some might say they’ve got a fair point, others might say it shows the chivalrous attitude of the times, especially regarding the high esteem women were held in and how their protection was of paramount importance. We already have an idea of the attitude towards men’s lives at that time. If ‘women and children first’ wasn’t enough of a clue, there’s always the rather significant event that followed the sinking of the Titanic 2 years later – World War I. Around 10 million men died in World War I. Another event that is closing in on its 100th anniversary, World War I still baffles me due to the sheer barbarity of it. 10 Million men died. That’s more than the population of some countries.

Anyway, the attitude towards men at the turn of the 20th century seemed to be one of indifference. They were expected to fight and die, they were expected to stay behind and die if something went wrong. What people don’t seem to realise, or are wilfully ignoring, is that when World War I broke out, most of the men that fought overseas couldn’t vote. Feminists make a lot of noise about women only getting the vote in the 1920s, but before that most men couldn’t vote either. In fact, when war broke out in 1914 men under 21 couldn’t vote, that rule only came about in 1918 (along with women over 30). In fact, it was only in 1928 that all women and men under 21 got the right to vote. So, when all is said and done, women and men actually got complete universal suffrage at the same time. Did you hear that, at the same time. Unlike the feminist claim, is men oppressed women’s right to vote because they were incapable of wielding such power, then they did the same to other men. Yet they don’t seem to want to talk about that.

Point is, even if men did occupy a certain level of privilege in the early 20th century it certainly did not stretch to accommodate all men and, ironically, a large portion of the men sent to defend our country were not even able to decide who should run it.

But what does this have to do with the Titanic? Well, I read a feminist blog the other month but I can’t for the life of me remember what it was called. The name isn’t as important as what they were talking about – ‘women and children first’. They claim that ‘women and children first’ was never actually a law, and people who use it to demonstrate how women had it easy at that period of time are just ignoring facts to try and discredit the feminist movement (anybody notice the high stench of irony there?!) and show how women actually had it fairly cushty. I did a little research and it would appear that the information from that time is indeed a little sketchy. Some websites claim ‘women and children first’ was indeed a law, some claim it was ‘just the way things were’ and some claim it was absolute rubbish and has only been dreamed up in later years to add a sense of chivalry to a past period of time.

I was on the verge of admitting defeat. I’d always assumed ‘women and children first’ was just the way the world was, and yet now I couldn’t find anything significant that validated my claims. A few bits and pieces here and there, but just as many doubts as clarifications.

But then, a few weeks ago I was out with my family having a meal when I came across a rather interesting sight in the gents toilets. A framed front cover from an American Newspaper (I can’t remember which one, I think the New York Times/Telegraph or something similar) that concerned the sinking of the Titanic. I took a few snaps of the most interesting bits, something that, without me realising at the time, validated what I always knew – ‘women and children first’ did exist.

Image 1
Image 2
Image 3

There are 3 examples of how ‘women and children first’ was used. The first is simply a line that says women and children first, the second says women and children put over in lifeboats and are supposed to be safe on Carpathia and the third is from the main body of the article and says about 655 souls have been saved of the crew and passengers, most of the latter presumably women and children.

This is from a newspaper released in 1912, the exact time of the disaster. Three times on the front cover it states that women and children were ordered off first. The use of language is extremely interesting. The third statement says most of the latter presumably women and children. Now, to presume is to think that something is true without proof or to take something for granted. Essentially, what this newspaper is doing is assuming most of the surviving passengers are women and children. Why would it make that assumption? If women and children didn’t exist as a law, whether a maritime law or not, then why is a newspaper presuming most of the survivors are women and children? Surely they would have cut that sentence out and just left the facts in about the number of survivors? Is it not possible that, even if it was not ingrained in law, society at the time just understood that when disaster strikes, women and children go first?

There’s also another interesting heading. Right above the line women and children put over in lifeboats and are supposed to be safe on Carpathia there is a heading that says “Rule of Sea” followed. What does that mean? What is the Rule of Sea? Perhaps the rule that women and children go first? After all, the Rule of Sea heading is directly above the line that says women and children put over… Could that not indicate that the rule of sea is indeed ‘women and children first’?

Another way of looking at this whole scenario is the way we look at two men in particular. Captain Edward Smith and J.Bruce Ismay. Captain Smith is considered a hero for staying with the ship when it went down whereas J.Bruce Ismay, the chairman of the company that built the Titanic, is widely considered a coward for finding his way on to a lifeboat and surviving. Surely if there was no doctrine about women and children first then Ismay wouldn’t have had to face the public shaming and ridicule he did simply for daring to survive? Why should a man have to face that if there was no ingrained feeling that men should have to stay behind and sacrifice themselves in times of disaster?

Whatever the feminists think of this particular situation, and whether or not the ‘women and children first’ idea was a law or not, it is ignorant to think that it didn’t exist in some capacity. If it was an accepted part of society then maybe it didn’t need to be made law.  There are lots of these ‘unwritten rules’ that exist even today. They’ll never be made into law because they don’t need to be, they are just accepted as part of civilised western society.

I actually think the feminists have something of a point. Women and children first is a pretty sexist way of looking at things. Not only does it suggest women are incapable of looking after themselves, it also demotes men to nothing more than sacrificial lambs who must think nothing of dying just so women and children they’ve never met can survive. There’s nothing inherently brave in this sentiment, there’s nothing to say that we aren’t dealing with a situation in which a group of good, noble men die and a group of selfish, callous women survive. What feminists do is apply 21st Century thinking to early 20th Century society. Who’s to say that women weren’t appreciative of having a society that craved their survival? We know not all women liked early 20th Century society, the emergence of the Suffragettes attests to that, but it’s possible, very possible I would say, that if some women didn’t like 20th Century society some men didn’t like it either. As ever, feminists only ever look at one side of the story.

I did some research on death statistics for the Titanic:

2224 on board

706 survived

1517 died

1347 men died

103 women died


Now, they could be slightly off, but after checking on numerous different sites they seemed to be the most accurate. Why did more men die than women? It’s a simple question that can be answered with a simple answer – women and children first.

I’m actually not a massive fan of women and children first, as I said before it’s dangerous for both sexes. I have no problem with chivalry and, afforded the opportunity for everyone to get out of a dangerous situation, I see no problem with a man allowing a women to go in front of him, but only if there is a secure chance he, too, will escape. By shaming men into staying behind to die, either through a societal acceptance that lowers the worth of their life to nothing but a sacrifice, or public humiliation and embarrassment through the label of cowardice, nobody benefits. Whether it exists in law or not, it is still a thought that pervades our society.

Chivalry should not die. Chivalry is not sexist. Allowing society to think that one person should survive and one should die simply because of their gender is not chivalrous, it is every bit as sexist as the feminists claim it to be, but not for the reasons they so vehemently spout.

Attached are the three pictures I took of the newspaper front cover. Unfortunately, I didn’t have the foresight to take a picture of the whole thing. I may do if I ever go back to that same pub.