Archive for January, 2014

A response to Stephen McCann.

Posted: January 26, 2014 in Uncategorized

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I’m again going to speak about Facebook and the impact it had on me just over a year ago. Countless times now I’ve mentioned how I was existing in a fog of confusion for the last few years. I knew I didn’t like feminism, I just couldn’t explain why. It was the Facebook group Exposing Feminism that really opened my eyes, made me realise that I wasn’t alone,that my views weren’t that radical and that there were sane people out there who weren’t simply desperate, lonely men who were tired of not getting any female attention. Exposing Feminism ( ) helped open my eyes, I have a lot to be thankful of.

But, since becoming John Salmon and throwing myself headfirst in to the MRM I’ve been fighting a very divisive battle within myself. As with anything new and exciting, the first couple of months were absolutely amazing. I’d finally found somewhere that I wasn’t the outsider, where I didn’t feel like a prick for daring to go outside the accepted norms, where I could speak my views and instead of automatically being put on the defensive by people I was actually finding people agreeing with me. It was, without doubt, one of the most peaceful periods of my life, finally feeling at ease.

That feeling didn’t last, of course it didn’t, because I began to see a darker side of it. A side that twists what you think, a side that engulfs you, infects you, infests you, makes you bitter and twisted and ignorant of everything outside of your bubble. Quickly, I fell into it, I fell into the bitterness, I saw a side of Facebook and Twitter and Google that I didn’t like, but I was powerless to stop it. I’d only just found this side of the internet, I wasn’t prepared to let it go that easily. In the end, you become exactly what you claim to hate. There’s a brilliant Nietzsche quote that I’ve seen a few times on Facebook:

Without even realising it, it summed up exactly what I had turned into. Despite my claims to be a ‘humanist’ or an ‘egalitarian’ I’d actually turned into a sanctimonious prick who would only dwell in spaces that confirmed my beliefs, spaces that would help me wash out 26 years of societal indoctrination. Unfortunately, sometimes, those ideas were replaced by equally bigoted and ignorant ideas.

So what’s the point of all this? Well, recently there’s been something of a storm on Facebook over a member, or rather former member of the MRM, after this little post appeared:

It’s pretty self explanatory who Stephen McCann is, it says it all in that post. I don’t have to tell you that the admin of a page called Exposing Feminism, a vocal member of the MRM community, running to a radical feminist website to expose the dark sides of the Men’s Rights Movement caused somewhat of a stir. There was a lot of discussion about Stephen’s antics during early December last year (2013) due to his confusing behaviour, seemingly at odds with what people were used to or expected.

For my part, I didn’t really know him much, unlike the admins of some other pages I never really got into conversation with him, not in any great depth. I had some conversations with him around the time of his departure from EF and his exit from the MRM, but it was very brief. He offered me an admin post on EF, which ultimately came to nothing as he left shortly after, and he asked for my advice on a personal issue (which I will not divulge here because it’s nobody’s business but mine and Stephen’s), but aside from that I really didn’t know him. We shared similar views, or at least that’s what he told me, and would probably have got on very well if he hadn’t have disappeared.

Stephen unfriended me around mid December, which I thought was strange considering our brief exchange of messages. I’ve heard people talking since about him ‘testing’ them, sending messages that appeared misogynistic in nature to see how bigoted people really were. He sent me a message that, now looking back, could be construed as a ‘test’. It would appear I failed as I doubt he’d have defriended me if I’d passed. I answered his message in the best, most honest way I could, by seeing both sides of the situation (Again, I’m not going to divulge what this ‘test’ was), which obviously wasn’t good enough.

Despite my brief exchange with Stephen, and my ignorance to how he was with other people, his post still troubled me for many reasons. One, of course, was his choice of page to tell his story to. Radical feminists are not people I can have conversations with, every time I try I find them so utterly convinced of their views that, no matter how good my counter argument or how sound my logic or how polite my tone, I can never seem to break through to them. For them to be his port of call when exposing the MRM is like a very hefty kick in the balls. Not only that, but from what I’ve learned since he left the MRM, it would appear his own views were somewhat conflicted and moveable. Not that that’s a bad thing, if you set your views in stone and are unwilling to listen to reason then you’re going to live a miserable life. But this appeared to be different, swinging from one spectrum to the other, spilling to radfem pages one minute, then criticising feminism on one page the next. Even considering all that, his testimony troubled me for one more, perhaps even greater, reason, one that I’ve struggled to comprehend until now, one that I’ve struggled to deal with. After the news ‘broke’ on the pages I like I posted this short message (from Wednesday, if I remember correctly):

Seeing as that comment got 9 likes in a group of very few people, and the direct comment underneath got 3 likes, I’m going to assume my opinions are somewhat respected, so I only ask that people thoroughly read what I am about to say before judging and growing angry. Stephen’s post troubled me mostly because:

I agree with him.

Not 100%, I think if he felt indoctrinated and misguided then he’s allowed himself to get drawn deeper than I currently am, but I definitely agree with him on a lot of things. I go back to the Nietzsche quote, I was becoming a monster, I was becoming a different person. I would see a post made on a Facebook page that made a lot of sense, and then I’d see the comments filled with statements that were equally as bigoted, ignorant, generalising and abusive as the ones the MRM claims to hate.

It’s one reason I’ve tried so hard to keep myself away from the MRA label. For all the good the movement does, and it has got some brilliant people being part of it, there are some who absolutely ruin it with abusive comments that play right in to the feminist’s filthy hands. I mentioned this in an entry way back when this blog was in its infancy. The trouble I have with identifying as an MRA is the spectrum is far too broad, some people are brilliant; they have good views, debating skills, use logic and truths and, generally, fight the good fight. However, there are some people who just cannot wait to stick the knife in with the generalising of all women whenever the opportunity arises.

I’ve stated this before in this blog, I do not hate women, I do not resent them, I do not blame them for my own insecurities and self esteem issues. But being around the MRM, being part of the movement that was supposedly better than feminism, better than the hypocrisy, lies and double standards, better than the mistruths and the victimhood has changed me into someone unrecognisable. Sometimes, I don’t like who I am when I’m logged in to John Salmon’s account on Facebook. Sometimes, I truly despise the movement I thought was fighting the better fight.

Stephen is right, I hear men, and women, dispute the double standards of Feminism, I hear them decry the hypocrisies and lies, I hear them rally against the generalisations that paint men as demons no matter what they do, and then I see them committing the exact same things about feminism. I see them generalise women, I see them downplay the double standards that affect women, I see them engage in acts of hypocrisy that they claim to hate.

I will always fight for mens rights, I will always hate feminism, but I do not hate women. I hate the culture that feminism breeds, I hate the culture that feminism has furthered, I think it’s toxic and poisonous, I think it is just as bad for women as for men, it shames women who do not agree with their movement, it shames women who are independent enough to make their own choices that don’t match the feminist ideology. I will not, cannot, hate women who distance themselves from the feminist ideology. I will not hate all women based on the overblown actions of those who associate themselves with feminism.

I love some of the people I’ve come in to contact with through the John Salmon account, I love the people who, even though they might not outrightly identify as ‘anti-feminist’, have sense enough to be their own person, to live the life they want to live without worrying what they’re being told to do by an ideology, who have the sense to deal witht he problems they face on their own, without crying victim and running for help. Those are the people I want to associate with, the people who are clear that there aren’t just one set of people with problems. Everyone faces problems, everyone deals with problems in different ways. What I hoped the MRM would be is a place that would help us deal with those problems in a much better way than feminism, a place that would be open to debate and discussion and opposing opinions. There’s a lot of good in the MRM, definitely a lot more good than bad, but that the bad that is there damages the movement, derails the movement and presents it as no better than Feminism.

I disagree strongly with this quote by Stephen:

“(My introduction, indoctrination, awakening, separation, and the malicious hate I received for questioning their propaganda.)”

I have never felt like I’ve been ‘indoctrinated’ into the MRM, I only feel that I immersed myself too much in one part of it, a part that allowed me to cast off the shackles I’ve previously felt constrained by. It was after that I felt I needed to move to a more open space, one where my views wouldn’t just be accepted readily, one where I would be challenged and forced to rethink myself all the time. That’s the way I want to be, I want my views to be challenged, not confirmed.

Nietzsche was totally right, if you look into the abyss for long enough, slowly it looks back into you and engulfs you. I thought the abyss was feminism, now I know there isn’t just one abyss, there are multiple ones, you just have to make sure you don’t stare into any one abyss for any great length of time, or at least have the courage to step away when you see that monster start to develop within you.

This is not me ‘doing a Stephen’. I’m not denouncing the MRM and running to feminism, I tried to think of myself as a feminist, I tried to show I’m all for equality, but I could never fit in, every time I speak to a feminist I have to leave because it’s like talking to a brick wall. Sometimes, it’s the same with people in the MRM. Nowadays, I tend to stay in the middle. I don’t deny women face problems, but I refuse to automatically elevate them to some sort of special victim status simply because they’re women.

I understand this might be a controversial entry, so be it. My aim is to be honest about this situation. There are times when I’ve questioned if I’m fighting for the right side. Luckily, for me, Feminism has provided nothing by way of an alternative, so I’m quite happy sticking in the middle and taking each individual case on its own merits before spouting off.

So there it is, I, John Salmon, do not identify as an MRA, I do not identify as a feminist, it is with some trepidation that I even label myself a humanist, I am just me, one bloke trying to make sense of the world in his own way.

Do I feel sympathy for Stephen McCann for feeling his only option was to run to a radfem page? Not really, there were other better options. By all accounts, Stephen is a troubled man whose own views are often in question, so I honestly don’t know where his mind is at at the moment. Do I think he has a point about the MRM? Yes, I do. I don’t think he’s completely right, and some of the more extreme emotions he feels are not ones I can share, but equally I don’t discount the validity of him holding those views.

This entry has been hard to write, I appreciate it may disappoint some people in that I haven’t come out in an all-guns-blazing defence of the MRM, but I truly believe that for any movement to be successful it depends on the people within it to constantly question the aims and agendas of that movement. Sometimes, I find the MRM doesn’t do that, but I will always try to.

Nietzsche’s quote rang true with me more than any other quote I’ve seen recently on the internet. My battle now is not just with feminism, it’s within myself, making sure I don’t allow myself to become the monster I saw myself becoming not so long ago.

 I think that’s going to be a tough one!


And so, we come back to the topic of rape. I’ve genuinely lost count of how many blog entries I’ve made on this topic now, this is possibly number 4 or 5. Rape and gender violence seem to dominate the discussions I see on the internet at the moment. I can’t speak for America, but there are campaigns absolutely everywhere in the UK that aim to stop domestic violence, and pretty much all of them play to the men=abuser, women=victim mentality, which is so off point it’s actually becoming quite sickening.

Rape is a hot topic at the moment, especially in England. I’m not complaining, it’s a horrible crime, the more we do to try and eradicate it the better, and the quicker we can do it, the better. However, I do have one nagging thought that I can’t get rid of. It’s not a particularly pleasant one so I haven’t really talked about it, but it’s there regardless. One reason, one major reason, why I think rape is such a hot topic at the moment, particularly in the UK, is because feminists are constantly on about it. If there’s a sure-fire way to keep one certain topic high on the political agenda it’s to make sure you keep talking about it. We live in a ‘rape culture’, supposedly, where we normalise, trivialise and accept rape as part of what we do.

Has ‘rape’ become a word so overused that we have normalised it, accepted it into our culture? Possibly. Has that acceptance of the word changed the way we see the actual act of rape? Well, to answer that question I will pose another. The word ‘kill’, as in the verb to take someone’s life away, is in common usage, and has been for countless years. Has that acceptance of the word changed the way we see the actual act of killing? No, of course not. Murder is still seen as a reprehensible act. In fact, you only have to see the outrage amongst the public in the UK when a murderer’s sentence is seen as lenient. Take the example of Mick Philpott and his wife (I can’t spell her name, sorry):

He was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum of 15 years before consideration for parole. When the public heard ’15 years’ they went berserk saying it wasn’t long enough, that the law had gone soft, that life should mean life. As is too common with cases like this, the emotion of the case often got in the way of the facts. Mick Philpott was sentenced to life in prison. If he hadn’t been sentenced to life he would have got 30 years, generally speaking prisoners in Britain serve 50% of their sentence before consideration for parole. That’s where the 15 years comes from. Mick Philpott will serve 15 years before he is considered for parole, it is very unlikely, due to the highly public nature of the case, that he will actually get parole. But that’s the problem in a nutshell, emotion often overrides facts. People heard 15 years and, instead of actually doing the research and approaching the subject from a view of knowledge, they took to their soap box while only knowing a tenth of the actual situation. That’s dangerous.

And so, the whole point of the above paragraph is to highlight that, just because rape is a word used in our everyday vernacular, just because some people use it as a verb or an adjective to describe something other than the actual act of rape, it does not mean we diminish our feelings toward, or indeed trivialise and normalise, the act of rape. The word ‘kill’ is used every day, yet when someone does actually kill someone else, we don’t fail to find the outrage to condemn that person. It still comes pretty naturally.

So why all this focus on the semantics or rape and kill, am I subtly trying to hint at a future rampage I’m going to embark on? No, of course not. I wouldn’t be that transparent! This article is what has prompted all of this:

I don’t, for one second, dismiss the idea that Twitter is a breeding ground for some of the scummiest arseholes on the internet. I’ve spent my fair share of time on Twitter and can definitely attest for that fact. However, it does cop a lot of unfair flak, and rape has a lot to do with that. The problem I have with Twitter is that it’s the internet version of a motorway bottleneck. You know when you’re driving down the motorway and there’s a 5 mile queue of traffic due to an accident? How much of that 5 miles is caused by traffic slowing down to try and get a glimpse of the accident? It’s happened to me numerous times, yes there’s been an accident but the sole reason for the tailback is people slowing down to get a glimpse. I see Twitter as the same. Any time a controversy arises, people cannot wait to get involved. Sometimes, as with Mick Philpott, it’s to put their two pennerth in without actually knowing all the facts, sometimes it’s simply to try and be as offensive as possible.

Sadly, when it comes to rape, feminism holds such a monopoly on the word that, even in jest, or even obvious trolling, doesn’t stand a chance of just being dismissed. If you mention rape on twitter in a joke, or as a verb, or an adjective or even just as a blatant trolling attempt it becomes big news. If it wasn’t clear before, it’s definitely clear now, particularly in the aftermath of the ‘deluge’ of abuse Caroline Criado-Perez got when suggesting a woman should be on an English bank note after Elizabeth Fry was ousted in favour of Winston Churchill. While I won’t get in to that whole saga (I do believe it was somewhat overblown) the consequences of it are now beginning to see the light of day:

The thing that bothers me with the hysteria over rape, and this is directly related to the article above, is that abuse towards women on Twitter is automatically seen as so much worse than any other kind of abuse. Abuse on Twitter is a daily occurrence for a lot of people, particularly famous people, yet the biggest outrage we’ve seen so far has been based around a woman receiving rape threats. I’m not diminishing the vileness of what happened, I’m questioning why we acted as if we weren’t aware of the dark side of Twitter before this happened? Twitter’s been around for long enough, hell the internet’s been around for long enough, that we know there is a small section (and it is a small section, despite what some people would have you believe) that are complete arseholes, that use the anonymity the internet offers as a shield to say some of the most depraved, shitty stuff they could think of. But why did it take until the summer of 2012, when Twitter had been around for 5 years, for it to become a national outrage issue? Was it because the abuse was directed at a woman? Was it because it was directed at a lesbian? Was it because it was directed at a feminist? Was it because the abuse included rape threats? Honestly, it probably encompasses all of those reasons, it was a tinderbox of a situation that blew up extremely quickly.

Abuse on Twitter is a problem ,and the Criado-Perez situation did highlight it quite well. It also highlighted the hysteria around feminism in general. Men and women get abused on Twitter all the time, I’ve seen some of the people I follow retweet some really nasty stuff, some properly nasty stuff. Things like telling a child sex abuse victim that he wasn’t abused enough, some real dark shit that doesn’t have a place on the internet. But, the outrage that the Criado-Perez situation caused, particularly about the reporting system, to me, came down from an increased sense of victimhood that engulfs feminism. Man gets abused on twitter with death threats and sexual abuse threats and no-one does anything, people just trundle along like nothing happens, turning the other way and pretending it’s not as bad as it is. Woman gets threatened with rape and, later on, bomb threats and the whole structure of Twitter needs to be re-dressed as it’s, obviously, completely outdated.

I go back to the motorway metaphor, once the abuse towards Criado-Perez on Twitter became public knowledge it spiralled from there, attracting Trolls from all over the internet to join in. How much of the initial abuse can be put down to actual hatred of Criado-Perez and distaste at the campaign and how much can be put down to the snowballing effect of internet Trolls is unclear.

If you think I’m making excuses for the abuse suffered by a feminist, if you think I’m a woman hater, then I point you to two similar controversies in recent years:


The London Riots:

Let’s take Sachsgate first. Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross made some, admittedly rather poor taste, phone calls to Andrew Sachs discussing all manner of things. The actual event, as it happened on Radio 4 (I believe), garnered very little attention, and only a small amount of complaints. Once the issue hit the national headlines that number of complaints spiralled, to the point that, a week later, people who had not actually listened to the original broadcast started complaining, simply because they had become outraged by proxy.

Similarly with the London Riots. Initially they started in one area of London and then, when news spread, outbreaks that had nothing to do with the original matter cropped up in other parts of the country, miles away from London.

Mob mentality is a powerful thing and, while Twitter has no doubt helped the organisation of such events, the internet is not solely to blame. We had riots before the internet; we’ll probably have riots again. What the internet has done, and the 24 hour news culture in general, is allowed this outrage to be beamed to us almost immediately and very publicly, to the point that it becomes just as easy to join in, whether or not you know what the original reason was for, as it has ever been.

But what’s this got to do with the word rape? Well, with all the attention the word rape has placed on it, it doesn’t matter what context it’s used in, or how private a conversation it was used in, you now cannot either use the word rape, or even question the use of the word rape, without it being linked to the suffering of women. Feminism holds such a great monopoly over the word rape that they can generate a mass amount of outrage over very little. If they think a man is a misogynist because he used the word rape as a verb then, pretty conclusively, he is a misogynist for using that word. Using the word rape undermines all the victims of rape (of course, ‘victim’ automatically implies woman) and trivialises it, in a way that using the word ‘kill’ in general conversation doesn’t seem to trivialise the act of murder.

The article in question is problematic for me for many reasons, one occurs pretty early on:

 “I’ve written about trolling, especially the misogynistic variety, elsewhere”

To me, the fact he has to qualify that his earlier writings have focused on misogynistic trolling already put this article on shaky ground. Immediately, to me, it suggest this will be a female-centric focus on the word ‘rape’ as opposed to a general look at how the word is used. To me, that discounts every male victim of Twitter abuse and automatically A) victimises women and B) discredits male sufferers of rape, which is disconcerting.

The main focus of his article is his unscientific look at the use of the word on Twitter. He breaks it down quite nicely, immediately disregarding 20% of the findings as discussing the song ‘rape me’ by Nirvana. Another 40% is disregarded as being discussions about the actual act of rape. ‘Nearly 30%’ of tweets were using it as a joke, verb, adjective, metaphor, synonym or some other way that wasn’t threatening, possibly in poor taste, but wasn’t about the actual act. That ‘nearly 30%’ actually becomes 28% when you find out that 12% of the tweets were the most worrying, the ones directly using the word in a threatening manner.

Just before continuing, I do find it very interesting that, of the examples he gave of the word being use as a joke, he picked this one to show us:

“WOW, he’s so cute, I wanna rape him!”

He states at the top of the article that his focus elsewhere has been on misogynistic trolling and opens with a recap of the Criado-Perez affair but, when talking about the poor taste of rape used as a joke, he mentions male rape. For someone whose opening paragraph suggests he thinks abuse on Twitter is a matter affecting women, this is a curious tweet to highlight. Either it’s an oversight on his part, or he wants to address the over-arching nature of abuse on Twitter, and perhaps the double standard of rape hysteria, but feels he can’t do it openly without running the risk of people deliberately ignoring everything else in the article, so resorts to sticking a tweet in as an example.

The author goes on to say he didn’t find any direct threats to specific people (which is good) but does clarify that by saying that it was just a small dip in the ocean (a random collection of 500) from the 30,000 tweets that his search revealed. He then states he is surprised by how often the word is used as a metaphor for all manner of everyday things:

“passing a test, a sporting conquest, a joke punch-line. This isn’t really a question for the police – it shouldn’t be illegal – but for all of us.”

I can’t disagree, I’ve heard people use the word rape as a verb before, but it’s what comes next that is interesting:

“ Words matter, because they often reflect and affect our perceptions. The slow and steady dehumanisation of other people in society – think of the Jews in 1930s Germany – often begins with normalising epithets about them. If rape becomes just another verb to be cast around in everyday language, the danger is that it sanitise the concept and blunts the uniqueness of the crime it describes.”

This is where I disagree with him. I do agree that words matter, I do agree that some words become more ingrained into public lexicon than others, but, for the most part, I don’t think that sanitises the word. If we take the word ‘paedo’ or ‘kiddy fiddler’, another couple of words that are big business at the moment in the UK, I’ve often seen them both used to describe men with moustaches or beards that amount to no more than ‘bum fluff’. Of course, the sexist assumption that sexual predators are men with moustaches is a discussion for another day, but the point is that, no matter how everyday the word becomes, no matter how much it is used as a punchline, no matter how much it is used as a joke, or a friendly insult between mates, it will never, ever, lose its impact when it comes to actual cases of paedophilia. If you ever had any doubt that people would lose their ability to get outraged at the antics of a paedophile you only have to look at the mass outrage caused by Jimmy Saville and the subsequent Operation Yewtree investigation:

This wide ranging abuse investigation has absolutely torn this country apart. Interestingly, the name ‘Jimmy Saville’ now seems to have entered public lexicon in the same way as rape has. It doesn’t mean that people loathe and despise Saville any less than they had, it just means that, for whatever reason, the British public’s macabre relationship with language and crime continues unabated.

What I did want to include in this blog was my own unscientific research conducted on Twitter. This is on a much smaller scale than the research conducted in the article, but it’s still valid. Instead of taking 500 random tweets, I simply picked the first 20 or so. I typed ‘kill’ into Twitter’s search bar, and just screencapped the first few that came up:

First off, if you take the first picture, you’ll see it says ‘317 new results’. That’s 317 new comments since I typed the word ‘kill’ into the search bar. That means in a matter of seconds there were 317 new tweets containing the word ‘kill’ published on Twitter. It’s a very popular word it would seem.

My point is very simple, like the article’s search of the word ‘rape’, some of those results are pretty innocuous, some of the ones I saw were talking about Kill Em All, Metallica’s debut album. However, there are a number of rather ‘poor taste’ tweets as well that are threatening and directly state the desire to murder someone based on something extremely trivial, like turning off a particular song on the radio. Much like rape, do we not run the risk of normalising the idea of murder by allowing usage of the word in that context to go on? Do we not run the same risk as we do with rape of ‘sanitising’ the act of murder by allowing people to make such a violent comment with such a blasé level of accountability? ‘Kill’ has been around in our lexicon for a long time as a way to describe things other than the actual act of murder. It is used in everyday talk to describe all manner of things. Mostly used in empty threats and as a synonym for something else, it doesn’t mean we have diminished our understanding of the damage and severity of murder or the act of killing someone. It means we have developed a way of disassociating the literal act of killing, the illegal act of murder, with the use of the word in another context, either a joking context, or simply as a descriptive way of making a point – “ooh, I’m gonna hill him/her!” = “wow, he/she must be angry!”

The difference is, to me, really simple, we don’t have the same hysteria surrounding the use of the word kill as we do the word ‘rape’. We can use the word kill on a regular basis, whether we are famous or not, and generally get away with it. We have become aware enough of our own language to see that words evolve and can be used in different contexts to mean different things. As suggested above, “I’m going to kill him/her!” doesn’t get us immediately diving for the phone to call the police as we understand it is not a real threat; it is simply a turn of phrase to express frustration and anger.

That leads me to believe that the hysteria surrounding the word ‘rape’, and perhaps even the word ‘paedo’, is a construct created to hold monopoly over that word. Rather than genuine concern and outrage it is a word that has been artificially elevated to a status beyond that of its worth, a word that has, through the constant usage and application to only one gender, become synonymous with feminism and misogyny. It allows the feminist movement to claim victimhood every time it is mentioned. “he used the word rape in a sentence in a way that we don’t like, woman hater!”. As we’ve seen with other mob-mentality instances, and indeed with everyday feminism, it doesn’t take a lot for the torch-waving, pitchfork-wielding sheep to come out of the woodwork and condemn the public-court-accused person, particularly a man, without actually knowing the context of the situation.

I am, in no way, suggesting we should all go outside tomorrow and start saying shit like “I’m going to rape this car with petrol”, not at all, I do believe that some words are used in poor taste and, if you are a public figure, your hold of the English language and an awareness of what you can and can’t say is important and necessary. What I am saying is that, if other words that have entered public lexicon, words that hold either similar or worse connotations than rape, and not changed the way we, as a public body, react to the literal act of those words, then why do we still hold ‘rape’ in such high esteem? Is this not a case of ‘if you ignore it, it goes away?” Surely by claiming outrage and victimization every time it’s used we are just handing power right over to the people who know they can use it to get a rise out of people.

Of course, the fact that feminists get outraged over the use of rape and apply it solely to women victims is a form of sexism in its own right, but when has feminism really done anything publically about male victims of rape? Plus, can feminists claim anger over the misuse of the word rape when they post utterly stupid shit like this:

I think the comments on that picture explain it pretty concisely.

“But John, women still get raped every day, do you understand what you’re saying?” Yes I do, people still get killed every day, paedophiles still abuse children every day (ok, ‘every day’ might be an exaggeration), but from recent events it would appear the social use of the words ‘kill’ and ‘padeo’ have not diminished the disgust and shock we feel when we are told of those acts happening, I fail to see rape as any different.

Now seems as good a time as any to stop, seen as it’s late and my fingers are burning.

It’s 9:10pm on a Sunday, I’m going to go and do what any responsible, mature adult would do in my shoes; eat a bowl of cereal! I’m thinking Rape Crispies?

Ok, that was in bad taste!

By way of an explanation.

Posted: January 18, 2014 in Uncategorized

It’s Saturday night, normally this is the time of the week I’d sit at the computer and write an entry on whatever feminism-inspired article or meme I’d had spinning in my head all week. That is still the plan for tonight, but, before that, I wanted to just write a short entry explaining why I opened with such a melodramatic introductory paragraph on Wednesday’s blog.

I’ve published three blogs in the last 7 days, which isn’t unusual. What is unusual is that they were all part of a bigger subject. The three parts are here:

Part1: Feminists claim women don’t know what feminism is about, while demonstrating ignorance of what feminism is about.

Part2: I Don’t Need Feminism: Part 2. Come at me, I just don’t give a fuck.

Part 3: I Don’t Need Feminism: Part 3, you dig your own grave.

The first part, posted on Sunday, was initially supposed to be a stand-alone project as a response to the attention the I Don’t Need Feminism photo was getting on various Facebook groups. Somebody commented on that asking if I had ever posted, in one place, a collection of various feminist fallacies, lies, myths and untruths. I hadn’t, but it’s something I had thought about doing. The only reason I hadn’t, up to that point, was for 2 reasons, 1) other people had already done it, so it wasn’t really necessary, and 2) I had already spent a lot of time in individual entries talking about a lot of the stuff that would go into an entry like that anyway, so I didn’t want to repeat myself.

Then, something happened that put me in that foul mood I was in when I wrote blog 2. That was the kicking point for me, that’s when I decided I needed to do something to keep me occupied over the next few days, so I decided ‘fuck it’, I’ll create a blog entry containing as many examples of feminist hypocrisy as possible. It was Tuesday I decided to do part 2. Initially it was only going to be one entry, it was only when I realised I had spread over 5 pages on Word (I write these blogs on Word then copy them across) that I decided to end there and focus on a part 3. So over the course of Tuesday I looked for all the memes and articles I had either saved up to that point, or went looking for ones I know I’d seen but hadn’t saved. Some memes and articles I know I’d seen in the past I couldn’t find, through Google or searching through Facebook, so there are more resources that are in the ether somewhere. If I find them I’ll try and add a part 4, possibly.

So, what happened to change my mind? What happened that put me in such a foul mood as to title my entry ‘I don’t give a fuck’? What happened that made me write that ‘limp wristed’ opening paragraph?

On Wednesday, I had to have my 18 year old cat put to sleep.

I am 28 this year, she was 18. If you do the maths, it becomes clear that I’ve spent not only more than half my life with this cat around, but that she was there when I grew up, as I changed from boy to man. She was part of my life since I was 10 years old. I can barely remember what happened in my life when I was 10 years old, but she was there. I don’t think it’s possible to explain the bond you forge with an animal to someone who has never experienced it, particularly an animal who has been around during the most progressive years of your life.

I don’t think I’d be overstating too much if I said I loved that cat more than most humans. My relationships with humans are borne, mostly, out of necessity. I’m civil when I need to be, I’m civil because it’s the right way to be, but I can’t say I crave human attention. I crave certain kinds of human attention, but 90% of the people I meet don’t fit those criteria.

So, yeah, I knew it was a decision I would probably have to make as early as Saturday. That doesn’t make it any easier, in fact it makes it harder. It makes it harder because it meant I had to spend the next 4 days knowing what was going to happen, I had to spend the next 4 days pretending I didn’t know what was going to happen. I had to go to work and pretend everything was fine when it wasn’t. I had to live life pretending I didn’t have the most oppressive sense of guilt flowing through me, wondering whether I was making the right decision, wondering whether I was doing it for the right reasons.

In the end, I realised that it wasn’t guilt I was feeling, just my own selfishness masquerading as guilt. I realised it was the right decision to make, but my selfishness would not let me make that decision because I wanted to halt my own suffering as opposed to doing the right thing. I didn’t want to do it because I knew how it would make me feel, and I selfishly didn’t want to go through that. I would prolong her suffering in order to appease my own. That was a harsh realisation.

I wasn’t trying to play the victim, I wasn’t trying to make an emotional plea for your sympathy. I was broken, I really was. I had nothing left inside, no tears, no anger, no hatred, nothing. I was writing parts 2 and 3 of that blog in a completely different mindset one that I hadn’t written in before, so I felt the need to explain myself first. Like I said, I apologise if I use my own personal blog to describe how I’m feeling. I you don’t like it, fine, but it speaks volumes about your character if you skip over the entire blog entry and home straight in on the ad hominems. That’s a cast iron way to convince me you have nothing valuable to say.

I’ll point out now, my mind-set has changed, my view on the world has changed, my emotional response to certain things has changed. If that becomes evident in a more vitriolic slant in these entries then so be it, at least now you know the reason.

I’ve got another blog coming tonight. See you then!

Ok, so, apparently, the introduction to part 2 of this little trio of entries was a little self serving and mushy. Well, I apologise for using this personal blog to write about my personal feelings and offending your sensibilities, how very careless of me. Just as a point for the future, me telling you how I am feeling at the beginning of one blog entry is so far and away from me playing the victim that comparing the two is clutching at the biggest bunch of straws. Victimisation is not telling people you feel a bit shit, it is about twisting every situation to be all about you and how you are being discriminated against. And for the record, I don’t claim women play the victim, I claim feminism uses the victim complex as a tool against criticism.

Anyway, I had to cut short Part 2 because it was late and I’d already written 5 pages of stuff, I figured I needed to split it otherwise people would be burnt out and not really take in the last few points. I looked at a lot of stuff in Part 2, a lot of stuff already covered within various entries in this blog. I cut off at the point I did because I wanted to focus on the last 2 points with enough focus to really drive home how much a part of feminism they are.

One category is the use of outright lies and myths. Things like the gender wage gap, rape statistics and other facts that help prove the feminist mantra of men = abuser, women = abused, despite the fact the statistics put forward have either been debunked numerous times, or are so many years old as to be inadmissible in any form of logical debate.

The second category is the idea of misrepresentation and/or oversimplification. This can tie in with the idea of myths and lies as often a feminist will present a fact that seems to be pretty discriminatory against women, but is either a) not as bad as they claim or b) omitting some rather important facts that completely re-shape their argument.

One example that I would love to use but can’t is a picture Women’s Rights News put on Facebook a couple of months ago. It was a picture of a young middle Eastern girl (I can’t remember is her nationality was named) on a plinth in the middle of a market-square-esque place, surrounding by a crowd of men who seemed to be pointing at her. Women’s Rights News (WRN) put up a caption saying this was an example of a young girl being sold for sex in this particular middle eastern country. Of course, the people in the comments were rightly outraged. This was disgusting and just proves how sick the middle east is, how much it hates women and girls, how rape culture permeates every fibre of their society.

Of course, the picture was bullshit, a modicum of research proved that this was, in fact, the complete opposite of what WRN said it was. Apparently, the young girl had recently been orphaned and the group of men surrounding her were praying for her, praying that their god would keep her safe. Despite the fact that numerous people, including myself, outright stated in the comments that WRN was horrifyingly wrong, people still continued to post their outrage. That is feminism, my friends. Despite being told numerous times, people (men and women) were so willing to be outraged at this perceived injustice against women, they were actively ignoring the truth. Ignoring the truth, how insane is that. So hyped up on victim culture and the desire to blame the middle east for its horrendous views that they weren’t even willing to do research or, when directly told the truth, listen to anything other than their idiotic, might-as-well-have-been-wielding-pitchforks-and-torches mob of crazy harpies.

Alas, why can’t I show you this particular post? Because WRN, being the cowards they are, took down the picture once they realised their mistake. That, surely, is a victory for common sense? Well, it would be, except WRN didn’t even have the common decency to admit they’d made a mistake, that they’d been so willing to believe what they were told, without doing their own research, that they posted something so horrendously misrepresented. Nope, no apology, no admission of guilty, no ‘we’ll do better next time’, just a clandestine removal and then silence. To make matters worse, a few days later they posted another meme about the importance of evidence when making a claim.

That outrageous level of hypocrisy destroyed the very little amount of respect I had for that page. A prime example of the feminist mindset. I’m so pissed I didn’t take a screencap while it was still up as I have no way of proving that’s what happened, you only have my word for it. If anyone else happened to see that particular post, please speak up, it’ll make it harder for them to deny.

Anyway, that’s not the only thing WRN have posted that either distorts the truth or oversimplifies it. There was a post a few days ago concerning a situation that happened in Iowa that serves as a perfect example of the way feminism presents an oversimplified, overly-emotional view of something that, in actual fact, is a lot more complex:

Makes it sound like a pretty clear cut case of discrimination, yes? Oh, those horrible men, who are probably just jealous of women for being attractive and want to make them suffer by allowing men to fire them at the drop of a hat. Damn these good looks, how come I have to suffer just for being beautiful, how unfair is…oh, wait, it’s just not that simple is it!

It would appear that WRN have massively oversimplified this. That meme implies it is legal for any man to fire any woman for being attractive, and the fact it was an all male supreme court somehow makes this one massive case of institutionalised misogyny! However, if you look at the actual facts (someone posted the link to the actual judge’s ruling, and I can’t bloody find it again) it’s not all men who can fire all women, it’s very specific to this one case, which is more complex than ‘you’re pretty, you’re fired’ and involves a complex situation involving a dentist, his assistant and the dentist’s wife. Oversimplification, much like the picture of the middle eastern girl, is dangerous in that it presents a very distorted view of what is actually the truth. Plus, knowing the feminist tendency to believe whatever is put in front of them, it makes for a firestorm that is very hard to put out. Bad news travels fast, ignorant news travels faster.


Another one that really bugs me is the whole ‘women died to get the vote’ argument, perfectly captured with this little meme:

The common perception is that men have always had the ‘right’ to vote and women only gained it after dying in droves to secure it. Oversimplification, misrepresentation and outright lies all rolled into one. I don’t know about America, but here in Britain it seems the feminists are determined to airbrush history and replace it with one they have created. You see, women were restricted in their voting rights but, shock horror, so were men. It wasn’t until 1928 that both men and women over 21 could vote. That little fact seems to disappear from feminist conversations. The fact is, many of the millions of men who died in WWI couldn’t vote, and, interestingly, the suffragettes at the time shamed those men, who couldn’t vote, into going to war to die in the fields of France.

It would also appear that women were disenfranchised for a lot less time than feminists seem to claim:

But of course, actually telling the truth would mean having to let go of the victimhood, wouldn’t it!

Interestingly, the below article seems to suggest that, once the reforms of 1918 took place, there were actually more women than men allowed to vote:

In that article, the electorate rises from 8 million to 21, an increase of 13 million. That, supposedly, puts 13 million women to 8 million men. However, what that article doesn’t say is that some of those 13 million were men, so again it’s not quite accurate. Even so, it still proves the feminists love to lie about voting rights. It’s something that should be common knowledge, but is not.

Much the same as the cries about the vote, there’s always been the claim that women make up more than half of the worlds population but earn only 1% or thereabouts of the world income, and only own 10% of the land. I can’t find a picture of the meme that this is contained in, but I can find the article that helps debunk it:

So once again, feminists use an airbrushed view of the world, basically containing stats that can, in no way, be backed up with any degree of reputable sources. An outlandish claim that appeals to our emotions – ‘oh my god, that’s outrageous, I must share this at once and let everyone know the discrimination women face.’ – oh no, wait, it’s all based on lies. Much like this one:

A baseless claim that, due to the over-hysterical crowing of some people has somehow entered into the public conscience and become ‘fact’, much like rape stats and domestic violence stats:

However, as with many of the stats that seem to be favourites of the feminists they have been debunked numerous times, quite spectacularly in some cases:–one-in-one-thousand-eight-hundred-seventy-seven

Then there’s the wage gap, one of the worst discriminatory aspects of our misogynistic society – the fact that women are paid only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. Feminists love this stat, even though it always appears in American currency, I think the UK total given is somewhere around 88 pence to the pound. This, supposedly, is a sad indictment of the way we look at women, they get paid less for the same work. But, again, oversimplification and outright lies come together to prove this stat. Every time there is a claim of the ‘wage gap’ all it takes is a little research to get to the bottom of it. There was a recent study in England that suggested female graduates made thousands of pounds less than male graduates even with the same university degree. The papers held on to this fact and ran with it. A cursory look at the actual report (made by HECSU) showed that, of those men and women with the same degree, there, again, wasn’t a comparable way of measuring money. A lot of the women either went back to the jobs they had been working whilst doing their degree (naturally paying lower) or went into areas such as teaching, while a lot of the men took apprenticeships with solicitors and law firms, which naturally paid higher. Again, the degree they had was the same, there was no denying that, but the actual work they chose to do after graduating is what made the figures seems worse. It just goes to show that a degree is actually no key to wealth, it is what you do with that degree that is important.

The wage gap is still talked about today as a massive problem. Thomas Sowell tore the mythical wage gap to shreds over 30 years ago:

If you want to talk about the influence feminism has on society, you only need to highlight the wage gap. A man can comprehensively prove that there is no discriminatory wage gap, the gap that does exist is down to a myriad or reasons, and yet, 30 years after doing so, we are still hearing about it. What was I saying earlier about feminists ignoring facts? Is it becoming clear why I say they love victimhood?

No wage gap, rape and domestic violence stats that are a lot lower than they claim, history not quite as black-and-white as they see and, overall, a tendency to oversimplify things in order to portray themselves as victims. This has taken 3 separate blog entries to really get into, that’s the scope of what we’re dealing with. The influence of feminism is massive. They control the rape statistics, they control the domestic violence statistics, the control the emotions of numerous followers, to the point that they can bend the truth, outright lie, manipulate things to paint themselves as the victim, and people will still follow them, blindly believe them because they are so entrenched in feminist theory that they don’t know how to do anything else.

Every time you hear a woman say NAFALT, ask them to tell you what the real rape stats are, who the real victims are in the domestic violence battle, the precise reasons, if any, they earn less. It is my experience, and countless others, that feminists don’t want to even up these figures, they don’t want true equality because that would mean having to accept that they actually aren’t the only victims in the world and, even if they do experience some form of sexism, it is primarily down to the individual involved and not an indication of systemic, institutionalised misogyny that is designed by the mythical patriarchy to keep them down.

One more example of misrepresentation allowing victimhood? Go on then:

Scroll down to the comments and see the numerous people playing victim:

I like the way it is reported as if it’s just the woman who was doing it! Had it just been her there wouldn’t have been a case to answer to but because he legged it and got away it’s her taking the “name and shame” lashing. I feel sorry for the poor child who is likely to suffer years of taunting because of this. Was it really necessary to name this woman? “

“How sexist to say ‘Woman caught … ‘. The headline should be ‘Two people caught …’ but then it’s the DM after all.” (headline is” Woman caught having sex on car bonnet in broad daylight with a man she met in a shop minutes earlier.” How much clearer can it be?)

This is my favourite:

“Wonderful sexism from the DM. So, was the man not mature enough to take some of the weight of the accusation. Why can’t the article say “man caught having sex on bonnet with a woman” instead of “women caught having sex on bonnet with man”?!! “

So it’s sexist to say a woman was caught with a man, but not at all sexist to say a man was caught with a woman? What on Earth do these people smoke.

There is a very simple explanation for why the article focuses entirely on the woman, as clearly stated:

“When officers arrived in the quiet cul-de-sac in Blackpool where the offence took place, the man fled by scaling a metal fence. An officer caught his ankles but he kicked out and escaped.”

It’s very hard to write an article about two people if you have absolutely no information on the second person. She met him in the shop, had sex with him and got arrested. He got away. How can you name and shame someone you don’t know the identity of? Simple feminist tactic, ignore the evidence and claim victimisation.

Ah go on then, one more:

Feminism fought for women, fought for women to be able to do what they want without fear of discrimination, without fear of sexism, without fear of prejudice, they fought for women to simply be without fear. But, for fucks sake, don’t you dare disagree with a feminists, because then you are in for one motherfucking epic hissy fit. On national television as well, has this woman no shame?

That’s right, folks, I saved, what I think is, the best til last. A woman chooses to live her life the way she wants to, chooses to do what is right for her marriage, and because it doesn’t suit the feminist ideal she gets shot down and shamed by one of the most pathetic tantrums ever seen on TV. Man, this is embarrassing. Seriously, is this what feminists want? This woman having this kind of overblown reaction on national television? I think it speaks volumes about what ‘real’ feminism is about. We fought for you to do what you want, but when you do what you want, and it is not to our liking, we reserve the right to shame the fuck out of you on national television and accuse you of being a gender traitor.

Feminism: giving you the choice to choose whatever life you want, as long as it’s one that we approve.

Have a nice day.

I should probably preface this by saying I’m in a fucking foul mood. A truly disgusting mood. Moods like I don’t get in very often, if ever. I’m broken, I’m wounded, I’m worn out, I’m empty, I’ve got nothing left. That in itself makes me more determined, more determined than ever to not roll over, to not give up. This is going to be quite long, and I can’t even claim it to be anything more than the tip of the iceberg.

On my last blog entry (which is technically part 1 and which fucking exploded on Facebook, smashing the record for number of views in one day twice in two days, and being shared over 200 times) someone commented and asked if I’d ever pooled all the shit feminists say about rape culture and the wage gap and other feminist hot topics in one place. I haven’t. I’ve mentioned and refuted lots of stuff, but I’ve not really touched on the wage gap, and I’ve not really addressed the many downfalls of feminism in one place.

So, I thought I’d do that here, while I was in this foul mood, and show people that the popular cry of ‘not all feminists are like that’ is wearing particularly thin, especially with me. I’ll explain why ‘NAFALT’ doesn’t work anymore, I’ll try and explain why, to me, as ever, the whole NAFALT argument is a simple way for individual feminists to claim they are for ‘true’ equality while actually revelling in all the benefits being a woman brings.

I’m going to split all the memes, videos and articles I’ve amassed into different categories of feminist theory, covering all bases, such as victimisation, mistruths, outright lies, manipulation, oversimplification and hypocrisy. This is by no means a comprehensive list, nor do I claim to be an expert on any of the things I put in this particular entry, these are simply things I’ve come across on my journey over the internet.

I’ll give a brief explanation of why I don’t believe ‘NAFALT’ is nothing more than an empty claim. All I had to do on Google was type in ‘I need feminism because’ and there were literally hundreds of hits. I’ve picked out some of the best ones. And by best, I mean the ones that best highlight the pathetic victim culture that surrounds feminism. Is it any wonder people are laughing at the idea of feminism in 2014 when some women are actually writing these things and willingly photographing themselves? No, I don’t buy into the ‘NAFALT’ argument because, if those feminists who spouted those words really cared, they’d do something to counter the ‘minority’, as they claim it, that is ruining what feminism is for them. They claim to be ‘real’ feminists and be for ‘true’ equality, yet I don’t see many feminists joining the campaign to end circumcision, or to get feminist organisations to use real statistics instead of false ones, or lobby for law changes so they benefit everyone, not just women.

But enough from me, for the moment. After each of these memes, articles or videos I’ll try to explain why I’ve included it, I’ll also include a helpful subtitle for each one so you can see what particular facet of feminism I’m talking about. Like I say, this is the tip of the iceberg and there are some memes I wanted to use that I’ve forgotten about, so there may even be a part 3 to this one.

Let’s start with one that the feminists love:


(I was going to edit the comments out, but I think they perfectly sum up my feelings on this one).

(This article will become an entry of its own soon enough)

Just a small selection of how feminists see rape, and that’s not even some of the worst of it, I’m saving that. Basically, though, from the above memes, what we’re told is that feminists, and feminists alone, can define what is and what isn’t rape, and then go on to complain about who is, or isn’t, trivialising rape in our culture. They say we live in a rape culture, they say we live in a culture that teaches ‘don’t get raped’ rather than ‘don’t rape’ and they say we live in a culture that victim blames the raped rather than the rapist. They love to hold on to this idea for 2 reasons. 1) It allows them to hold on to their much loved victim status, and 2) as long as they hold the monopoly on what is and isn’t rape, they can decided just who is and isn’t being raped. If that wasn’t clear enough I’ll spell it out a bit more – feminists decide if men can get raped or not. As it stands, that’s a big fat no.

Now, you might be wondering why I bring this up as, surely, feminism isn’t responsible for everything rape? Well, that’s where you wrong. Rape is like the feminist buzzword. It’s one of the ways in which men keep women oppressed, one of the ways in which men exert their control over women. Every instance of sexual intercourse is rape according to some feminists. Drunk girls who have sex are rape victims, yet feminists say nothing about the male victim, despite the fact he might have been drunk too. They hold the view that women must absolutely be believed if they claim they’ve been raped, and claim victim blaming if someone dares question their testimony. They claim false rape accusations are only 2% of all cases, yet numerous reports over the years have had trouble pinning down an exact number, ranging from 20% to a whopping 60%. Rather than working with law enforcement or government officials to try and get a realistic number and, you know, help real rape victims, they spend their time shouting down anyone who doesn’t pander to their definitions. The laws in England, as they are worded, state a woman can’t rape or sexually abuse a man. Despite feminists screaming for the rape definition to be changed they don’t seem to bothered when it disadvantages men and leaves them out in the, metaphorical, cold.


Ah, one of my favourite feminist tactics. This could be lumped in with any number of other categories: overuse of emotive language, miss-representation, shaming, mistruth, lies, etc. Generally, feminists will take a situation, probably one that could happen to any sex, and then twist it to make out it either a) only affects women, or b) affects women to a much larger degree than men.


You might think I’m being harsh on some of these. After all, why should women be forced to wear make up to please men? Well, as with a lot of these particular instances of victimisation there’s an implied sense that the problem is nothing to do with the person holding the sign. Only 3 female firefighters in your station? I’m sure you posting a picture to the internet is going to help, isn’t it. Instead of moaning on the internet and claiming you need an ideology to help rectify this massive discriminatory oversight why don’t you do some work of your own, try and spread the word of what it’s like to be a female firefighter. Have you ever thought that maybe there’s only 3 in your house because other women simply choose not to become firefighters, or aren’t aware that they could do it. Perhaps your job, instead of wallowing in victimisation, is to do some recruitment. Be positive about it instead of negative.

Wearing make up, wanting a career and a family, struggling to get a job because your degree isn’t worth shit? Life is hard, if you want a career and a family then go for it, don’t moan on and on about it because some people are saying it’s impossible. Look at men. Men, for years, have been the breadwinners, yet their wives claim they don’t put in enough work around the house. That’s the choice you have to make, the compromise you have to make. You can have both, but it’s not guaranteed to be easy, and complaining to feminism isn’t going to make it easy, you do the best you can because you want to do the best you can. You don’t deserve a career and a family simply for existing, you deserve whatever result your effort gives you.


Jennifer Lawrence thinks calling people fat should be banned, then laments the fact that she had to kiss Christian Bale when he was fat. Even if this is tongue-in-cheek, and I’m going to give her the benefit of the doubt here, it’s still a mindless comment to make seen as she recently said calling people fat shouldn’t be allowed on TV. So, Jennifer Lawrence thinks fat-shaming should be banned, but then makes a, possibly joking, comment about a man being fat. Can you see why, even if it was a joke, it was a pretty stupid one. According to her, she shouldn’t have a problem kissing Christian Bale, fat or not.

Girl sucks off a man in public, gets photographed and people troll her on the internet. Apparently, women aren’t allowed to make mistakes without the horrible, misogynous bastards of the internet crawling all over her. This article actually asks the questions if online bullying and trolling are simply ‘womens problems’, casually dismissing the thousands of abusive tweets sent every day to men.

Any, by the way, women can’t make mistakes without it being plastered all over the internet? John Inverdale says hello:

He made a rather clumsy, though well-meaning, comment about the dichotomy of looks vs talent in tennis and the internet, including, of course, the feminist majority, goes apoplectic, calling for him to resign. This is despite the fact that Claire Balding, feminist hero of television, had, a couple of years prior, suggested to a winning jokey that he use his new found fortune to get his teeth sorted out:

Women can’t make mistakes? Well, Nigella Lawson is still in a job after doing drugs, Kate Moss still had a job after being caught doing drugs, Tulisa still got to judge on the XFactor despite blowing her boyfriend on tape, Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian have built careers out of literally nothing. Yeah, I’m sure women have been punished for their mistakes (though, to my knowledge, Claire Balding wasn’t), but to casually claim that women always suffer for their mistakes is completely dishonest.


Mens issues too:

Feminists claim they are for mens issues too. Problem is, they only seem to be for those issues that indirectly help women. They leave the prison system alone, the prison system that sends women down for about a third of the time a man serves for the same crime. They stay quiet on that. In fact, they even have the gall to come out with shit like this:

Some feminists claim they are for mens issues, some don’t. Is it any wonder people don’t know what to believe? I know men who get shamed for being feminists, get told ‘you can’t be a feminist, feminism is only for women’. So how, exactly, does feminism claim to be for ‘true’ equality, or indeed fight for mens issues if it’s ‘only for women’. I’m confused. And articles like this don’t help either:

So yeah, be a feminist male, just don’t expect to be welcomed by half of the movement you associate with, and don’t expect to get much help if the shit hits the fan and you find yourself on the receiving end of a false rape allegation or a beating by your wife.

I’m going to leave it there for this entry, I’ve already ranted on for 5 pages and there are still two important categories to cover: oversimplification/misrepresentation and, possibly the one I’ll enjoy doing most, outright lies and myths. I will aim to get part 3 up by the weekend.

Today has been one of the worst days of my life, couple that with my intense dislike of feminism and the shit I have to see everyday; the perpetual victimhood, the lies, the myths, the manipulation, the oversimplification of something to twist it in to an anti-woman agenda, the shaming, the absolute refusal to see what ‘true’ feminism is about, the mass denial, the hatred, towards both men and women, the pontificating, the superior attitude, the smugness, the one-upmanship and the all round general arrogance has left me teetering on the edge.

Come at me feminists, try and disclaim all this, try and say NAFALT, try and say I don’t understand what real feminism is about. I think I have a pretty good idea of what feminism is about, and if it doesn’t match what you think feminism is about, maybe it’s not me who needs to take a look in the mirror. Right now, I couldn’t give a fuck what you think.

I’ve mentioned this before, a couple of times, but there’s a brilliant page on Facebook called Exposing Feminism. It was the first site I liked when I was beginning to come out the other side of the ‘feminist fog’ about 18 months ago. I’ve mentioned before that liking that page was one of the best things I’ve ever done. Well, liking that page, and creating the John Salmon alias, also led me to some other great pages on the same ilk. One of those pages is ‘I Don’t Need Feminism’, a page run by women (yep, women) who, well, don’t need feminism, obviously.

They are 2 of the Big 3 as I like to call them, the triumvirate rounded off nicely by the Anti White-Knight Coalition. I call them the big 3 because they are the 3 pages that I really connected with most and are pages that consistently post excellent stuff. The fact they are constant promoters of this blog doesn’t hurt!

As most of the regular readers of this blog know, I hate the ‘I need feminism because’ memes that are everywhere. I’ve written two (if I remember rightly) blog entries on specific memes that have raised my ire (I’ve mentioned many more within those blogs) because of either the sheer stupidity or the implied victimisation. I hate feminism because of some of the ideas that these memes promote. Things like stare rape are seriously brought up as issues that feminism needs to deal with. Stare rape? It’s like dealing with a 4 year old child sometimes. Actually, that’s quite insulting to 4 year old children. Victimisation is definitely a high priority in feminism.

I also find feminists are woefully unable to enter into anything resembling a mature, intelligent discussion without resorting to outdated, biased, ignorant views or just flat out shaming and ad hominem insults. If you debate a feminist (or try to) and they mention the wage gap, it’s time to shut up and go away. If a feminist believes the wage gap is due to discrimination, rather than the numerous other mitigating factors, it’s time to cut your losses and walk away because you’ve got no chance of winning that battle. When someone is so brainwashed by an ideology that they can’t even be bothered to look at the mass amounts of research available on a given topic, you know it’s just simply that they don’t want to know the truth, as opposed to actually believing their cause.

Anyway, back to the point. The admin at I Don’t Need Feminism, Jess, along with other women across the internet, has responded to the ‘I need feminism because’ memes with one of her own, titled, unbelievably, ‘I don’t need feminism because’. This picture, as far as I’m aware, has been around for a while, I saw it when I first became John Salmon, if not before. It quite succinctly outlines why, in fact, some women do not need feminism, why some women don’t identify with an ideology that is, I think, just as harmful to women as it is to men, despite its many claims to the contrary.

I’m very happy to say that, over the last few months, I have become quite good friends with Jess (the power of the internet, whether she feels the same I have no idea) and have seen first-hand her intelligence and ability to see through the bullshit of modern feminism. Recently, her picture has had a surge in popularity, appearing on no less than 4 Facebook pages over the last couple of weeks, each one garnering thousands of likes and hundreds of comments. It’s brilliant for 2 reasons; 1) it gets more and more exposure to female anti-feminists. That’s not a bad thing, I’m sure there are any number of people out there who would be shocked to learn that there are women who don’t identify with feminism, but there are. 2) It brings forth some of the most ill-educated, ignorant, pathetic excuses for human beings that lurk on the internet. If you want to know how confused feminists are about their own movement, or indeed how brainwashed a good majority of its supporters are, then read the comments on these pages.

Here are 3 screenshots I took highlighting the amount of likes and comments on each page. I tried to keep the title of the page in the shot so you could see where they were posted, but that wasn’t possible on one of them.

And here are the links to two of the pages that posted the picture, just so you can read the comments:

I just want to talk about the responses, because they have been quite animated and, for the most part, a joy to watch. It’s amazing how fun it is to watch people collectively lose their shit because someone does something as simple as disagreeing with them. It’s also amazing that I see, every day, people who disagree with feminism called out as misogynists and all manner of scummy things, yet those who criticise anti-feminism (ie: the same feminists who throw the word misogyny around like confetti) are doing so from a righteous position and are the ones who hold the truth, no matter what others say.

It’s also frustrating that a lot of the comments that criticise Jess’ picture are made by men, men who spout the same ignorant views that female feminists do. As I said earlier, when certain arguments come out it’s time to pack up and go home. There were 3 constants I found in pretty much all of these Facebook pages:

1)      She doesn’t know what feminism stands for, here’s a dictionary definition.

2)      Feminism is what is allowing you to make those statements.

3)      What about women in the middle east, they’re still oppressed.

I in no way have the energy to go through every comment posted in order to try and refute them, so I’m going to try and stick to the 3 points listed above.

1)      She doesn’t know what feminism stands for, here’s a dictionary definition.

There were numerous different versions of this one, some with the helpful inclusion of a dictionary definition, some without, some with a liberal sprinkling of cussing, some without. What they all shared was a desire to cling on to a definition of feminism that probably went out of date 100 years ago.

To be helpful, the dictionary definition of feminism:

  • the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities
  • organized activity in support of women’s rights and interests

To be helpful a bit more, here’s the dictionary definition of wicked:

  • morally bad
  • having or showing slightly bad thoughts in a way that is funny or not serious
  • very bad or unpleasant

Point is, things change. Wicked can still be used in the same way as defined above, but it can now also be used to mean something good, as in ‘man, that film was wicked’. If you stick to a dictionary definition as the sole definer or a word or movement without any acknowledgement of the fact that words and meanings change over time, it leads me to believe you actually have no counter-argument that is of any substance. By resorting to dictionary definitions, definitions that have significantly changed, means you are playing it safe. With no willingness to debate what feminism actually does men in 21st century Britain (or America as the case may be) then there’s absolutely no way for you to discredit anything Jess has said on her poster. You can’t say “this woman doesn’t know what feminism is about” and then, when asked “what is feminism about then?”, resort to say “well, the dictionary says…”. How pathetic does that sound? Until you are willing to debate what your movement means, and are willing to stop the metaphorical hands-over-your-eras-nah-nah-nah-I-can’t-hear-you-response then you have no right to state who does, or does not, understand what feminism is. I could break down what I think feminism in 21st century Britain is all about, but I think I’ve already made that clear enough.

2)      Feminism is what is allowing you to make those statements.

And Robert Peel is responsible for creating the English police force, which has allowed me to aid in getting people arrested for breaking in to my house (I was burgled twice at Uni). Does that mean, nearly 200 years later, I’m not allowed to criticise the police? After all, if I criticise the police, who will be available to help the next time I get burgled? It’s a daft sentiment to hold on to. Just because something was helpful in allowing something to happen, doesn’t mean it is exempt from criticism or debate. Lots of things have happened that have benefitted me in some way, surgical advancements, medicinal advancements, educational advancements and reforms. Without a government funded bursary I would never have been able to afford to become a teacher. Does that mean I can’t criticise the Government?

I understand where they’re coming from, I really do, who would want to criticise a movement that helped so much. But, here’s the thing, feminism is in no way solely responsible for the entire progression of women’s rights. It played its part early on, but without the aid of other people and other groups, feminism would never have made the ground it made solely on its own merit. I go back to the metaphor of blue and red items I mentioned in a previous blog (What about the boys? From December last year), we are constantly told the suffragettes fought and died for the right to vote and other such rights. What is conveniently left out is the amount of people behind the scenes who possibly contributed just as much to the granting of female suffrage. What also seems to be airbrushed from history is the fact that, not only did men in wartime Britain lack the vote, young men were shamed into fighting in the war by the suffragettes. Yes, feminism has played it’s part in history, in the role of womens suffrage and womens rights, but to claim that that makes them exempt from criticism as if they are some special society is a ludicrous idea. I posit that we actually need to be able to criticise feminism, otherwise what happens when some of ludicrous statements on the ‘I need feminism because’ memes actually start happening? When do we know when its gone too far?

3)      What about women in the middle east, they’re still oppressed.

This is a prime example of feminist confusion and hypocrisy. I’ve heard feminists say that their battle is not in the middle east, I’ve heard feminists say that the fact women are oppressed in foreign countries justifies the need for feminism in their country. Foreign countries are a sore point for me. It goes back to the red and blue item test (again), perhaps that metaphor is actually more applicable here than it was in the original blog I used it in. We are told so often, with such vehemence and certainty of the atrocities faced by women in the middle east that we a) never consider how the women themselves feel, and b) how men in those countries are affected. I know for example a lot of memes and posts I see about India are all to do with the misogynistic nature of the country, and how rape is prevalent and men are animals, yet I’ve seen and read things that suggest men get just as raw a deal in that country, only in different ways.

 It boils down to the first question again, what is feminism about? I truly believe that feminists believe what they are told to believe. Even the ones who aren’t radicals, even the ones who claim to be ‘grass-roots’ or everyday feminists. They are told that women are oppressed, the result being that instead of doing some research and finding out for themselves just what is going on, they readily believe it. They’ve been indoctrinated for so long, told that feminism is the righteous path, the only path for them to go down for so long that they aren’t willing to accept anything different.

Having read some of the comments on the pages that shared Jess’ photo, and indeed some of the womens rights page scattered around on Facebook, I think Jess has a much better idea of what feminism is about than those who claim to follow it. Feminism in 2st century Britain is about victimhood, it’s about triviality, it’s about mistruths and manipulation, lies and deceit. Any time a feminist says feminism is about equal rights for men and women it just proves to me that they actually don’t know what they’re talking about, they don’t know what feminism has turned in to. If they are unwilling to explore other avenues, unwilling to admit that, perhaps, feminism isn’t about equal rights at all, then all they are doing is allowing themselves to be fed the same lies over and over again. Believing anything you are told because it helps you to confirm your beliefs in feminism, because it helps you to justify the movement you are part of, allows you to blame others for perceived injustices that don’t actually exist, allows you to benefit from benevolent sexism while at the same time decrying it when it benefits someone else means you are a confirmation-bias loving, perpetually victimised victim of a poisonous movement. It does not make you for equal rights, it makes you a brainwashed, blind fool of a sheep.

Having said all that, I suppose they have a point, in some way. Feminists who believe the wage gap is due to discrimination, feminists who believe the 1-in-4 rape statistic, feminists who believe the ‘rule of thumb’ is about a man legally being able to beat his wife, feminists who actively endorse these ideas without the slightest desire to do even a modicum of research actually have a brilliant idea of what feminism is about, they either just don’t see it or choose not to see it. Either way, it’s pretty sad.

Here’s a tester. Have a discussion with a feminist by starting with the words ‘feminism is not needed in 2014’ and see what happens. If they mention rape statistics, the wage gap, the rule of thumb, domestic violence statistics or patriarchy it’s time to pack your bags (metaphorical or literal) and leave.

Getting a feminist to open their mind to alternative thoughts is like trying to turn a cake back into its constituent ingredients, they’re spent so long mixed together that it’s impossible to return them to their original state. Feminists are so in awe of their movement, so ready to believe how victimised they are, so ready to believe how an ideology can help them that there aren’t willing to let that go. Every time they cry they are pandered to, every time they kick up a fuss they are pandered to, every time they scream about not getting their own way they are pandered to. Maybe I wasn’t too far off when I referred to them as 4 year olds.

I still think that’s insulting to 4 year olds.

Ever read an article in a newspaper or online, or seen a status from one of your friends on a social network site that is so idiotically stupid you’ve had to read it twice? Yeah, I’ve done that plenty of times, especially with some of full blown muppets I have on my Facebook friends list. Most of the time said statuses are met with the customary roll of the eyes. Sometimes, though, they are so full of idiocy and selfishness that I can’t help but feel the need to respond.

I’ve spoken in the past about feminism and the victim complex. While I don’t think I can 100% apply this to feminism as there’s no indication the author of the article is a feminist, what I can put it down to is the culture that feminism has created in women that leads them to believe that their problems are worth more than anyone else’s problems. And I don’t just mean men by that, as the article will shows, it’s other women too. By furthering the idea that women are strong, smart, independent and capable of ‘having it all’ it seems that some women have taken from that the idea that what they do, the way they live their lives and the things they don’t enjoy are somehow more valuable and important than those that they disagree with. I don’t claim all women to be like this, and I’m well aware that some men show those traits as well, but the article I’m going to talk about is so full of selfishness and victimhood that you really can’t take it seriously. Well, not if you’re sane.

Anyway, today’s piece of unintended hilarity:

Haha, hahahaha, hahahahaha! Yeah, ok, that’s enough of that. Seriously though, that’s what she’s complaining about? I’ve been reading the Daily Telegraph since I was 10 years old (because I’m cultured as fuck. Well, that and the fact my dad reads it) and I always thought it was a decent newspaper, one for the intellectuals. It would seem moving to the online form has done nothing for the quality of its stories. There’s so much to talk about with this article that I could ramble on for ages. I won’t, I want to focus on a few points of interest that I think embody the victimhood not only that this woman surrounds herself with, but the wider implications of that victimhood.

First of all, the term ‘peacocking’. Probably without even knowing it she has taken a swipe at the idea of masculinity in the headline of her piece. The peacock is the name for a male peafowl, and is very famous for the fact it spreads its tail feathers in a show of virility in order to attract a mate, or at least that’s how it’s interpreted in society. The fact that a ‘peacock’ refers to only the male peafowl (the female is called a peahen) shows that this display of relationship one-upmanship is decidedly a masculine trait, one used to show superiority over other people. This need to be superior appears, from this article, to be borne out of jealousy and the need to force your insecurities on someone else. For someone who, through this article, embodies the idea of female hysteria and over-sensitiveness it seems a little careless to use the term peacocking in this way. If she can stereotype the idea of masculinity as essentially insecure and needing to project on to others, then I can stereotype her as a whiney bitch. Sounds fair, right?

It might seem like I’m clutching at straws with that argument, but the idea of masculinity and what is to be male is slowly, quietly, being eroded away. It now seems to be something almost shameful to be masculine, especially when it comes to feminism. The slow erosion of masculinity (and, on the flip side, the erosion of femininity) is one of the worst things to happen to our society. This is just another covert attempt at devaluing the idea of masculinity. It implies that a show of strength, a deliberate enhancement of personal qualities, is shallow and a way of masking insecurities. It also implies that women who are attracted to those qualities share the same level of shallowness and, as a result, neither are worthy of our time or effort. Yeah, sounds like I’m reaching, but it’s there, you just have to look for it.

Moving on, this article seems to be split in to two distinct halves. The first half basically boils down to a whole load of whining and victimhood. I’m sorry to say, but we all have bad days. I finish work at 3pm, don’t get home until 5pm and then often have to work at home until 7 or 8pm. I have very little free time during the week, and spend most of my weekends, Sundays in particular, thinking about preparing for the weeks ahead. In the summer I am stuck in a classroom and get very little time to enjoy the weather (until the summer holidays of course, they’re fucking awesome!) and in the winter I leave for work in the morning in darkness and get home in the evening in darkness. I only ever see daylight through a window. The difference is, I don’t expect sympathy. Yes, I understand people have shitty days and need to unwind, I understand that people want nothing more at the end of a long day than to speak to someone close to them. However, just because you have had a shitty day it doesn’t make your suffering any worse than anybody else’s. What is being described in this article is simply the perils of being an adult. It’s terrible, I know!

So, with that rather pathetic attempt for sympathy discarded and ignored, we get to the actual point of the article – somebody else picking up the phone instead of the person you wanted to. Oh, no! How terrible it must be for you to have to utter the words “is _____ there, please?” What tragic world do we live in when we have to utter one more sentence than we were expecting before making the call. Does it suddenly strike you dumb? Have you spent so long practicing the opening of your phone call (“Hello, it’s _____”) that you suddenly can’t deal with anything different? Man, get a grip. She actually makes a valid point that you might expect to hear your friend’s boyfriend’s voice when they pick up the phone seeing as it’s a general phone, but that’s pretty much the only valid argument in this entire piece. Sure, it might be annoying having that split second where you don’t recognise the voice that does answer, but surely not annoying enough that you feel the need to run to your computer and write a frigging article about it?!

The use of language is so over-the-top it becomes humorous! Wretched? Phenomenon? The norm? How does she know it’s become the norm, simply because her friend does it? There are so many simple, effective explanations for why someone’s boyfriend might answer the phone that this argument shouldn’t even really be acknowledged. The problem is, if we continue to let articles like this go without ridicule then people will continue to write them. If people continue to write articles like this then the masses will continue to believe that this is an issue worth giving a tenth of your time too. Luckily, it would seem the majority of commenters on the article share my disdain for this piece, and are no less vocal than I’m being right now.

The thing that really stuck in me though, the thing that had me trying to decide whether to just shake my head or get really annoyed was this line:

“Does it go deeper though? Is this a form of submission? Like a dog marking its territory, is the boyfriend marking his?”

This is where it just goes beyond the pale of normal social interaction and into absolute victimhood. Come on, seriously you want to apply gender and relationship dynamics to the simple act of answering the phone? I think this goes way beyond any real sense of frustration held by the author and hints at some deeper insecurities. I have no idea if this author is a feminist, but this article, and that line in particular, just reek of the victimhood I’ve come to expect from the feminist mentality. A boyfriend doing something simple like picking up his girlfriend’s phone has absolutely nothing to do with control and submission. Applying that kind of feminist thinking, that this is simply a way of male domination over submissive female, is simply applying a problem that doesn’t exist. If you can twist the act of answering the phone into some sort of social comment about how men want their girlfriends or wives to be submissive then you can twist any action to be about anything. What next, a man cooking dinner for his wife or girlfriend is guilting her into staying because he’s made a modicum of effort? A man who picks his wife or girlfriend up after a night out is trying to assert his control over her by saying that, without him, she wouldn’t be able to survive a night out? Where does it end? If that’s the route we’re going down, at what point do people start to think ‘hang on, this is getting fucking ridiculous now?’ I’ll give you a hint, we’re already halfway there!

Then, as if it’s not enough that she applies this ludicrously over-thought logic to this simple act, she then thinks of another way in which it’s demeaning:

“Or, is it, as I’m prone to believe, the girlfriend, your friend, doing some sort of relationship peacocking?”

And this is where the subtle, implied criticism of masculinity comes in. She hints that masculinity, even when exhibited by females, is so insecure in its own values that it needs to be thrust upon others repeatedly in order to let others know that it exists and it is thriving. Rather than showing the insecurities of masculinity, I feel this simply shows the insecurities of the writer herself, showing that it is her, not her friend, who is so upset about not having a boyfriend that she will find any excuse to dislike her friend simply for having one. I’ve seen it happen, I’ve done it myself, rather than some self-reflection and thinking about what the problem truly is, you invent them and blame other people, anything to help you avoid the crippling realisation that your friend is rather happy and you are fucking miserable.

This paragraph, if the entire article itself hasn’t already, should give you some idea as to the real angle the writer is coming from, despite protestations otherwise:

“However, this incessant telephonic showing off, which I can assure you isn’t funny for this third party, is putting a serious strain on those feelings. And when the phone is passed, but you’re still having a conversation with him, “no, no, that’s not how you do it!” just adds further kindling to the fire of resentment. Oh, and don’t even get me started on when he puts on a high-pitched voice and pretends to be you!”

So, basically, this all boils down to, you guessed, the victim complex. It makes her feel bad, it make her resent her friend for being so happy, it’s all about the ‘feels’! How pathetic. Perhaps when you’ve grown up enough to realise that the world doesn’t revolve around you and the way you feel you can write an article about how self-centered you are in your expectations of others to live their life in a way that doesn’t impinge on your delicate feelings. Until then, I hope your friends continue to let their boyfriends answer the phone to you, and then I hope they stop taking your calls altogether, maybe that will help you re-assess your life.

But, John, what has this got to do with feminism? Well, as I mentioned in my last blog, I don’t know if she’s a feminist or not, but this isn’t to do with any particular feminist, but the movement in general. It promotes the idea, nay actively endorses the idea, that women are always victims, even to the point that it allows this woman to claim such an advanced level of victimhood that the simple act of a friend’s boyfriend answering the phone now amounts to some explicit patriarchal act of dominance. Whichever way she looks at it, it’s not her fault. She has a shitty day at work, despite the fact millions of others have shitty days at work, and, instead of just accepting that that is a sad fact of life, decides to pick a fight with her friend for daring to not be around to pick up her phone. Feminism promotes the idea that women are not to blame, that women are not wrong, that if they don’t like something it’s not possibly their own insecurities or limitations that are the issue but some outside force, some domineering form of control that aims to subjugate and oppress. When you can take a simple act like the one in this article and embellish it to such ridiculous levels of victimhood, whilst simultaneously managing to completely exclude your own contribution to the experience there is a definite problem to be solved. I’ll give you a hint; it’s not with the friend or the boyfriend.

I put the link to this article on my Facebook page ( and thought I’d share some of the responses. Let’s just say between the responses on the article itself and the responses on my Facebook page, the woman who wrote this article seems to be out there on a ledge all on her own, which is a beautiful thing to see.

Victim complex 101, it won’t work forever.