Tag Archives: feminism

The Secret Court of Women

You have been convicted of a serious crime. You are guilty. Your career prospects are gone. Your social standing, whatever it once was, is gone. Your future plans, you desire for a family, that’s all gone too.

You will not be informed of your conviction. You will not be informed of your accusation. You will not know what your crime was. But you’re guilty, and your name has been published on a list of offenders. You wont be told about that list either. Good luck to you.

Forget about the police and courts. Forget about lawyers. Actual laws have nothing to do with your crimes which may be imaginary, or your conviction, which is definitely real. Your judges are vigilantes. They are also invisible to you, but I’m here to help. That girl your taking out for lunch is one of them. Your boss’s admin assistant is one. The girls sitting beside you in your university lecture are vigilantes. Your wife is one of them. The waitress pouring your coffee is your prosecutor. The Human Resources girl at your work is your prison guard. There will be no parole, in fact, there is no such thing.

The preceding statements read like a dystopian, paranoid nightmare.

In an article at NowToronto.com Antonia Zerbisias outlines the vigilante un-personing of an inconvenient man. The convict in this case is you, in case you’ve lost track.

Some people may claim that a man condemned by a semi-secret whispering slander campaign is not a convict. Those people are fools.

A women’s public washroom is a place where a list of “offenders” is scrawled and glued up for others to read and reproduce. Your name, your city of residence, and your employer are all listed alongside your crime. Maybe rape, maybe stalking, maybe assault of a woman. The details of your offence are less important than the fact that it’s some transgression with serious negative stigma attached. Also your name and your employer.

While Zerbisias’s posting at NowToronto.com may be shocking to many readers, the practice of women using anonymous accusation against men is not new at all. What appears to be new is that mainstream media is now promoting such unverifiable and secret criminal accusations. This is a positive practice, apparently. Zerbisias, the author seems to recognize the corrupt nature of her proposition. She even acknowledges the repulsion her readers will feel at her endorsement of vigilantism. Her goal appears to be re-painting indecent practice in attractive colours. Somewhere a woman was hurt, and did not find justice in a court of law. There you go, justification.

But women have always had the social power of control over men’s public images. And they have always used such power. This is rarely admitted in public because it debunks the feminist myth of women’s powerlessness and oppression. To be sure, women have always known of such tactics. Also, even when not using anonymous slander, no women’s movement has ever opposed such vigilante character assassination. Women appear content to keep that weapon, even when not using it.

The publication and attempt at justification of this tradition among women, by a female author at nowtoronto.com serves several purposes. The first is to directly threaten men. Know your place, mind your manners, and recognize who owns your life, boys. Also, NowToronto’s public justification of anonymous criminal accusation is a call for women to network through social media. We should spread the reach, the permanence and the search-ability of the de-personhood of a man. One irresponsible accuser should make a man unemployable in every state, city and province he may live in, for the rest of his life.

If there is not already an online searchable database of back-room, whispered criminal accusations against men there will be one soon. You might once have offended your date by insisting she pay for half the drinks. And, some young eager male feminist with a couple college web programming courses under his belt is sure to step up any day now. There won’t be any payment, but he’ll get an approving pat on his head.

The site nowtoronto.com currently has Alexa rank of 41,320 and a Canadian rank of 934. But it has only 2 comments, both negative. A site in the top 1000 within the country of Canada should have at least dozens of comments per article. The negative character of the current two comments may suggest an attempt at spin by NowToronto’s editors.

“This is a disgusting article and shame on anyone and everyone that applauds this. How the fuck do we know these guys on the list actually raped or sexually assaulted someone?”

Returning to the article’s message to male readers, it is no surprise that so many young and insecure men fall prey to feminist indoctrination. When you’re trained from childhood to recognize female ownership of your identity, college style feminism is not a substantive change. It is only an escalation with added guilt and blame.

But NowToronto’s public message to men, that you will condemned by women you know as they smile to your face may have an effect other than frightened male compliance.

Most young men grown up believing in the natural benevolence and innocence of women. But articles like Zerbisias’ cultivate and fertilize an informed and growing distrust and hostility toward women. As smooth faced, innocent and pleasant as women may each seem, the ugly truth is increasingly visible.

Women are spiritually superior to men. That’s the idea we are all, as boys and girls, and men and women, raised to believe. But it’s crap. The concept of spiritual superiority, or innate goodness denies the humanity of women. It makes them instead into imaginary mystical creatures. In reality, food goes in one end, and faeces come of the other. And just like every man and animate animal slab of meat with a mouth and a but-hole, women are scumbags, with a socially provided excuse that male scumbags lack.

If we train people to see themselves superior, spiritual and sublime, they will practice their violent and antisocial behaviours with a satisfied smile. But, at least they’re talking about it openly. And intelligent men can begin to see past the illusions, and protect themselves from the secret government of their female friends.

Stephanie Guthrie is Great.

Vigilante Justice is Good, Apparently.

Gregory Allan Elliot must die.

Elliot is the Toronto man who in 2012 answered an ad for volunteers to produce art work and posters for the group; Women in Toronto Politics. The group founded by Stephanie Guthrie. Elliot volunteered to produce those posters for her. But the volunteer found himself in disagreement with Guthrie over her alleged plan to slander and blacklisted a software developer over her offence at satirical video game.

The game in question featured an image of feminist Anita Sarkesian, and included punching the face of Sarkesian’s digital image. Guthrie took to the internet, tweeting potential employers in Sault Ste. Marie, and contacted a local newspaper about the offending video game developer.

Mr Elliot disagreed with the planned harassment of a young game developer, and argued with Guthrie over the ethicacy of her plan via twitter. That argument extended to an ongoing disagreement over her politics lasting more than a year. Guthrie charged Mr Elliot him with criminal harassment. It’s the first case of it’s kind in Canada.

During Mr Elliot’s trial, Guthrie was asked about vigilante violence against another man, Hunter Moore. Moore had created a revenge porn website, which while not illegal, crossed boundaries of good taste and positive ethics.

In the example of Mr Moore, Guthrie was asked by lawyer Chris Murphy if she supported actions putting Mr Moore in physical danger.

“In this specific situation…in light of the actions he [Moore] took and in light the law’s inability [to deal with it], yes … depending on the case, yes.”
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-complainant-willing-to-be-self-appointed-sheriff-of-wild-west-twitterverse

Murphy later questioned Guthrie about her vigilante actions against game developer Bendilin Spurr.

“I put it to you that you wanted to ruin Bendilin Spurr’s life?” he asked.
Ms. Guthrie replied “I was simply making people aware”.

Mr. Murphy asked, if those she made aware took action that ruined Mr. Spurr’s life?
“I would not feel sorry about that.” Ms. Guthrie said. “It would be because” he had brought it on himself.

It would obviously not be because she campaigned to vilify him. Gregory Allan Elliot’s lawyer asked Guthrie if the end result was ruin, “that’s okay with you, yes or no?”

“Yes,” Ms. Guthrie said, untroubled by the admission.

Gregory Alan Elliott had been a supporter of Stephanie Guthrie. Mr Elliot ran afoul of the political activist when he objected to her plan to conspire against the video game developer. Elliot characterized Guthrie’s intentions as “every bit as vicious as the face-punch game”.

As a personal observation from me, this appears a rather mild critique. A face-punch video game featuring a person’s image is far less harmful than an organized campaign to ruin a person’s employment prospects and life.

In March 2014, Judge Brent Knazan halted Elliot’s trial after receipt of a letter alleging a criminal conspiracy by Guthrie and two others.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-twitter-harassment-trial-halted-by-surprise-letter-alleging-fraudulent-conspiracy-against-accused

Knazan announced on March 20 that the content of the letter left “police and Crown counsel no option but to investigate,” and adjourned the case.

At the time of this commentary, Gregory Allan Elliot’s trial for allegedly harassing Stephanie Guthrie is over. A decision is expected on October 6th.

For many people, the summary provided above will be nothing new. Canada’s national post has covered the story extensively, and critically of Guthrie’s conduct.

In fact, many people have wondered why a political activist’s claim that disagreement with her would be entertained by the Canadian courts. A political activist’s pursuit of vigilante justice, and claimed victimhood appears a perversion of justice. That the case was not thrown out as a frivolous nuisance lawsuit remains a source of amazement. I know I will be accused of naiveté.

Court documents state: “Ms. Guthrie confirmed that, as far as she was aware, Mr. Elliott never sent her a tweet that was libellous, threatening, or sexual in nature.”

But waiting for the decision of Judge Brent Knazan, many followers of the precedent setting trial believe that of course Mr Elliot will be exonerated.

This is a possibility, certainly. But, given that at no was this case thrown out based on it’s seeming frivolity Mr Elliot might be on his way to jail. Dissagreeing with a feminist in her hot pursuit of mob justice against a face-punch video game developer might now be defined in law as criminal harassment. But the decision of the Canadian court, waiting for the pronouncement of Judge Knazan doesn’t matter. Public, verbal or written opposition to social justice vigilantism is now effectively a criminal act. The possible ratification by the court is a formality. Stephanie Guthrie already has her justice, because Gregory Allan Elliot’s career is finished. He was fired from his job and publicly defamed long before stepping into a Canadian criminal court. Elliot is not a responsible adult opposing social justice vigilantes, no. He’s the criminal harasser of a “truly great young woman”. Those words being the characterization of Guthrie by Christie Blatchford, one of her critics writing for Canada’s National Post.
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-complainant-willing-to-be-self-appointed-sheriff-of-wild-west-twitterverse

Mr Elliot must go to jail.
Miss Guthrie must not be inconvenienced with charges of criminal conspiracy, fraud, public mischief or criminal contempt. She is an experienced and accomplished political activist, and a feminist. She is female, and therefore the victim.

Why, in Canada do we even bother ourselves to pursue resolution of grievances by the costly and tedious criminal courts?
Social Justice is clearly faster, more efficient, and it is what people want.

That’s the article. What follows below is unimportant personal rambling.

Years ago, commenting on mainstream feminism’s opposition to due process, I made the following speculation. I guessed that that the public would come to regard the courts as incapable of redressing criminal grievance. I also guessed that removal of Habeas Corpus would drive people towards ad-hoc solutions to personal grievance. I guessed people, being adaptable would abandon law and would seek extra-legal alternatives. I though those solutions would include violent vendetta.

Vigilante violence appeared a probable outcome of removing due process and presumptive innocence from the western practice of law.

Although I predicted vigilante justice as an emerging social norm, I got it almost completely backwards.

I did not guess that the social justice ethic in centres of higher learning would be the active source of vigilante practice. Rather, I guessed it would be an exhausted public who lost faith in rule of law and sought their various cave-man alternatives. Silly me.

It is now clear in Canada that whether the courts have been perverted so that that opposing vigilantism will land you in jail is not even a relevant question. The non-feminist public doesn’t need to lose faith in the rule of law. Non social-justice-warriors and will have no opportunity to adopt extra-legal alternatives for dispute resolution.

The feminist and social justice mainstream has already done it, not reactively, but proactively. The vigilante, social justice of the mob is already normal. And Stephanie Guthrie is a truly great young woman.

Acquit yourself accordingly.

How Feminism Helps Men

Author’s Note : the following rant was delivered to a surging crowd of four sturdy individuals who got rained on in Grandview Park in Vancouver BC while I was ranting. Thank you.

The talk:

As men, whether we’re a Men’s Activist, or just Going you Own Way, or a man otherwise lacking self hatred, it’s easy to recognize social violence against ourselves when we look at feminism.

Even this simple observation will be met with shrieks that the definition of feminism is equality – and that anyone who doesn’t agree is a woman hating, evil, shrivelled penis, neck-bearded, rape apologist.

But we’re not using the dictionary as our guide, instead, we’re using our knowledge of the real world in which feminism is just one political camp’s extension of gynocentrism.

And although policies driven by feminism are noxious, and antithetical to civil rights, the feminist enterprise is a surface symptom of a deeper issue.
Did tens of millions of men die during the wars of the world due to feminism? No, they died because in human cultures, men have always been disposable. You, gentlemen, are utilities to be used to your own destruction and discarded when broken.

And the narrative, constructed in recent history of the endless victimization of women and their subjugation by men, is a narrative. It is a story. And the fact that, as a narrative, it does not match with our shared understanding of reality does not matter.

I was a men’s rights activist for many years, and a large part of what I did was to point out the difference between reality as I understood it, and the narrative feminist fantasy of every man being a rapist in potential and every woman an eternal, helpless, child-like victim.

Has anybody ever heard that 1 in 4 women on a university campus will be sexually assaulted? This is a statistic so deeply embedded in the public story of our culture that we can say the words “1 in 4” without saying “women,” or “rape,” almost everybody in earshot will know that we’re talking about the victimization of women. We’re not talking about how many people carry a genetic leaning to contract diabetes, we’re not talking about how many trees in BC are infested with pine beetles. You say 1 in 4, and people just know.

And all the actual statistics, and studies, and law enforcement publication of collected data, will not dislodge that so called fact from public consciousness. It’s false, but it wont go away, and those whose political narrative is bolstered by it have no hesitation to keep trotting it out – false as it is. The real number is closer to 1 in several thousand, for anybody who cares.

But I say don’t fight feminism. Don’t oppose it. Not because it’s not based on lies, it is. And not because it’s violent and hateful, because it’s those things too. Simply because you won’t stop it, and you will end up closer in spirit to the flingers of hate when you try to oppose them.

In fact – if you really are successful in taking the steam out of some feminist campaign or other – your primary impact will be to amplify the sense of victimization that feminists thrive on, and you will energize that sector of the feminist project to greater excesses than they would previously have entertained.

If you need an example of this, just think of Anita Sarkeesian. She’s a grifter and a con artist, and every time this is publicly pointed out, she is re-victimized – and walks away with another fat bag full of cash and a humanist of the year award for her troubles. Debunking is transmogrified to victimhood, and that is the fuel they run on.

There’s another reason to not fight feminism.

It helps men. I know that feminists like to claim this point, but they generally mean something different than what I am suggesting here.

There are a number of people who, in response to feminist driven social policies and laws, now advocate for traditionalism (or a “neo-traditional” model) for male-female relations and family dynamics. Some variation of a traditional family framework is what we generally assume to have been standard prior to what is now a largely feminist social structure.

And it is feminism we have to thank for the abandonment by men of that old social model. The model that put men’s self actualization last in line after the satisfaction of women’s safety, provision, comfort, shopping, and shoes.

But men wouldn’t have woken up to just what a crap deal they were getting if it had not been for the movement we now refer to as feminism. And it wasn’t first, or even second wave feminism that woke men up. It was the current gang of idiots. Being told that all men are rapists, and that’s all they are, wasn’t enough. Being told that in spite of history’s record of male creativity, that women are exactly as creative as men – in fact, they’re more creative. So if you’re a man with a lot of creativity, screw you, you’re a second rater because women are better at the thing you’re best at. The only reason women didn’t invent almost all of civilization is because you and your male ancestors held them down like the tyrant you are.

Being told that when you do things to benefit women, you’re being a sexist, in fact, just as much of a sexist as a guy who actively disparages women. Being told that the way you sit down on public transit is an act of aggression that harms women. Being told if you’re a male feminist that no matter how much you do you’ll never have the esteem granted to female feminists – nothing will ever be enough.

But I still say don’t fight feminism. And the reason is that the stone cold hatred and weapons grade crazy is what men apparently need to break free. But not to break free from feminism, that’s just a symptom. To break free from the deeper problem of gynocentrism. The social force that leads men to die on the job for a wife’s shopping spree and shoes, or to die on a foreign battlefield to keep the price of gas down for soccer moms to fill up their minivans.

With feminism, you are a hated subhuman, still chained to traditional gender role of protect and provide, and die when it’s convenient for others. But without feminism, what we would have is traditionalism – which is where you were a mule chained to a cart, and once in a while you get a carrot.

I don’t think you’re a mule, and I don’t think a carrot is good enough. But it took the excesses of modern feminism to properly wake men up. To wake some men up. It’s going to take more stone cold crazy and weaponized hate to wake the rest up. And that’s why I say don’t fight feminism, don’t oppose it.

In fact, I want to thank modern current wave feminists. They’re the wake up call for men.

Our Respected Philosophical Opponents

I recently visited a website where I saw a T-shirt in their online store which said: “Feminists are stupid. Throw facts at them!” The slogan is an obvious parody of a feminist inspired T-shirt design calling for violence against children: “Boys are stupid. Throw rocks at them!”
Continue reading Our Respected Philosophical Opponents

Intersectionality Is Not Just Another Word

On December 23rd, Eleanor Robertson made a passionate plea in The GuardianIn defence of intersectionality – one of feminism’s most important tools”. She laments that many feminists revile intersectionality as meaningless and appeals to us to recognize the internal importance of the issue.

I agree. There is much to be learned.
Continue reading Intersectionality Is Not Just Another Word

Women Against Women Against #WomenAgainstFeminism?

Women against feminism, it is about time.

But what about women against gynocetrism. How many women opposing feminism don’t simply want more free stuff. How many are not simply angry their traditional advantages over men were accidentally wrecked by the growing toxicity of modern gender ideology.
Continue reading Women Against Women Against #WomenAgainstFeminism?

Feminism v. Equality

Feminists often use the word “equality” in a puzzling manner which reverses the original meaning. To feminists, and social justice warriors, “real” equality requires biasing society to advantage some people over others based on their gender, race, or other claimed oppression group. This idea that equality can only be achieved by treating people unequally reaches a level of stupidity that only feminism can attain.

“Substantive equality,” like most feminist terms, can be quite confusing for those who don’t defer to debauched dictionaries or champion corrupted concepts.

While free societies count on justice being blind, feminists were unhappy with the results of impartiality in the courts – namely, women were being convicted of more crimes. Under the guise of promoting equality, radical feminism has succeeded in bringing bias back into the legal system by arguing that women are, in fact, not equal to men and should not be treated as such under the law.
Continue reading Feminism v. Equality

Logic: another form of female oppression

In July, 2013, The Oxford Journal of Legal Studies published an article called Myths about rape myths by Helen Reece, Reader at Law. The paper was soon followed by a debate called “Is Rape Different?” hosted by the London School of Economics (LSE) Department of Law. The debate resulted in quick condemnation by feminists who felt that people like Helen Reece should be banned from public platforms.

Feminists were infuriated by having their research and scholarship challenged by an academic and the response to Helen’s work on “rape myth myths” took until March, 2014 to compose, but it was worth the wait.
Continue reading Logic: another form of female oppression