Thursday, 17 August 2017

Harriet Marsden - Bile Spouting Misandrist Of The Independent

One of the most amusing journalists of the modern day has to be Harriet Marsden, of the Independent newspaper. Reading a few of her anti-male rants recently has made me laugh so much. Genuinely.

What Ms Marsden fails to grasp, like so many misandrists, is that men are not swines and women are not angels.

And neither are men brought up in a vacuum.

I well remember my dear mother trying to squash all the "gentle" feelings out of me because men have to be strong, men must not show their feelings,etc.

Don't like the colour pink. It's not for you.

And my dear cousin Sue, sitting on a bus with me in the late 1990s, with her two tiny tot sons proudly brandishing toy guns.

"I like my boys to BE boys," said Sue, when I questioned her.

"And boys carry guns, do they?" I asked.

"Oh shut up, you're talking like a queer," said Sue.

And all these questionable statistics and male crimes Ms Mardsen quotes (anybody for the Fawcett Society?). Well, men really are not created in a vaccuum.

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world...

What Ms Marsden fails to see is the injustices against men (try being an estranged father. Try fathoming out why women can clobber men, but not vice-versa, etc, etc,etc).

In the old days man was the hunter and woman was the home maker.

And women were often placed on pedestals. Women and children first! Give up your seat to a woman. Hold the door open. Pay for the meal. Go out and slog. It was felt right that they shouldn't be subjected to the hurly burly of the nasty outside world. And, of course, most men were working class and did physically tiring jobs. Even today over 90% of workplace deaths are male. In our age of "equality" women are still not applying in any numbers for the really dangerous, gruelling jobs which do not attract praise.

Unfortunately, Ms Marsden is the worst of both the new and old worlds - a spoilt young woman who believes she is, as we used to say back in the 1970s, "it".

She believes in a form of apartheid - in which white, straight men are not allowed to speak their feelings - well, not without her writing a lot about the sins of men - and how most of that is down to straight, white men. In her view. As if individuals can take responsiblity for the actions of other individuals. Well, if that's so, Ms Marsden, I have a very long list to take you to task over - on behalf of the whole of your gender, living or dead, of course. Write for details.

I'll publish the results.

Her identification with her sainted, persecuted gender (fictional) and rejection of the expression of problems faced by others outside of that gender is actually rather warlike. Your gender. My gender. My gender good. Your gender bad. My camp. Your camp. Me good. You bad. NO, I WILL NOT LISTEN TO YOU!!! That is how she comes across.

And of course men should not speak about their problems, anyway, should they?

Harriet Marsden is actually a bigot. What she is saying is actually no different to what some people were saying about other groupings of human beings fifty years ago.

They're all the same! Treat them with contempt!

Only then it wasn't white straight men who were being subjected to this bile.

But bigots like Harriet Marsden exist in every generation. The thing is, they simply move their targets so as to fit in with their own particular hatred-fuelled group.

The only safe group to vent such poison on now is white, straight men.

Despite the rising number of male suicides. Despite the experience and writings of non-bigots, like Erin Pizzey, the likes of Ms. Marsden go on.

Ms Marsden is, to put it simply, a poisonous big head. Her ego must be the size of a mansion to believe she is part of a sainted gender and her I.Q. must be pretty low not to perceive that gender realities are highly complex and that many men are what they are because of the expectations of their womenfolk.

But at least Ms. Marsden amuses. She is far too funny to offend. There is something so naive about her anger, so ridiculous about her ranting, so obivious about her bigotry that I think she would make a first-rate sitcom character.

An Alf Garnett for the 21st Century?

Sunday, 7 May 2017

Meet Sue Fish Of Nottinghamshire Police - Leading Misandrist

It's the 21st Century. Male suicide rates spiral; despite "equality" the majority of dangerous jobs are still done by men (they account for over 90% of workplace deaths), as are the hard  physical labour styles of job, and Ms Sue Fish of Nottinghamshire Police decides that men need to be under the kosh even more.

The world has gone mad.

Actually, it's been mad for a very long time.

But it's getting worse.

Remember Erin Pizzey's experiences of setting up the first women's refuge in England, discovering that women were just as violent as men, and campaigning for equivalent male refuges? And remember the terrible and brutal way feminists dealt with her to close down her claim and basically terrify her out of her wits? Read her amazing story here and  here and simply Google her name for more details.

Erin Pizzey recalls how her movement to establish refuges for women and men was hijacked by militant misandrist feminists in the mid-1970s. Suddenly, domestic violence was something only men do to women. In fact, as the decades rolled on, we learned all sorts of nonsensical statistics from organisations like the Fawcett Society.

Maleness was suddenly "toxic" and we were living in a "patriarchy". Hmmm...

Women's centres preach a mantra of misandry. I have a friend who worked in one but left because the staff could not or would not see that some of the women had problems with violent behaviour themselves. The mantra was always: "Men bad, women good. No men allowed here."

Nottinghamshire Police last year decided to be guided by one of those women's centres, headed by Melanie Jeffs, a radical feminist lesbian who has spat out a large amount of twisted and ugly bile about the male gender in her time - all based on the usual dubious statistics (we're sure Melanie won't mind us revealing her background - it explains a lot - and she's utterly uncompromising in dissing blokes). On the back of this, Ms Fish of Nottinghamshire Poilice has now branded "misogyny" a "hate crime".

Basically,this means that if you're a woman and you decide you don't like something about a bloke's attitude towards you, no matter how trivial, you can try and land him in it with the local bizzies.

Not that most women would consider such a thing of course, and chances of success would depend  somewhat on honesty, but it's still an odd and worrying move as there's no accompanying move to make misandry a similar offence. Now, I know the majority of men and women want to live their lives peacefully and many actually enjoy banter with each other and even quite sharp exchanges. But, for sensitive flowers of either gender, likely to be offended, terrified, or scared to go to the shop after six pm because somebody might wolf whistle at them, or shout "Hello, short dick!" or some such, then equal recourse to the law should be encouraged if recourse to the law for such trivia is to be encouraged at all.

And why on earth are local police forces allowed to create new offences? Gender transgressions are already covered under existing law.

In my fifty-two years, I have endured a naked female middle aged babysitter dancing circles around me singing "I I I I  like you very much!" when I was seven in the 1970s, being groped by two fat elderly women who were sitting beside a pub ciggie machine I was using in the 1990s, and being regularly abused by a very large female colleague on night shifts at a local hospital in the early twenty-first century. She liked to dig and squeeze. It hurt. But I didn't complain because I was working via a nursing agency and did not want to create a fuss - and also, being male, who would take me seriously?

I didn't like any of those experiences, but it certainly does not make me think that ALL women are the same.

However, I do believe that Sue Fish is a wicked and misguided individual who is far too busy fawning over her own gender to make a good police officer. Impartiality should be all - not self indulgence. And the fact she's won an award for it? Well, it just goes to show how out of touch the elite are with the everyday folks here down on planet slog.

And now some brown-nosing gent in Yorkshire plans to follow Ms Fish's lead?

Oh dear.

Spare us from misandrists and manginas, please!

Wednesday, 30 March 2016

Support Misandry At Oxfam

We thought that Oxfam was hiding its light under a bushel when we saw the shop sign in the picture above. So, we added another of their most keenly pursued activities and expanded on the final one to give a more truthful sign below it. All according to their own male-hating ethos, of course. Don't be so bashful, Oxfam! Come out, reveal yourself for what you are. Hiding in the shadows of cooked-up statistics and blatant lies really doesn't become you. Your agenda becomes plain as soon as anybody with two brain cells gives it a cursory glance.



Men = PIGS



Girls = LOVELY


Read our blog post on feminazi Oxfam here -

Monday, 21 March 2016

Oxfam Joins The Feminazi Misandrists

You have a penis? You're a starving baby boy? A poor old man who has worked hard all his life and now has nothing to eat? Well tough! Oxfam has made women their priority - based on man-hating propaganda. 

Oh dear! First Cancer Research, now Oxfam! Dear old Oxfam has diverted its attention from famine relief to shoring up the gender pay gap myth and ensuring that men are presented as baddies. As always.

Basing press releases like the one below on research from the feminist (some might say feminazi - a word coined in 1989)  Fawcett Society is surely a bit one-eyed.

Oh dear.

Let's quote the press release:

Fee Gilfeather, Head of Marketing for Oxfam Trading, said: "This one-off, four-day sale will offer customers to Oxfam's Online Shop a discount of 13.9% - the same as the average gender pay gap in the UK. It is important to get the message across that women in Britain and around the world still earn less than men and highlight the inequality that women face. We're launching this quirky sale to raise awareness and get people talking about this inequality."

But it's untrue. and Oxfam is also apparently combating violence against "women and girls". Despite the fact that domestic violence incidents are about equally divided between the genders, and the difficulties men face in being taken seriously when they do speak up. Men and boys? Oxfam says GET STUFFED!

Oxfam has been hijacked.

The trouble is, that so many organisations - including governments - have been hijacked in the same way. Male politicians, out of old fashioned chivalry, simple brainlessness, or severe mother complexes, seem content to echo the voices of the feminazi. And that's all they do. There's no attempt to think, question or reason. Many statistics right up to the UN are as questionable as those provided by the Fawcett Society. The politicians' attitude is all very well for them as well-heeled vote-seekers, but not so easy when you're a poor male down here on the ground, looking for representation.

There are many articles online about the Gender Pay Gap Myth - take a look at this -

Or this from the Washington Examiner -

Or this from Time -

You read it in the paper or saw it on TV - so it must be true? Did those days ever exist? Least of all now. Some interesting thoughts on male feminists and modern journalism -

What about this little gem of Oxfam rampant anti-male sexism?

Women are at the heart of everything we do – because we know they’ll go to extraordinary lengths to feed their families [Andy's note: I know from personal experience that this is an outrageous generalisation]. With your help, even more of the world’s super women will get the simple solutions they need to change the future.

How does Oxfam know that women will go to extraordinary lengths to feed their families? Why only women? There are examples very close to me in which women have been very feckless when it comes to caring for their families. But, in the misandrist Oxfam mindset, it's men who obviously don't give a damn, of course, although Sabina Saru, the woman featured in this appeal, actually says "WE" twice, implying the presence of an equally concerned male parent:

"We have no means of growing food. We have to think of our child's future."

So, Oxfam are putting their own male-hating spin on the situation.

Avoid Oxfam. The misandrist cancer is spreading... There are other ways of donating - without promoting bigotry.

Back to our original subject, and if anybody can quote examples of individual women doing full time work and getting paid less than a man for doing the very same thing within the same organisation, please provide irrefutable evidence. I'll publish. And where are all the articles screaming "FOUL!" at these organisations - naming and shaming?

I'd be fascinated to see them. Much better than cooked-up statistics, surely?

Do read this about the Fawcett Society -

And off to the UK Parliament - where misandrist Birmingham MP Jess Phillips thinks the idea of discussing men's issues - health service underfunding for the gender, suicide rate, etc - is funny -

Link to the full Oxfam press release -

Saturday, 26 September 2015

Cancer Research UK: Race For Life - So Sexist It's Evil!

I sat on the bus a few years back and saw a poster on there for Cancer Research UK's Race For Life. Two women, in boxing gloves, about to punch a man. The message was horrendously explicit: Men are a cancer, women are fighting it.

"Don't talk so daft!" you might say.

OK, let's reverse the idea.

A poster for a male-only charity run, showing two men about to punch a woman. The are men are running to help "beat cancer".

Would that be all right?

Of course it wouldn't.

So much of the feminine saintliness and past oppression "facts" beloved of many "women's rights" activists is built on shifty statistics and twisted facts.

Take Emmeline Pankhurst. Such a heroine! Really? Then why did she support votes for wealthy women only? Why would she never go into prison for activist misdeeds, but let others do so? Why did she harass men to go to war?

Just what was this woman?

Not a saint, not by any means.

In fact, far from it -  if an objective study is made of her character and activities.

This is where the whole thing falls down - whole chunks of the "women's rights" thing. It depends heavily on women deluding themselves into false sainthood, degrading men, and men being too chivalrous (or being too bound up in severe mother complexes/Miss Whiplash fantasies) to challenge the nonsense.

And of course if men do object, they are just "sexist", or should stop whining and "man-up".

And yet women supposedly want sensitive men around.

My own belief is that gender politics are immensely complicated.

Many centuries ago, men went out to hunt and fight and women bore and looked after the children.

That was then the natural way of things.

As time went on, and things changed, some women began to howl about men's role as the hunter and protector - the so-called "head of the family" - although, if my family is anything to go by, men cooked, cleaned, emptied the "privy" containers and the role of the "head of the family" was often shared, or was down to the strongest personality, regardless of gender.

Of course, we needed change. But for both genders.

I still wonder why the whole gender issue is often viewed by some as being all men's fault.

And as for feminists like Germaine Greer - "women don't realise how much men hate them" - where on earth did she get that idea from? And if it wasn't for rabid misandrists and men being too chivalrous, under the thumb, or whatever, to protest, there would have been an intelligent debate.

But, of course, there wasn't.

Ms Greer became a bizarre "intellectual" celebrity.

So, in the old way of things, women stayed at home and looked after the kids.

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world...

Both men and women were responsible for perpetuating the system apparently so hated by any right thinking woman.

For instance, my mother told me "boys don't cry" and displays of emotion on my part were frowned upon by her.

But my half-sisters were free to cry and get cuddles.

I felt forced into a straitjacket. I felt that my natural instincts as an emotional, sensitive human being, were being suffocated - by female expectations in my family circle.

Years later, I questioned my cousin Sue about buying toy guns for her little sons.

"I like my boys to be boys," said she.

So, based on her expectations, boys have to like guns to be boys.

Which comes first? Feminine expectations or male realities?

All very complicated.

Cancer Research UK is very, very wrong. Even searching for information on their web site about male cancers - like cancer of the prostate - is more difficult than finding info on cancers which predominantly, or only, affect women.

Sexism is a cancer in itself.

And it affects everybody.

So grow up or "Woman Up" if you prefer, Cancer Research UK, and organise people friendly fund raising events so that all people can play an equal part in helping to advance funding for research and treatment against the disease.

Cancer Research UK is a complete and utter disgrace.

I used to work in a cancer hospice, and donate happily and often to the MacMillan Nurses.

But not to CRUK.

Fighting an evil disease with evil attitudes does not sit well with me.