Monday, September 24, 2007

Stupid cunt in action

The link:

Here is an article about Darren Mack (a guy who stabbed his ex wife to death in retaliation for her screwing him in family court and then tried to off the judge who facilitated said screwing) by a loud mouthed cunt. This cunt goes by the name of ginmar and links to cunt queen Trish Wilson. She isn't quite as dumb as Wilson but that is kinda damning with faint praise, isn't it? Here are selections of her drivel with my sufficiently testerone fueled replies in bold. Sorry that this is all so out of date but I was not an MRA when the Mack incident happened so I am playing catch up. I don't even remember hearing about Mack on the news... probably because I don't watch it.

Crappy Article:

To wit:One scumbag, Darren Mack, kills his wife in the midst of a divorce. He's a millionaire, by the way, and owns a pawn shop, so he has access to weapons, vehicles, and capital. He used one of those weapons to subsequently shoot the judge in the case as well as a female staffer in the case. Now, if it were not for the shooting of the judge, the case would not have gone national. The murder of one woman and the shooting of another is just not news.

I take it Ms. Ginmar views this as an example of patriarchal bias in the media, you know, since every time a man is murdered it is front page news for monthes on end.

Pandagon has a good round up, too. Then CNN got in on the act, putting on a ranting MRA who said, basically, that poor Darren got driven mad by the injustice system that men labor under when they can't control and beat their wives any longer.

Typical feminine baloney. They get mad when THEIR money gets transferred to their ex's. Women either deliberately pretend that it is all about "control" or are really just too stupid to understand that it is about money.

CNN didn't check the murder cheerleader out; he's part of the same group that Mack was, and he's got quite the history, which Trish and Red State Feminist have both been on top of. Why didn't CNN check this guy out and find out he was a loon? ...Tell me about that liberal media again, I dare you.

Got to give the chick this one, I have not seen any liberal bias in the media for a long, long time.

This guy was allowed to say that Mack was driven to murder and attempted murder, as well as criticize one of the victims. It's a wife beater's fantasy; the ability to go on the air and just say, "Well, look what she made me do." These guys never take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, which have an alarming tendency to take the lives of women and children.

Whereas women like Andrea Yates, the Winkler ho, and that bitch who ran over her husband in her car a few years back are models of taking responsibility. Feminist showed how much they cared about children when they uniformilly demanded Yates receive the death penalty.

The only reasons these guys occasionally let women live is either carelessness or malice: after killing the kids, they know the woman will have to live with that for the rest of her life.

Scratch my earlier comment about this gal being smarter than Wilson, Wilson would never say something this stupid. I'm not even sure what this ho is getting at.

Darren Mack is currenlty on the run, and the basic refrain from the FRAs is that if these poor guys weren't denied justice, they wouldn't have to shoot their wives, or other people. They were driven to it, they claim. They had no choice.

Exactly, you don't blame the victim. We can't have people running around shooting up ho's or judges because that would be anarchy, but the real blame needs to be placed on the Matriarchy which created such unjust conditions for Mack in the first place.

Wouldn't you just love these guys raising boys and teaching them this stuff, as well as teaching girls how loathsome and disgusting they are?

Agreed, when couples split the men should take the boys and the women take the girls.

One thing that really pisses me off about discussing wife-beating is how people still perpetuate the notion that battered women are stupid to get involved with these guys.

You're right, these women are certifiable geniuses for getting involved with guys who use them for sparring practice and then staying with them. Men just can't understand feminine genius.

In fact, these guys study women, and more often than not they tend to go for women who have more traditional values or lower self esteem. They're often charming and seem to have come straight out of a romantic novel.

Hah! Sounds like ginmar here is talking from some personal experience!

This is why a good wife-beating statute will include some prohibition against threats or language.

We can't make this stuff up folks. So when men are violent or even verbally violent against a woman, who is supposedly their equal, there needs to be special laws to deal with that. Just another case of a woman admitting she is inferior to men and needs Big Sister to protect her.

When someone has previously been violent, being loud and threatening is intimidating or may even predictive behavior. Once the guy gets the woman hooked on him, he then subtly reverses direction and begins to tear her down in small steps, offering her 'advice' which is often insulting and demeaning in ways she can't quite identify. Because he has previously been so nice and complimentary, she thinks it's her. After all, people don't change, right? They do, however, conceal. He will be supportive and critical by turns, but he often seems to take her side against other people, cutting her away from them by either playing on or creating tensions. Once she's isolated from her support network, and has travelled a fairly far way down the pathway of destroyed confidence, he'll move to physically isolate her as well. He will pose this as for her own good or as something she's always wanted. Once he has her where he wants her, often times with children, he will become physically and emotionally abusive.

Sounds like someone has been reading too much Stephen King. This could have been a synopsis of the relationship between the upitty cunt in Rose Madder had with her husband Norman and what Beverly from It had with her husband Tom. (There is an upshot though in It when Tom beats the living shit out of Beverly's feminist best friend)

In the case of my mugging, a supposed 'lover's quarrel' involved a six foot four inch man beating a five foot three inch woman's face into the pavement till she was bloody and unconscious, seizing her purse and then running off.

I don't get it, why weren't you able to defend yourself from your equal?

Certain individuals like to claim that men never hit a woman, that men are told this. This is what they want to believe, much like the belief that bad things only happen to bad people.

Only a woman would believe something so stupid.

the court system is stacked against women with presumptions that wife beating and child abuse are signs of her failure as a mother, not his lack of character.

Like in Darren Mack's case where his ho got custody and 10 G's a month plus child support? This chick writing is an idiot.

becaus the standards of parenting are so incredibly higher for women than they are for men.

Which is why women almost always get custody, right? I think our friend ginny was on something when she wrote this article.

To add to the problem, divorcing couples then go before a divorce court system dominated by conservative white guys who often disapprove of women with jobs---and women without jobs.

In Red States things might be more balanced, but in Blue States as well as all of Britain, Canada and Austrailia the courts are totally stacked in womens favor, something that everyone knows. I'm not sure if this cunt is being deliberately dishonest or really is as ignorant as she is coming off.

In fact, the children are especially in danger from guys like this because they're simply vehicles of control and if that doesn't work---of revenge.

Pretty sure that it has been established that Feminists don't care about kids. Hey, nothing wrong with that, I don't care about kids either, but if such dishonesty about their motivation is never going to help any of these poor women land a husband.

Note I don't mention children there because it goes without saying: if women are easy to kill for these guys, children are effortless.

Just ask Andrea Yates.

Unless a woman has her own wealth or some solid foundation which enables her to be free of men, she can be vulnerable to any man.

Hate to break it to you bitch but even if she has her own wealth she is still dependent on the Matriarchy's force of mangina slave soldiers to keep her precious cunt safe.

For sexist men, their sole identity is being not women, and being better than women.

I wouldn't say that's my sole identity but it is a fair point. I would definately rather not exist than exist as a woman. Almost every guy feels the same way.

You have to attack another man [to make the news].

You have to either kill somebody who matters or kill a whole bunch of people, prefferably in a public place. It has nothing to do with sex. If Mack's judge had been a woman it would probably be even bigger news. You really are an idiot.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Feminist Criticism of MRA's: MRA's are Whiny

Feminist often accuse MRA's of doing nothing but bitching and moaning. Feminist (probably due to their lack of a Y chromosome) are unable to see the truth, which is as follows:

1. Internet message boards are a place specifically designed for people to bitch and moan on. The teeth gnashing of MRA's on the internet is no more all there is to the movement than the feminist griping which is on Cunt liberation pages is all there is to the womyn's movement
2. Men, unlike women, actually have legitimate issues to complain about. We are facing government sanctioned discrimination, women on the other hand complain about the effects of their own inferiority. I am yet to see one example of government discrimination against women in the West. On the contrary, women are so inferior to men that they are always calling on the government to help improve their status, and that is the root of the problem we are facing today.
3. Men who do actually take means to resist the Matriarchy are always shrilly condemned by cunts as either being dangerous or loony. If you act you are a dangerous lunatic and if you complain you are just being a crybaby. The funny thing is that it isn't that women ignore the hypocrisy of such a stance, they are merely too stupid to see it.

Monday, September 17, 2007

Steven King is a Feminist Dick Monger

Steven King loooooooves women. He thinks they are just sooooo great. Fuck that, women blow. Steven King should stop loving women so much. Steven King, if you are reading this: The AWC demands that you stop portraying women in such a positive light. If you do not comply with this demand we will have no choice but to make a totally hollow threat to boycott your future works.

I know what you are thinking, "You mean the guy who writes horror novels, don't bad things usually happen to women in horror novels?"

The short answer is "yes" and King has actually taken considerable heat from stupid feminist cunts for being a man, er... being insuffiently woman friendly; but most of said feminist cunts have not actually bothered to read his stuff. If they did they would find out that while some bad things do happen to King's female characters (not as much as happens to his male characters though), his main cuntachters always prove to be strong womyn who buck the odds and trounce their patriarchal opressors. While King personally denies being a feminist (::cough:: bullshit ::cough::), that he is one becomes an inavoidable conclusion once you notice that about 90 percent of his 10million or so books contain at least implicit pro-woman propaganda. Also interesting is that his books without feminist propaganda tend not to be very good. Conspiracy? I'll let you decide.

To be fair, King's ultimate feminst work Rose Madder is not very good either. I mean, it's okay but unlike most of his other stuff, it just isn't that good. Rose Madder is about an abused wife who becomes an uppity cunt (or, to translate for my female readers: an "empowered sheperson"). By the end of the novel you need to keep checking the cover page to make sure you haven't accidently picked up a work by an obscure feminist author named Stephanie King. All kidding aside, it becomes very difficult to believe that a man, even an extreme mangina, could produce such a cuntrology. The sad fact, however, is that while the Rose Madder is nothing special, it is still a million times too creative and the story is too well told to have been done by a woman. The conclusion: Your eyesight was not failing you and you are not reading the breakthrough work of bulldyke Stephanie King; Steven King is merely the world's biggest mangina.

King's severe case of woman-loveitis apparently comes from being raised by his Empowered(tm) and independent mother (and likewise not being raised by his abusive deadbeat of a father). In fact, his mother is allegedly the basis for the character Doloris Claiborne, the main character of the bizarely titled Dolores Claiborne. Claiborne is not really a feminist, per se, but she is empowered enough to kill her douchebag husband and so does her friend/enemy/employer Ms. Cunthair. Although I didn't think the book was that great, I did kinda sympathize with Claiborne. Yeah, she was a bitch, and a little bit uppity, but she wasn't so bad. She really wasn't a feminist though and unlike with Rose Madder it is hard to see women getting all wet over Dolores Claiborne. The AWC has decided to leave Dolores Claiborne off of the list of banned books.

Gerald's Game on the other hand is more feminist crap. It is also not particularly good. But didn't I say that it was King's non-feminist books that tended to be weak? The answer is yes, I said that, but his explicitly feminist one's aren't very good either. His best books are the one's which are implicitly pro-woman (It, The Stand, Insomnia). Actually, now that I think about it, I was wrong because a great deal of King's best books are not pro-woman either (Needful Things, Misery, Pet Semetary). Okay, forget what I said about King's non-feminist books not being that good, I was wrong on that point.

Anyway, back to Gerald's Game. It is a book about an uppity cunt and I wouldn't be surprised if many women found it more empowering than Rose Madder. My feminist readers must leave a comment or send me an email indicating which one they felt was more cunt-friendly.

In conclusion: Steven King is great! I fucking love Stephen King! The man is a genius and certainly one of the greatest writers of all time.

That said, the AWC cannot overlook the gratiutous woman-loving that permeates much of his writing. So listen good Stevie boy, your future books should focus more on women's flaws, I know that as a writer you delibrately avoid such easy assignments but we at the AWC have had it with your pro-woman propaganda. Women are lame, it is time for your writing to start reflecting that.

Anti-Feminist Myth: Feminism Has Destroyed the Family

Feminism has not destroyed the family. I'm tired of hearing that it has.

By making DV laws, biased divorce courts and basically encouraging women to be total cunts, feminism has played a part in the weaking of the family in the West, but it is not the only or even the main reason for the decline of the family.

Let's examine the history and function of the family. Families in the past were necessary for survival. The family members supported eachother throughout their lives. People knew that when they got to old to work that they would need their children to fall back on. Families were needed in the pre-modern world.

As the world developed economically and technologically, that has changed. Many people would blame welfare and social security for the families demise, and while that is much closer to the truth than just yelling "Feminism!", it still misses the mark. If welfare/child support were eliminated it would not recreate the dependence women had on men and the dependence old people had family members in the past simply because the modern world has created so many options for women and the elderly. In a world where survival is based on hunting and fighting, women are basically useless except as human incubators and old people are entirely useless. But in a modernized society women are able to earn a living in many ways that don't require brawn (although obviously not as well as men can, because women are inferior to men mentally as well as physically, just not as dramatically). Similarly, if Social Security were eliminated people would not suddenly start popping out kids to care for them when they became old because modern economics have created a situation where people can essentially save up during their working years and live fairly comfortably until they head to that great old-folk's home in the sky.

Also commonly ignored is that the family is still an important part of our culture and it isn't going anywhere. The family is not as strong as it once was because of modernization but pretty much everybody has some form of family. When the Matriarchy collapses along with it's Nanny State apparatus, families will become healthier and happier (for the most part, to be fair a lot of families that should split up will no longer be able to because they will lack the support from "Big Sister") but people should not expect a return to an idealic 1950's scenerio that never existed in the real world anyway. Feminism sucks, women suck, but let's not blame them for everything.

Thursday, September 13, 2007


Hello and Welcome to the Anti-Womens Coalition (AWC). As of now the AWC has only one member (me) but I think this blog can be a good way to get my message out and recruit new members and eventually become the premier Masculinist organization in the world. Such a lofty goal is surely a long way off but you have to start somewhere. (Insert cliched Chinese proverb here).

Let's begin with the AWC FAQ!

Q: What is the AWC's mission?
A: Well, there isn't just one, but I suppose the main mission is the same as that of all Men's Rights groups: the destruction of the Matriarchy and the liberation of men from female domination. I wanted to create this blog, however, because of several things I don't like about the Men's Movement itself. I want to steer the movement in a more radical and focussed direction.

Q: Hmm... I'm mildly interested now, what are your problems with the Men's Movement and what direction would you like to take it?
A: Basically, the Men's Movement is neither radical nor focussed enough. What do I mean? Well, the lack of radicalism I'm concerned with is primarilly the "soft" line taken visa vi women. In the Men's movement you will almost find statements like "we don't hate women, we hate feminism". I'm here to say, "fuck that". You cannot win a war in which you cannot even identify your enemy. Feminism is not the enemy, women are the enemy because ALL women are feminist. When you realise that women as a group need to be opposed, your strategy and tactics automatically shift and that leads to the "more focussed direction" I was talking about. The movement should have two goals: 1. To make laws that are favorable to men even if they hurt women and children 2. To encourage men to become independent from women. I am not ashamed to admit that I admire Feminism a great deal and see it as a model for Masculinism.

Q: Woah... all women are feminist? Are you sure?
A: All women: 1. Support alimony 2. Support Child Support 3. Support Family Courts unfair practices towards men 4. Support Domestic Violence laws which allow men to be thrown from their homes on the mere say so of a woman 5. Support women being able to make bullshit sexual harrassment suits 6. Support rape shield laws. 7. Support government money going to research for women's diseases 8. oppose laws creating draconian punishments for false rape accusations and paternity fraud (both should be mandatory life in prison).

Q: We can be sure you oppose those things?
A: Yes but so do all MRA's... atleast to a point. I oppose them absolutely. One issue I have with MRA's is over child custody. MRA's all agree men get shafted in family court but many of them don't advocate physical-joint custody because the inconvenience of such a life would not be in the best interest of the child. I say: fuck the goddamned child. We must take a page from the Feminist book here, just as Feminist worry exclusively about what is in women's best interest and ignore the rights of men and children; we need to exclusively worry about what is in men's best interest. Women's problems are not our problems.

Q: Well I'm a woman and I totally agree with everything you say, can I join up?
A: Sure, if you like. I'm not sure why you would want to join an organization that is opposed to your very sex, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Q: Is there any aspects of feminism you agree with?
A: Personally, yes. I support women's right to vote, own property, hold office, serve on juries, practice whatever proffession they wish, choose who and if they marry, get divorced, go to college, serve in the military, use contraception and terminate pregnancies. However I have no problem with men who oppose all of those things. I hate women and I don't care if they suffer, but I do believe they have rights, I just don't care if those rights get violated.

Q: You probably just can't get laid!
A: I'm sure I could (who couldn't?), but why would I want to? I hate women, I don't want anything to do with them.

That said, this criticism isn't that unfounded relating to many, maybe most, MRA's. Go to any MRA message board and you will find endless griping about how women go out with "bad boys" and eschew "nice guys" (presumably them). First of all, I do not know a single female that actively seeks out "bad boys", second of all even the most moderate feminist would (correctly) condemn such behavior as perpetuating Patriarchy. When Feminist criticize MRA's in this area it is one of many in which they are painfully correct about our movement. We have got a lot of house cleaning to do.

Q: Oh, so you are gay!
A: No, I'm not. But are you implying there is something wrong with being gay?

Q: You are just angry that you are losing some of your male priviledge! To bad bub, cause Feminism isn't going anywhere!
A: I have already made it clear I have no interest in having power over women so I don't really know what kind of priviledge you are talking about. And I really don't care whether the ideology of Feminism lives or dies, I just care that the Matriarchy that it has created dies. If you are implying that the Matriarchy is not going to be destroyed at the hands of men you are wrong. I have no interest in debating this. Our victory is inevitable.

Unfortunately, a lot of men in the movement do oppose Feminism becaause of what it has done to their status as heads of the family. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with men as the head of the house to some extent (generally speaking that is, there are certainly many exceptions) but a desire to turn back the clock is not a healthy basis for masculinism which should be about achieving male independence, not male dominance. Men who wish to turn back the clock do not anger me, and I embrace them in brothers in the stuggle against the matriarchy, but I do think that their ideology is archaic and is a bullseye for Feminists.

Q: You are hiding behind a computer you coward! If you said something like this to my face I'd kick your chauvinist ass!
A: No you wouldn't. You might try, but that would just result in me painting the sidewalk with your brains. You are used to men backing down to you because they fear the Feminist controlled courts, but I am one man who is willing to martyr himself if need be. Take your bully tactics elsewhere.

Q: If men are so great, how come they don't just roll back feminism?
A: Because the Matriarchy commands a force of 10's of millions of mangina slave-soldiers to deal with dissenters. Since this force is made up of men, it can not be defeated head on. (Were the Matriarchy to attempt to deploy females as its soldiers it would collapse overnight). Once men stop cooperating with the Matriarchy, your goose is cooked.

Q: Oh yeah, sure, I am just soooooo scared.
A: Yeah, I know you are. Women are horrible at hiding their emotions.

Q: Okay, we get your ideology, how do you plan to bring it about in the real world?
A: Great question! It must be done in phases:
1. Educate: Educate young men about the depth of the Matriarchal oppression they are facing. Spread hatred of women amongst men. Discourage men from enslaving themselves in relationships. Teaching men to be responsible and not knock girls up, thereby condemning themselves to (atleast) 18 years of child support. Teaching men that marriage (and even cohabitation) is a tool of Matriarchal oppression and that they must avoid it. We are doing this as we speak through word of mouth and mainly via the internet. So far we have had great success in raising conciousness of men's rights and hatred of women to all time highs amongst men in the West.
2. Withdrawl: Do not get married! Men must stop walking like lambs to the slaughter! Not marrying and not having children by themselves will weaken the Matriarchy more than any other action we can take. Marrying foreign women is not an acceptable alternative for marriage is slavery for men in the West no matter who they are married to. Foreign women will simply become feminist after awhile of living here. Also, any form of marriage promotes the Matriarchal myth that men need women. As of now one quarter of young men refuse to marry, the so called "marriage strike". We need to get that number up to at least 80 percent. (The remaining 20 percent would obviously consist of woman lovers who we can't help and don't want our help)
3. Infiltrate: Just like NOW controls the Democratic party, we in the men's movement must gain control of the Republican party. The AWC's very name makes it unable to fulfill such a role and a future umbrella group simply called the National Organization for Men could be very effective. We are in the opening stages of this phase of the campaign and have had some small successes, but nothing major.