Without smart and productive men America is finished. We have almost 40% out of wedlock births now. Greater than that in some communities (70+% in Black community; almost that in Hispanic communities-combined Blacks + Hispanics make up a large and growing percentage of the total population). This means greater and greater government spending to support a growing segment of the population that is made up of single-parent households. There are costs associated with increased poverty, increased crime. More taxation at a time when the elderly population is beginning to explode. Combining retired seniors and a large underclass and we are talking about a HUGE and entrenced unproductive drag on the economy that comes at the same time in history when America is facing stiff competition by global competitors. India and China each produce many times more engineers and scientists than the U.S. does. America cannot live off past accomplishments forever. The costly and unproductive direction that America's culture is going is unsustainable in the face of this stiff competition. America NEEDS men who are smart, productive, and have a vested interest in the society. To have vested interests men have to be first class citizens with rights, justice, and fairness. Damaging men's position in society will only guarantee a much worse future for EVERYONE. When the writing is on the wall and everyone else finally sees what is in store, they will all be looking for smart, productive men.

He points the finger at the government's social policies for creating an "epidemic of fatherlessness" and family breakdown, which in turn he says has left "feral" children running amok.

"Gender Equality" is the policy of giving women freedoms and choices. And too much freedom and choice for women is exactly what got us into the mess we are in today.

Young Chimps Exhibit Sex Differences In Toys Researchers observed young male monkeys spent more time playing with vehicles than with cuddly toys.

Their conclusion contradicts those of the dominant psychological theory that the preference of boys for vehicles and toy soldiers and that of girls for dolls is down to social rather than innate influences.

The Book That Feminists Don’t Dare Debate “Taken into Custody”, is a damning expose of the widespread corruption in the government-designed and run divorce industry: a conglomerate of racketeering involving not only legislators, judges, prosecutors, social workers, police and bureaucrats but also a host of private-industry adjuncts to the government’s sector of the divorce industry. Walter Schneider

Social Science Manual Suggests Deifying Women By substituting goddesses for gods, we sanction the legitimate preeminence of women. Erica Carle - thanks to Rob at No-Maam

Not long now, Boys!

It will soon be death, disease, destruction and disorder for you and your loved ones unless you start to do something.

It does not matter where you live or what you do, you will not escape from the horrors that will abound if deadly pathogens are released.

Even if you live way out somewhere in the countryside, you will soon be trampled underfoot by those fleeing the cities.

You must ACTIVELY support the need for your security services  to get their hands on information that might be important to all our well-being.

We can worry about the civil liberties aspect later.

If we survive!

End of Lecture.

I am going insane!. I cannot take it any longer. Somebody. Anybody. Please shoot me!

No longer can I endure. No longer can I suffer. No longer can I continue to exist.

I am being harassed.

And most heinously, too!

Science. Science. Science.

The answer to all our gender problems lies in Science.

Or so I keep being told - and it is driving me nuts!

No. Science will not, I repeat not, provide the MM with anything more than a hand-held revolver against the evil feminists that poison the very air that we all breathe.

How many times do I have to keep telling you all that "Science" will not get you there, eh?

I have demonstrated this so many times that I feel ill - and yet still I keep receiving emails telling me that Science is the answer. "Show the people the Science, and the gender problems that men nowadays face will be gone!"

Well.

No.

They

Won't.

And now I am going to try one more time before I explode.

Let us assume for the moment that the following statement is a fact - a scientific fact. An undisputed scientific fact. Everybody on the planet agrees that the following statement is a scientific fact. Everybody!

Here is the statement.

FACT: Men are better at maths than women because of their genes.

Tell me. How does this fact help in any way to determine how much extra help women should be given (compared to men) when it comes to studying Maths or to climbing the career ladder in Maths?

Indeed, should we help men more - because they are more talented - or should we help women more - because they need more help?

How does the above FACT help us to decide this issue?

It does not help us at all.

Other considerations might help us to figure out the best solution, but the above scientific FACT does not.

Now, I am not suggesting - and have never suggested - that Science is not important when it comes to gender issues, but it has a severe limitation when it comes to arguing the case for 'men'.

At best, Science can explain why things often are the way that they are, but, on its own, it can never provide a 'solution' that will be 'satisfactory' to the feminists and their ilk nor, indeed, to the population as a whole.

And so, for example, while the above FACT could most certainly help men to counter the notion that women were being discriminated against in Maths - their poorer performance being down to their genes rather than to discrimination - the FACT itself does not provide a 'satisfactory' solution to the problem of there being more men doing Maths than women.

For example, the feminists would simply argue on the basis of this FACT that the poorer genes of women when it comes to Maths demonstrates the need for women to be compensated in some way when compared to men.

And, generally speaking, whenever women are perceived to be at a disadvantage in some way (whether it is being less able in Maths or less able in terms of, say, muscle power, or whatever) the issue will always be expressed in terms of how much extra help or 'protection' needs to be given to women. And this is just another way of expressing how much discrimination needs to be levelled against men in order to bring about 'equality'.

And no scientific fact can ever answer such questions.

Here is another fact.

FACT: The outcomes for the children of single mothers are worse than are the outcomes of children who have two parents.

This FACT does not tell us what to do. Do we provide more and more resources to single mothers to counter their disadvantages - hence encouraging more single motherhood - or do we do the opposite and penalise single mothers - hence making the outcomes for their children even worse - to encourage them to get married?

Well. Whatever your own answer to this question might be, the FACT above does not help you reach it.

Now, I am not suggesting that Science and data and facts etc etc etc are not useful in the fight for men's rights. But the oft-expressed idea that it is the Science, the data and the facts that are the most important weapons in the MM's armoury is nothing more than hokum.

Furthermore, in practice, the Science, the data and the facts are exceedingly trivial when it comes to the issues that concern the MM the most. And the main reason for this, I suppose, is that most people are not swayed by facts, they are swayed by their emotions and by a huge plethora of social and personal complications that Science will never be able to touch.

Furthermore, people are different.

Here are some other FACTS.

FACT: Nuclear weapons are extremely dangerous.

But they are still here!

FACT: People do not rise up from the dead.

But 3 billion people on the planet believe that they do.

These are very simple facts. They are very easy to grasp. And yet still 'the people' seem to ignore them.

So how on Earth can MRAs ever believe that they are going to be able to use hugely complicated social 'scientific facts' to persuade 'the people' of a particular point of view?

Furthermore, of course, these social scientific 'facts' are statistical rather than absolute in nature, and this not only makes them more difficult to grasp, but it also means that they cannot accurately be applied to individual cases.

And then, of course, there is the question of 'feelings'.

For example, it can always be argued that men and women differ when it comes to how they feel about something. But it is not scientifically possible to measure such a thing - e.g. see my piece Depressed Females.

And so, for example again, how does one answer the question concerning the just sentence for a particular 'rape' incident?

Did the rape "ruin her life", as she claims, or she is just lying in order to get more compensation - in some way - from the incident? 

And, even more interestingly, how does she, herself, know? (People can easily fool themselves and they can also hype themselves up to feel worse!)

Here is another question.

Are prostitutes 'victims'?

How on Earth does one answer this question using Science?

Well, my guess is that one good answer to this question would be, "Well, it partially depends on how much they are getting paid for whatever it is that they do?"

If they are getting paid $1 an hour then, Yes, perhaps they are victims. On the other hand, if they are getting paid $1000, then they are not.

Science does not really help us very much.

In a nutshell: 'Science' does not get you very far when it comes to the types of issues that concern the MM.

Indeed, I challenge any one of you out there to give me a scientific - or statistical - 'fact' that can be used to buttress only one side of the arguments typically going on between MRAs and feminists.

From what I can ascertain, such facts can always be used as valid arguments for both sides.

In other words, they will get you nowhere.

And then, of course, there is the question of the media. And this, in fact, is the most important question of all; because whoever, or whatever, dominates the media - or, more accurately, gets the most attention - will be calling the shots.

And they will be calling the shots almost regardless of what they say.

And, quite frankly, I would have thought that the past three decades of living in a society dominated by loathsome feminists and their thoroughly destructive, poisonous ideology - and, perhaps, taking regard of the fact that many populations have spent centuries being dominated by various religious screeds - goes some way to demonstrating most strongly my point of view.

Science, quite clearly, does not count for much.

Furthermore, if Science was, ever, to become the master of our social and personal lives then we would need to be turned into emotionless robots in order to comply with its various dictats.

There would be no 'escape'. And there would be no liberty.

None.

Because every deviation from the calculated optimum would be deemed to be an affront to the 'master' - the Science.

Finally, let me remind you all of some of the sentiments expressed by one well-known and influential professor of genetics who reckons that the world would be better off without males.

...  like all parasites, and we all know that males are parasites on females because they force females to copy their genes, males like all parasites in the end degenerate into another kind of decaying structure, a sac of guts and genitals like tapeworms. Steve Jones - Correspondents Report ABC Australia, 22/9/02. 

In summary: I can assure you that MRAs will make very little progress if they believe that 'Science' is the solution to their problems. Indeed, if anything, it will likely turn out to be the very opposite - as per the above quotation. In other words, it will likely be more successfully used to make matters worse for 'men' vis-a-vis other groups.

Much worse.

END NOTE:

Science has a great deal to offer the world in very many ways. It is a wonderful gift that will likely continue to provide us with numerous worthwhile advancements. But it is of precious little value to the MM.

And so, when it comes to feminism, my advice is that MRAs spend less time trying to understand it in terms of Science or History or Psychology, or whatever, and more time trying to destroy it!

Think of feminism as a swarm of Black Widow spiders that keep crawling across your pillow and prevent you from ever sleeping properly.

Solution?

Kill them. 

And then, if you wish, study them.

For those who have not read his stuff or heard him speak, I can assure you that Mark Rudov is very good.

Canadian Father's Rights Advocate Loses Defamation Suit A B.C. fathers' rights advocate has lost a defamation suit over a report he said portrayed him as "hate-monger."

"How can a supposedly 'scientific report' be both defamatory and 'fair comment'? I'm not a lawyer, but I don't get it."

Hmm. It's very simple really.

The Canadian judges are corrupt.

Perhaps Ken will finally wake up to the fact that when it comes to hurting men, there is no law to protect them. They can be hurt or defamed with impunity.

And the corrupt judges - who have got to be some of the lowest human beings serving in public office these days - will not lift a finger to help them.

Some of AH's most experienced MRAs are now doing some very good work indeed in the comment section of the Guardian newspaper - which, at the moment, seems to be allowing a wide range of opinions to be expressed.

Both rightists and leftists seem to be fairly free to say what they wish.

So, please join them by popping along on occasion to burst those feminist balloons. 

Why are the English so afraid of multiculturalism when, in fact, only some 10% of England's population are foreigners, eh?

Well, the reason for this fear, we are told by liberal 'professors', is because the English must be racist. After all, 10% of the population can hardly be anything to worry about, can it? 

So, it must be racism that causes the English to fear so much immigration.

And yet, at the very same time, these unbelievably ignorant 'liberals', will also claim that multiculturalism significantly enhances a society.

Well, how can it possibly be that this minority of 10% has the power to enhance a society but it does not have the power to debase it?

It makes no sense at all, does it?

Furthermore, this ridiculously over-simplistic type of thinking can be exposed very easily by taking a look at 'organisms'.

Organisms - such as humans - can be completely debilitated or destroyed by the tiniest number of alien bodies - an absolutely miniscule number when compared to the number of components that make up the organisms themselves.

A few thousand bacterial cells or viruses can completely destroy an organism composed of trillions of cells. A tiny amount of arsenic can kill an elephant.

And cultures are also 'organisms'.

As such, the notion that they are safe from debilitation or destruction simply because 'only' 10% of their populations are foreigners is nothing less than the usual hokum espoused by the almost unbelievably ignorant leftists who deceitfully masquerade as 'liberal intellectuals'.

Goodness me. Even average 9 year olds can grasp the idea that a tiny teensy dose of something can cause positively devastating effects.

Furthermore, in many parts of the country, the foreign elements and cultures now constitute 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%+ of the population. And so the 'liberal' propaganda that claims that only some 10% of the population is alien to the indigenous population is nothing more than an example of their customary deceit.

Whole areas of the UK are being taken over by people and cultures that are foreign to the indigenous people. The latter find this threatening and alarming; particularly as their neighbours and their relations are gradually forced out of the areas leaving them more and more isolated.

Their feelings about all this is not 'racism'. It is a general unhappiness at the way in which their neighbourhoods and their country is being handed over to others, with themselves being pushed out of what they consider to be their homes - and have done for centuries.

Notice also that the 'liberals' do not accuse the foreign populations of being 'racist' when they choose to live amongst their own kind, but when it comes to the indigenous population, the very same desire is said by them to reflect a deep underlying 'racism'.

But, as is all too evident, these left-wing 'liberals' are not liberal at all. They are some of the most ignorant bigots that dwell amongst us.

American men are now going to be heavily discriminated against in the fields of science and maths, so that less able - and less enthusiastic - women are given the jobs.

So, prepare to watch American science and maths go down the tubes compared to the rest of the world.

And, of course, millions of poor Americans are going to be losing millions of valuable tax dollars so that their government can subsidise a relatively small number of privileged middle-class women who believe that their poorer performance in science and maths is due to discrimination.

Indeed, it is already the case that most women who fly high in their careers these days are only flying high because affirmative action procedures have been employed to promote them. And the argument that women have to be better than men in order to reach the same levels in their careers is no more than the  customary feminist lie. Indeed, the very opposite is true.

It is men who nowadays have to be much more capable than women in order to reach the same levels.

Notice also that because men have to be much more capable than women in order to pass through their various career hoops, the differences in capability between men and women at every stage in the process will tend to get wider; which means that more and more discrimination against men has to be applied the higher up the career ladder one goes. (A bit of maths will demonstrate this fact; e.g. see Is the Training of Women Doctors A Waste of Money? and A Permanent Gender War?)

The Woman Racket 

Amazon USA, UK (paperback)

Steve Moxon's first book, The Great Immigration Scandal, led to the resignation of the immigration minister, Beverley Hughes. But immigration was never his primary interest: he joined the Home Office in order to study its HR policy, as part of a decade-long investigation of men-women relations. Not withstanding its provocative title, The Woman Racket is a serious scientific investigation into one of the key myths of our age that women are oppressed by the patriarchal traditions of Western societies. Drawing on the latest developments in evolutionary psychology, Moxon finds that the opposite is true men, or at least the majority of ordinary males have always been the victims of deep-rooted prejudice. As the prejudice is biologically derived, it is unconscious and can only be uncovered with the tools of scientific psychology. The book reveals this prejudice in fields as diverse as healthcare, employment, family policy and politics.

And here is an endorsement of the book by none other than Bernard C himself. (video - 10 min)

+ Bernard has a short (written) interview with Steven Moxon.

I often get the impression when reading about the fact that men are highly competitive that their competitiveness is somehow deemed to be directly related to their wish to attract desirable females. The implication is often that men are forever scuttling around the place competing with each other simply in order to attract females - a bit like male deer locking antlers in order to determine which gets the hareem.

But I am afraid that I just cannot see this.

For example, when you watch 8 year old boys glued to their video games, desperately trying to beat their opponents, they are not competing for the attention of any females. On the contrary, as far as they are concerned, females are mostly decidedly uninteresting.

And the millions of men who are obsessed with sport are certainly not engaging in such competitive activities in order to attract women.

Au contraire.

Such interests seem to have the opposite effect on women.

Similarly, men who are devoted musicians, scientists, artists, sportsmen, politicians etc etc etc etc and who spend so much of their lives labouring at their various occupations seem hardly to be doing any of these things in order to attract women. Once again, if anything, they are alienating themselves from women by devoting so much of their energies to such pursuits.

So, while it might well be the case that men have evolved to be competitive because this quality, by enhancing survival prospects, was evolutionarily significant, it does not seem to me that this competitiveness is mostly used by men as a way of attracting women. Indeed, it seems to do the opposite.

Women, themselves, are certainly more attracted to 'higher-ranking' men, but it simply does not follow that men are pursuing these higher ranks mostly in order to attract women.

Indeed, very rarely have I come across men competing with each other to attract women. Yes, of course, this does happen from time to time, but, generally speaking, it does not seem to occur.

I am not suggesting that men do not desire women immensely. They surely do. But I just do not see them 'competing' with each other in order to attract them.

My belief is that men are, indeed, competitive because it is 'fun' for them, and because they very much like to master those aspects of the world with which they have chosen to engage. But in most of these situations, women are very much at the periphery of their minds.

In other words, neither Beethoven nor Shakespeare composed their numerous great works to attract women.

And I think that it is a big mistake to assume that because men desire women greatly and that men are competitive with each other, it follows that men compete with each other in order to attract women.

In my opinion, they mostly do not do this. 

Indeed, my belief is that men would happily compete with each other for years on end even if there was not a single woman in sight; and, of course, married men are also highly competitive even when they have no inclination - or possibility - to stray.

And for any UK readers who remain unconvinced about the gradual takeover of the country by communists who seek to control just about everything, here is a link to the recent CH4 Dispatches programme which reveals that Ken Livingstone's closest cronies in London's government (who were hired by Livingstone and who get paid £130,000/annum by the taxpayer) were once part of a group called Socialist Action - something that they nowadays try to hide. This group strongly believes in communist government - with themselves being the leaders of it, of course. This is part of the preamble to their website ...  "As socialists we seek to understand the theory of Marxism, but as an activist group, we also seek to put those ideas into practice. That's why on this site you'll find everything from the writings of Leon Trotsky, to the latest on the struggle to defend abortion rights." 

The film is in three parts and outlines how 'the people' have been grossly deceived in three main areas - religion, war and the economy.

The first seven minutes or so of the film were so over-dramatic and over-long for my tastes that I nearly gave up watching - but I held out - and I ended up enjoying the film very much.

And, while on the subject of 'conspiracies', I feel impelled to state that I have no doubts at all that such things happen, that they are often 'large', and that they are often carried out by some very powerful groups who are serving their own interests at the expense of everyone else.

In most instances, of course, I do not have enough detailed knowledge to decide whether or not the specific claims about various conspiracies are valid. I just have to make some judgements about the people who are making these claims.

But, in some cases, I do, actually, have the expert knowledge required to come to some very informed conclusions about what is, and has been, going on. For example, when it comes to the various machinations of the feminists and their friends in the abuse industry and the government etc etc, I am absolutely certain that we are being positively deluged with lies - and, further, that the main aim of these lies is to break apart as much as possible the close relationships that people might have with each other - mostly in order to benefit those in the higher echelons of government.

The above film does not deal with this particular area, but it is not difficult to see how the breaking down of people's close relationships ties in with what the film does claim.

Finally, I must point out - yet again! - that MRAs who are concerned about such things should not waste their time trying to get their politicians to do something about them. Nearly all the politicians who get to the top of the tree and stay there are corrupt to the core. And if, indeed, any of them were to be foolish enough to pick up the banner for men's rights at this particular point in time, then they would rapidly lose a large percentage of the female vote, they would quickly be shunned by the mainstream media and their own colleagues in government, and they would, therefore, swiftly disappear from view.

The media are the key to the success of the MM - but not just the mainstream. And, thankfully, some 80% of active political activists (writers, journalists, musicians, comedians, etc) are men. And it is these men that the MM needs mostly to get on board.

Well, that's my view!

Notice that he also talks about the Council for Foreign Relations. This is a hugely influential organisation that masquerades as being concerned about world matters in general, but which, in reality, is mostly concerned about spreading communism throughout the world so that those in the governing elite can be empowered even more so than is already the case.

This decade old film is worth seeing because it will give MRAs some further insight into the appalling degree of self-serving corruption that is endemic among the governing elite and their officials. 

For example, the film provides fairly convincing evidence that, amongst other things, the Clintons have profited hugely from the 'war on drugs' and that many of their activities have been illegal.

Perhaps the film will also help to open the eyes of those MRAs who continue to believe that 'the truth' has any major bearing on what those with power will get up to.

+ Psychopaths In Business And Politics Masters of manipulation, it is estimated that approximately only 1 percent of the general population are psychopaths. Yet their numbers are overrepresented in business, politics, law enforcement agencies, law firms and the media, according to research done by Dr. Robert Hare, at the University of British Columbia and his colleague, Dr. Paul Babiak.

(Robert Hare is probably the world's leading expert on psychopathy.)

A great lecture about the corruption and self-serving nature of the EU. 

For a short period of time - about 40 minutes of the way through the lecture - Ashley allows questions from the audience and his lecture gets sidetracked slightly; but bear with it, because he is soon back in action again. 

(PS Here is John Trenchard's blog exposing some more of the huge extent of Common Purpose - a well-funded group that promotes the EU in somewhat clandestine fashion.)

A question that often arises in MRA discussions about secretive pro-big government organisations like Common Purpose and, of course, the associated forces that seek to bring about World Government - the New World Order! - is how this will effect the gender issue questions that the MM often address.

And, in my view, a New World Order would, in fact, be very beneficial from the point of view of men's rights (vis-a-vis those of women) though it would be somewhat deleterious to the well-being of people as a whole.

It would be deleterious for all the reasons that communism itself is deleterious to the well-being of people - something that has been well demonstrated throughout history - with the main reason for this being that communism brings about enormous corruption, arrogance, dishonesty and greed in the very people who have the most power; especially once they get used to it and, thence, feel entitled to it.

But - strangely enough - it would also be beneficial from the point of view of men's rights (vis-a-vis those of women) because if there is only one world government on the planet then there will be no escape from it. And where there is no escape, weaker groups tend to succumb much more readily to stronger groups.

One only has to look at the History books to see how forces that have existed outside of a group have so often had to be employed in order to curtail the excesses ('the unfairness') that had been established within it.

But if no outside group exists, then the power structures within a group simply become more and more entrenched.

There is nothing to oppose them.

And when it comes to gender relationships, 'women' in a one-world situation are just not going to have much in the way of bargaining power; indeed, they will end up having hardly any bargaining power at all - because, quite simply, apart from their reproductive capacities (shortly to be surpassed by various technologies) there is precious little that women can do that men cannot do better - much better in most of the areas that are considered to be 'important' by most people.

As such, women must be out of their minds to support the feminists and their big-government loving friends. 

Targeting Judge Thorpe The campaign group Fathers 4 Justice attacked the home of family court judge Sir Matthew Thorpe in Seend High Street on Sunday night.

+ "Dads only want the same right of access as mum's latest boyfriend.

Common Purpose is a secretive charity that channels EU funds and your tax money - millions of pounds worth - into providing help up the career ladder only to those people who will support the EU agenda of breaking down individual countries.

These 'chosen' people - mostly government officials - can then, basically, serve themselves most handsomely by betraying their countries and their countrymen by selling their services, their support and our information to a foreign organisation - the EU - that seeks power over the UK and over other countries.

In essence, Common Purpose is a secret club - a club of traitors. And in the above lecture, Brian Gerrish exposes - with much evidence - just how huge and powerful is this secret club.

Brian Gerrish is not an MRA. He has probably not even heard of the MM. But MRAs will be shocked at what he has uncovered about the machinations of those who aspire to be part of the 'governing elite'. And what he says will resonate very strongly with readers familiar with this website.

These people want to empower themselves. They are already in government positions. And by undermining and disorienting the population and, in particular, men and their families - i.e. by causing societal 'disharmony' - they intend to empower themselves much further.

Essentially, those who work in government have found a way of empowering themselves at the expense of their very own people. By causing dysfunction and disharmony throughout their very own countries, they can fool the public into supporting increases of their own powers under the guise that they are attempting to 'solve the problems' - the very problems that they, themselves, created.

Regular readers of this website will already know that there is an enormous amount of circumstantial evidence on this very website that attests to the notion that something deeply sinister has been taking place over the past few decades in respect of the way in which - in so many areas - western governments seem to have done their very best to cause serious problems to their very own people in order to empower themselves.

Brian Gerrish gives you some further insight into how this is being done.

Serious UK MRAs must view this video. It is not riveting, and a bit slow at times, but it is well worth the time.

Non-UK MRAs can also benefit from watching this video because they can be sure that the very same type of self-serving treachery is going on all over the world at the moment.

For Brits ...

I have just watched a lecture by David Samuel on the EU and the immigration problem.

It is a fine lecture.

But what really exasperated me was how he ended it.

He said something like; "I cannot understand why our politicians are co-operating with this ridiculous immigration policy," - or words to that effect.

But, to me, the answer is blatantly OBVIOUS.

The politicians are doing this because they are benefitting ****THEMSELVES**** by supporting EU immigration policies.

By supporting the EU, politicians will get millions of pounds worth of support for their parties and oodles of positive publicity - directly and indirectly - from the HUGE resources of the EU; and, possibly, if they play their cards right, a fine career at a later stage in their lives and an extremely handsome pension.

The EU is a gravy train for them.

Of course, not all politicians are dishonest, self-serving and corrupt. But those who succeed in getting to the top- and staying there - are corrupt to the core.

There is no other way of getting to the top.

Honesty will get you nowhere.

And the main reason that a communist/Marxist agenda so often appears to be behind what these people are up to is that those who work for government ***AND*** who seek to empower themselves is exactly what 'communism' is about!

Indeed, this is why people like Gordon Brown nowadays end up being Prime Minister. He is a communist (e.g. see my piece The Young Parasite - Gordon Brown) and his clear aim is to empower government at the expense of the people - and so the hugely powerful machine of 'government' (and this now includes the power of the EU) whirrs into action - on numerous well-hidden fronts - and makes damn sure that he gets the job.

Of course, in some sense, the politicians are competing with each other in their greedy scramble for personal wealth and power but, for the most part, they are on the same side - the side of bigger and more powerful government; i.e. themselves. And this is why there is barely a difference nowadays between the Labour Party and the Tories.

Leading the demonstration was Mark Harris, 48, whose 10-year battle for access to his three children was heard by a total of 33 judges, including family specialist Lord Justice Mathew Thorpe.

Ah yes. Mathew Thorpe. One of the most sexist, vindictive and dishonourable family court officials in the country - in my view - and, indeed, in the view of many fathers and children who have had the misfortune of having to deal with him.

This man has no concern at all for fathers or for children; e.g. see the piece entitled Judges.

Protesting Women Post Their Knickers Women around the world are sending their knickers to Burmese embassies to protest against the country's brutal regime.

Burma's iron-fisted - yet superstitious - military junta believe touching lady's underwear will "rob them of power".

Hmm. I think they have a point!

But, on a more serious note, this is a form of protest that I still believe that men should engage in - hence the images of underwear that have sat at the top of most of the pages of this website for the past few years.

I am not going to write a detailed piece about this again - given all the flak and the jeering that I received the last time - but I will simply reiterate my belief that if men learned to 'post their pants' en masse to those organisations that deserved to receive them, then this would be one of the simplest and most effective forms of activism that I can think of.

Indeed, I think that it would have a huge impact.

The Fathers Rights Movement In order to better see where the fathers’ rights movement should go, it needs to think about where it has been and where it is now. For this reason, I present my own initial draft outline of the major phases of the fathers’ rights movement. Roger Gay

(I think that the first comment following the article is highly intelligent and particularly astute!)

New Israeli Knesset Fathers Rights Subcomittee In Action A new Knesset subcommittee for fathers' rights in divorce and child-custody proceedings held its first meeting Monday.

Moshe Aberjil, who heads one of the fathers’ rights groups present at the meeting, complained that the Welfare Ministry’s forms are all worded with gender inflections that are only suitable for complaints of violence carried out by men, when it has been clearly shown that female domestic violence is a reality. Other representatives alleged that police do not follow up on complaints filed by men, indicating an order from above not to pursue such investigations.

Advert Pulled For Trivialising Violence Against A Man! A television advert that 'trivialised' domestic violence has been banned after a flood of complaints from viewers.

The commercial for MFI shows a couple rowing after the man leaves a toilet seat up. The woman yells, “You've done it again, haven't you?” before slapping him twice.

Progress!

However, let us not get too complacent.

A few days ago I made the mistake of leaving on the TV set in the kitchen - tuned to BBC2 - while cooking the dinner.

A 'comedy' series starring the increasingly unfunny Steve Coogan called Saxondale began to air.

Within ten minutes, viewers were being treated to jokes about male prison rape.

The plot is this.

Saxondale (Steve Coogan) might get sent to prison for failing to pay his fare on the train.

"Better shave your beard," says an apparently dim-witted female social worker, "because it can be used as a 'handle'," (i.e. while being raped).

Laughter.

"Better cut your hair too," says his dim-witted sidekick.

Laughter.

"It's best to shave your whole body so that you are smooth all over," says the dim-witted social worker, "so that when you are covered with vaseline, you might be able to slip away."

Laughter.

But, as most of you will appreciate by now, the BBC is always very keen to downplay, to hide, or to make humour out of, any type of violence against men.

Anyway. Here is my email to Coogan's website, ...

Jokes about prison rape make me sick; you W*NKER.

Short and sweet!

And a few months ago, the missus and I made the mistake of settling down to watch one of Coogan's films. I cannot remember the title, but we gave up watching within about 15 minutes. It was positively awful. And the smutty humour was, basically, boring 12-year old schoolboy stuff; with the final straw - before hitting the OFF button - being a supposedly funny piece wherein an open sash window crashes down on to a young boy's penis as he is urinating out of it.

Not. Funny.

OFF!

Women: Theory & Practice USA

by Bernard Chapin

This book captures the true essence of today's apocryphal gap between men and women and how it affects not only the workplace, but also romantic relationships and the interactions of men and women everywhere. 

Chapin introduces a truly contrarian argument against society's current atmosphere of political correctness. He also makes a convincing case for the hidden damage caused by the women's movement and the popular mindset that women are no longer just the fairer sex, they are the better sex.

Weasel Words? "I'm a father and that's what matters most. Nothing matters more than that. Nothing!!" Gordon Brown

Lady Hale, in a judgment made in the Court of Appeal on the 13th February 2003, stated: "Father should be satisfied with 1 day of contact per year. Father should appreciate that any happy contact, no matter how brief, no matter how infrequent, is of benefit to the children."

Fathers Rally Fathers' rights movements appear to be gaining strength and popularity across the country.

And now, here is some Maths ...

I quote my good self; ...

... around 5% of the population are either socially and/or emotionally highly dysfunctional.

Therefore, where children are brought up by single parents, some 5% of these parents are going to be highly dysfunctional.

Indeed, because highly dysfunctional adults are the very ones most likely to end up as single parents, the percentage of those children with single parents who are highly dysfunctional must be quite high - probably many times higher than 5% ...

Nevertheless, sticking with the overall 5% figure just to make the point, the probability of children ending up solely in the hands of dysfunctional parents drops from around 5% (for children of single parents) to around 0.5% when two parents are around.

As such - and to generalise - whatever dysfunctional traits, harmful to children, that one considers that parents might have, it is clearly the case that one of the very best ways of protecting children from the effects of them is for children to have TWO parents! 

Dear Harry 

John Denham has asked me to reply to your recent email regarding the knife block advertisement.

Mr Denham has indicated that he is appalled at this knife block and the way in which it is advertised. He would imagine that this must, at the very least, be on the borderline of illegal behaviour. At the very least it should be investigated and Mr Denham is therefore passing the details of this website to the local police to seek their opinion.

C L
Constituency Office Manager to JOHN DENHAM MP

UK MRAs, please email John Denham at ...

john@johndenham.org.uk 

... to voice your outrage at this knife block; given that it is clearly an incitement to violence and that it promotes the view that the stabbing of men is something to laugh about.

And, of course, emailing your own constituency MP might also help!

I cannot tell you how delighted I am that this scumbag has gone to jail.

Dear Harry,

I apologise for contacting you out of the blue but I am researching a new TV programme and wondered if you could help...

I am hoping to make a new programme about people who feel a sense of dislike towards, or are uncomfortable with, members of the opposite sex and/or gender-specific movements (feminism etc).

As one of the most-linked anti-feminist bloggers, [did he say 'one of the most-linked anti-feminist bloggers'? Huh! This man needs a lesson or two on how to flatter far more effusively a man of my most magnificent stature!] I wondered if you could write a piece on your blog about what I'm looking for and encourage people to get involved.

andy.cadman@endemoluk.com 

Many thanks and I hope to hear from you soon.

Andy

So, there you go, Boys - and Girls. Here is your chance to let rip and have a really good moan about all those horrible feminist wimmin out there. Show them no mercy. Eat them alive. Squash 'em like pesky bugs.

Rip out their throats. Stomp on their heads. And then whack their behinds till they blister and burn.

Saw them in half. Boil them in oil. Pulverise them with ... 

Goodness, I don't know what came over me.

I feel faint.

But, before I pass out, if you've got nothing better to do - and, let's face it, if you're hanging around here then you clearly have got nothing better to do - then email Andy and check out the angles. 

Ah yes. Those were the days when women had it worse than men.

A spokesman for the Judicial Communications Office, part of the Department of Constitutional Affairs, said: "There is no justification or public interest served in publishing the home addresses or other private details of judges.

"It can serve no purpose other than to intrude into the privacy of the judge, and encourage harassment of the judge and his/her family in their family home.

Yawn.

In my view, if you take away a man's children - or a woman's, for that matter - then you deserve everything that you get; lofty judge or otherwise.

In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women. This finding surprised Whitaker and his colleagues, they admitted in their study report.

Cultural Marxism Sometime during the last half-century, someone stole our culture. Just 50 years ago, in the 1950s, America was a great place. It was safe. It was decent. Children got good educations in the public schools. Even blue-collar fathers brought home middle-class incomes, so moms could stay home with the kids. Television shows reflected sound, traditional values.

Where did it all go? How did that America become the sleazy, decadent place we live in today – so different that those who grew up prior to the '60s feel like it's a foreign country? Did it just "happen"?

It is clearly the case that many of you who visit this most fabulous of websites are more than just 'readers'. Some of you are very active indeed. And if you are one of the latter then please start thinking about setting up your own blog(s). 

Blogs are not difficult to set up, and once you get used to the way in which they operate, they are very easy to run.

I use Google's Blogger for my various blogs and you can find out more about Google blogs here.

You do not have to be a keen writer to run a blog. Indeed, some blogs just contain links to articles of interest, and the blogger author makes no comment on them. And some of them contain almost nothing but pictures accompanied by various links which lead to sites wherein one can view more pictures - usually of the same kind.

Furthermore, simply acquiring the ability to set up and run blogs is very empowering. Apart from the fact that blogs are good vehicles for disseminating your point of view, learning to deal effectively with this new technology will likely benefit you in numerous ways in the future; e.g. see Run Your Own Website? - which also applies to blogs nowadays. 

You also do not need to put your blog on view to the general public. (Indeed, apart from my two websites, I currently run five blogs - but you can only see three of them - Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Subterfuge!) In other words, if you are worried that you will make a pig's ear of the whole process, or that people might think that you are a twit - or something - then you can always keep your blog accessible to your eyes only until you have got it into shape.

I am also fairly certain that running a blog is good for your mental and, hence, physical health. For example, rather than sitting at home fuming over yet another outrageous episode and developing hyper-stress and ulcers over it, blowing off that steam and telling others about it is very cathartic indeed.

Finally, once you get used to it, you can post up material very quickly indeed. For example, it takes me less than 2 minutes to lift a paragraph from a newspaper, paste the link over it, and send the new blog piece to the web. It is only if I decide to pontificate over the matter that it will take me any longer than this.

(Also see, ... Writing Emails to Online Authors and Media Journalists)

We know that female power exists because women are not our slaves. They must be using something quite potent to counteract all the terrible powers and tendencies women say we have.

What is the power that gives a 115-pound woman the audacity to jump in the face and give endless grief to a 220-pound man, when no 115-pound man would dare to do the same?

If, as they claim, women dress to impress other women, not to attract men, are we supposed to believe that they get breast implants to impress other women too?

If a woman ends a marriage, she is putting an end to a stifling and oppressive relationship. If a man ends a marriage, he is abandoning his family.

Men's typical style of sexual harassment is like a pushy salesmen who won't take No for an answer. Women's high-volume sexual harassment is like a junk mailer who gives you no way to get off the mailing list.

UK Promises Huge Cut In Carbon Emissions Environmental groups will be able to take future Governments to court if they fail to live up to this one's promise to cut Britain's carbon emissions, under a Climate Change Bill published today. 

The government is, apparently, very concerned about 'the environment'. But notice than none of the government's proposals include anything that encourages people to live together - an obvious social policy that could cut very dramatically the emissions of carbon dioxide. On the contrary, the government is doing the very opposite; i.e. discouraging people from living together.

But Tony Blair and the members of his cabinet, together with many European politicians, have stated over and over again that the issue of global warming is the most important issue of our times.

But, if they really believed this, then, surely, they would head straight towards a social policy that would have a dramatic effect on greenhouse gas emissions. And encouraging people to live together (e.g. by getting married) would help to do this.

So, what is going on?

How can it be that these politicians believe that global warming will lead to catastrophe, and yet they continue to ignore an obvious social policy that would help significantly to prevent this?

Well, the only realistic answer to this question is that they are lying.

As usual.

Because, whether or not these politicians believe that global warming is occurring as a result of our activities, the evidence clearly shows that their real Number One policy is to break apart people's close relationships and their families. And they are not going to back away from this agenda even if it causes global warming.

In other words, maintaining the onslaught against people's close relationships is far more important to them than global warming.

Well, I have provided so much evidence on this website to show that one of the Labour government's main (feminist-inspired) priorities is to damage people's close relationships, and so I will not regurgitate the evidence here.

But I just want to point you to another piece of UK legislation that has materialised over the past few days concerning women's pay, ...

Men Pay High Price For 'Equality' Hundreds of thousands of men face salary cuts of up to £15,000 to fund increases for women staff. The new pay structures are expected to lead to strikes and court action in the public sector. 

... Amongst other things, this is another ploy to reduce the 'value' of men - relative to women - when it comes to their relationships, and it is a way of destroying a young couple's hopes of a traditional marriage - wherein the man goes out to work and the woman stays at home with the children.

By reducing a man's pay relative to that of his partner, a couple are far less likely to be able to arrange matters along traditional lines. And, for those who do not earn very much, a man will soon have virtually no monetary value at all.

(He certainly will not be able to compete with the state handouts that are made to women.)

Indeed, the evidence demonstrating very clearly that one of the main aims of our left-wing feminist-dominated government is to destroy the relations between men, women and children just keeps mounting, and mounting, and mounting.

And nothing stands in the way of this agenda.

Not even 'global warming'.

....................

And now I have two questions to ask all my men readers.

When, exactly, are you going to start fighting against these malicious parasites?

For how long, exactly, are you going to allow them to continue with this hateful, self-serving agenda?

....................

But Angry Harry! What can I do? I am a nobody. A nothing.

Well, so am I.

But this does not stop me from continually going at them; in my own little way.

And if you want to defeat these scumbags and boot them out of the way, then you must do the same.

Remember: They are doing everything that they can to damage your close relationships - even those with your very own children - in order to profit themselves.

As such, you should not have the slightest qualms about doing everything in your power to defeat them; no matter how small you might be.

......

Theodore Dalrymple Separation Anxiety Divorcees are bad for the environment. ...

Do Environmentalists Care? 

A small item in the British Medical Journal recently caught my eye. It was a brief digest of a recent paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on the environmental impact of divorce. Researchers from Michigan found that people in divorced households spent 46 and 56 percent more on electricity and water, respectively, than did people in married households. This outcome is not all that surprising: marriage involves (among many other things, of course) economies of scale.

One of the interesting questions that this little piece of research poses is whether the environmentalist lobby will now throw itself behind the cause of family values. Will it, for example, push for the tightening of divorce laws, and for financial penalties—in the form, say, of higher taxes—to be imposed on those who insist upon divorcing, and therefore upon using 46 percent more electricity and 52 percent more water per person than married couples who stay together? Will environmentalists march down the streets with banners reading SAVE THE PLANET: STAY WITH THE HUSBAND YOU HATE?

For myself, I doubt it. Yet these figures, if true, are certainly suggestive. The fact that there will be no demonstrations against environmentally destructive divorcees, who probably emit as much extra carbon dioxide as the average SUV, suggests that the desire to save the planet is not nearly as powerful as the desire to destroy a way of life.

One Disgusting Human Being Exposed Like others before him, the DA (Michael Nifong) quickly grasped the career possibilities open to him with such a case and proceeded accordingly -- denouncing racism, and the rape and assault of a helpless black woman, and the Duke athletes guilty of these crimes in every media interview available to him (and they were many). Dorothy Rabinowitz

For all the public shock and fury over his behavior, there is little that is new or strange about Mr. Nifong. We have seen the likes of this district attorney, uninterested in proofs of innocence, willing to suppress any he found, many times in the busy army of prosecutors claiming to have found evidence of rampant child abuse in nursery schools and other child-care centers around the country in the 1980s and throughout most of the '90s. They built case after headline-making case charging the mass molestation of small children, and managed to convict scores of innocent Americans on the basis of testimony no rational mind could credit.

I felt that the above article which was printed in the Wall St Journal was so important that I lifted the whole piece and planted it in one of my blogs.

And I hope that this piece will help many of my newer readers to recognise that I am not exaggerating when I say that many of those who work in powerful positions in government are the most self-serving, corrupt, dishonourable human beings in our society.

There are thousands of people like this revolting man Michael Nifong working in government positions, and there are many thousands more who say and do nothing about them - so ambitious and greedy are they for their own self-advancement.

This man - and others like him - should be in prison - long-term. He would have happily had the Duke lacrosse players incarcerated for 30 years - knowing full well that they were innocent - in order to benefit himself.

These people need to be punished. They should not be tolerated and they should not be allowed to escape from prosecution.

Goodness knows how many men who are completely innocent of any sexual assaults have been wrongfully imprisoned because of the numerous benefits that nowadays accrue both to self-serving government officials and to malicious false accusers - many of whom clearly collaborate with malevolent intent over their cases - for mutual gain.

The Duke Three have managed to gain themselves a great deal of media publicity - largely because of their status and also, of course, because the alleged victim is clearly 'unbalanced' - but can you imagine what must be happening to so many other men who find themselves in a similar position? - such as those who have no status, and those who are up against credible false accusers?

No close media attention for them!

These men will simply find themselves in prison.

Well. I must confess that this is one of those fairly rare occasions where I actually wish that I had an audience of millions. If I had, I would pursue this nasty Nifong individual - and any department that he worked for - until I had some kind of decent result. And I hope that American internet MRAs will do their very best to keep investigating this man and to undermine him and his department whenever possible.

From what I can gather, the blogosphere has already been particularly effective in monitoring, exposing and pursuing this man, but until he is booted out of his job (at the very least) I hope that he is not allowed to disappear from our sights.

And please do not kid yourself that he is some kind of exception to the rule. Western governments are packed full of dishonest, self-serving, greedy, malicious people like him.

And, unfortunately for us, they are the ones who tend to make it to the top of the tree - for obvious reasons.

Hi Harry

We are asking the groups to take some time and go to the newly upgraded website and state their opinion.  

www.PaternityFraudAustralia.com.au 

All opinions will be forwarded onto Canberra. 

We are indebted to ADAPTdna for this upgrade. 

We were not in position to have these changes made without their input.

Many thanks 

Cheryl King 

It really sickens me to see the Observer continue to disseminate this LIE that "19 out of 20 women in Britain see their attacker go free". There is no evidence for this whatsoever. The best evidence available suggests that the reason that 95% of all allegations of rape in the UK result in no conviction is because in most of these cases there was no rape.

Men Not Allowed Near Children British Airways has been accused of treating all men passengers as potential sex offenders after it was revealed it has banned children from sitting next to male strangers - even if their parents are on the same flight.

I am, however, glad to tell you that profits for BA have plunged by 27% this past year, and that they seem likely to get worse. 

I, myself, will also be campaigning for airlines to have to pay the full tax duty on the fuel that they use. And I hope that you will all join me in this whenever you chance upon the opportunity. 

At the moment, airlines are not paying the rates that everyone else has to pay. In other words, they are being subsidised by taxpayers - mostly men!

My advice to MRAs who find themselves on BA flights is to complain about everything - and to sue in the small claims court for the slightest 'damages' which might be deemed legitimate. Brits can use Money Claim Online to issue a summons with hardly any effort. It is a very effective means of seeking damages for small amounts.

The cost of making a claim is small; and if you lose, that is all that you can lose.

If you are suing a big company, however, they will have to use a lawyer - which will cost them a fortune, and so the chances are that they will not even bother to defend a claim.

I last used Money Claim when an MP3 player that I bought kept malfunctioning. My emails to the online company that sold me the player were not being responded to. So, I issued a summons.

I got all my money back within six weeks - plus the claim costs - without going to court.

Indeed, Wikipedia has been completely infested with dragoons of feminists who have significantly altered most of the sections to do with history, sociology, psychology, the law etc. 

There are tens of thousands of women who are politically-motivated enough - and, often, well-funded enough - to re-write almost anything in order to further their odious agenda.

UK Rape Laws To Be Toughened Men who have sex with drunken women risk being found guilty of rape under proposals to increase conviction rates.

Given that the government already knows that the conviction rate actually falls the more widely that it loosens the definitions of 'rape', it is clearly the case that the real idea behind these new laws is not to increase the conviction 'rates', but to increase the number of convictions and the number of false allegations. 

And, of course, to increase the number of men dragged into the criminal courts - mostly by malicious women who are seeking to hurt them in some way and who know that they will remain anonymous.

By doing this, the government can profit from the greater inter-personal disharmony that this will cause, and the feminists can revel in the fact that it will be easier for women to be able to hurt men.

And, of course, by encouraging many more false and exaggerated allegations to take place - which, in the official statistics, will be counted as real rapes - the official rape figures will increase further (and then multiplied to account for those women who, allegedly, did not report their 'rapes') thus allowing the government and the feminists to argue for even more corruptions of the justice system, and so increase even further the amount of inter-gender disharmony that takes place.

It's win-win for both of them.

To see why the conviction rate will probably fall while the level of disharmony increases, see my piece Signing the Sex Consent Document.

Basically, however, what will happen under these new laws is that thousands of women who are feeling vindictive, for some reason or other, will suddenly recall that they had been drinking when they had sex, and so they will use these new laws as a weapon with which to hurt their partners - or they will simply threaten to do this. 

Ministers are also keen to make it easier to bring rape cases many years after the alleged incident ...

Yep; women will even be able to do this - or threaten to do this - many years after an alleged incident.

Still, who knows? - one day men might actually wake up to the fact that their own governments are their real enemies - because, quite simply, their own governments profit HUGELY by causing them problems; e.g. see The Governing Elite.

Oh look, here is the government now trying to make it more difficult for people to live together, ...

Britain's two million cohabiting couples are to be given legal rights to claim a share of property and income when the relationship breaks down.

Unmarried couples could be ordered to sell their homes, pay lump sums to each other or share pensions if they split under controversial Government reforms. The sweeping changes are expected to apply to those who have lived together for as little as two years.

I remember that I was completely riveted when I first read the above piece about 6 years ago.

And I was completely riveted today when I read it again.

The Problem With Men I have two disputes with the current thinking about men. One is a problem about how we perceive Equality. The other is my problem with the widely-held notion that men are the oppressors of women. Rich Zubaty - 10 min

This is an old proselytising piece by Rich Zubaty that is absolutely packed with valid ideas and notions that are definitely worth contemplating from time to time.

If any reader here is a member of FNF, perhaps they should ask its leaders why they link on their website exclusively to news items and articles contained in the Guardian newspaper archive. 

http://www.fnf.org.uk/news/guardian.htm

This newspaper consistently gives its readers a feminist, anti-father, anti-male perspective on just about everything. 

So, why is FNF trying to inject its own members with ideas and notions that seem likely to undermine them rather than to empower them?

Well, don't ask me, because I haven't got a clue.

But I imagine that you would all find it very strange indeed if I linked on this website only to articles on gender issues that were written in a newspaper that was completely dominated by feminist 'thinking'.

You might even think that I was a complete and utter fraud.

But, there we are, what do I know, eh? I am just a poor lonesome country boy with nothing but chicken wire to sit on and a rusty old marble to play with.

It seems to me that we are making a great deal of progress at the moment. And, clearly, I am not the only person to see this - judging by the reduced amount of moaning about the question of progress that has been evident throughout the MRA community recently.

But for those who remain sceptical, I want to tell you about a TV programme that I saw a few nights ago. It was the BBC World Services' Dateline - a programme wherein particularly lofty journalists are invited to pontificate about important matters of the day. Needless to say, the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon was the main topic.

Simon Jenkins of the Observer (formerly of the Times, I think) stated his belief that, as usual, western governments were exaggerating the possible impact of current-day conflicts - such as 'terrorism' - and he said that the current situation in Lebanon and, indeed, the threat from Al-Qaeda were being purposely overblown by western governments in order to drum up support and resources for their various self-serving plans and agendas.

Well, I do not actually agree with Simon Jenkins' view about this because, as my regular readers will know, I am fairly certain that terrorism - and the prospect of it - is going to cause huge problems for the west; e.g. see my piece Fantastical Lies.

But it was the fact that he pointed out that governments tend to exaggerate immensely in order to bolster their own powers that pleased me.

As another example of this, he then talked about the way in which governments had lied and exaggerated about the size and power of the Mafia in order to help boost the flowing of funds to the FBI and to other similar agencies.

And the American journalist Stryker Maguire of Newsweek agreed, pointing out that governments had also been doing the very same when it came to the War on Drugs.

Abdel Bari Atwan, the editor in chief of the Arab London-based newspaper Al-Quds, nodded in agreement.

Governments lie and exaggerate in order to bolster their own powers, and they demonise as best as possible those whom they wish to fight. This is what these three journalists were agreeing about.

Well, it seems to me that these journalists - and, presumably, many others - must be at least halfway to realising that when it comes to western governments lying, exaggerating and demonising people in order to serve themselves, their targets have not just been junkies, terrorists or criminals, but also  'men'!

In other words, I do not think that it will be too long before huge numbers of journalists begin to extend their understanding about the way in which governments operate, and they begin to wake up more fully to what western government officials have been doing to 'men' for the past three decades.

One of the biggest problems that I have faced as an MRA over the years has been trying to demonstrate to others that the politicians and the officials whom they are dealing with do not give two hoots about their problems because they are too busy trying to serve themselves - at their expense; e.g. see Fathers Groups Miss The Big Picture.

Well, thankfully, this state of ignorance about the integrity of those holding positions of influence is finally being addressed. And when more people begin to understand how self-serving and dishonest are so many groups and organisations, their malign influences will begin to evaporate.

In summary: Journalists are clearly aware of how various organisations such as governments feather their own nests by lying, exaggerating and demonising. This is only one step away from them realising that 'men' have been one of their primary targets, and only two steps away from joining MRAs in their fight against them.