Selected Emails

should rape researchers use polygraph tests? ...

Hi Harry,

In relation to your recent musings about compiling accurate data on false-allegations: Would not the routine polygraphing of men accused of rape offer an accurate insight into how many of them have been falsely accused?

A polygraph test, when performed properly, is extremely accurate.

If I were an acedemic, conducting such a study, I'd choose to polygraph a cross-section of men accused of rape. I'd then offer the same test to their accusers. For those men who have been falsely accused and pass the test, I would not find it unsurprising if their accusers refused to take a polygraph test. Those women who've been genuinely raped would be more likely to take the test, and pass. Whereas their rapists would be unlikely to participate. I think you can see where I'm going with this.

Another idea would be to offer a polygraph to all men who've been convicted of rape. The results would no doubt provide interesting and accurate data.

Just my two-penneth worth, but I dispute the assertion that it's difficult to obtain accurate data on false allegations.

Best regards,

C

Hi C

Yes, statistically, I suppose that you could add some useful data to false allegation research by employing polygraphs.

However, I suspect that in most cases the main issue would be to do with consent rather than with what actually happened, and I am not quite sure how a polygraph would be able to sort out all the complications.

For example, ....

"Did you at any time throughout the situation believe that she did not want you to have sex with her?"

"Yes."

Well, this could sound like rape.

However, I suspect that it is often the case that a man thinks that she does not want sex to begin with but that, later on, she appears to have a different attitude.

No doesn't always mean No.

Furthermore, it would be easy for a woman to pick on some particular point in a scenario wherein it would be true to say that she did not give the impression that she wanted sex.

For example, a woman might be resisting sex all evening but then change her mind.

Well, I could go on all night with this, but I think that a little thought will show that the issue of consent is too much of a problem.

And an enormous amount of bogus interpretation and bias from the researchers could easily enter the process of determining whether or not a rape had occurred.

After all, the polygraph test does not involve a discussion, it revolves around asking very simplistic questions.

Furthermore, as time goes by, both accusers and defendants will start to rehash their memories in accordance with what they want to think. And so by the time that the researchers get their hands on them, the idea that polygraphs of their statements will be valid seems untenable.

Polygraphs are probably of some value when it comes to simple questions such as, Did you do this? Did you do that?

But when it comes to questions concerning complex beliefs and attitudes - particularly in reference to past events. I cannot see them being very useful.

Indeed, when thinking about consent, it is even possible to imagine realistic situations wherein he thought that he was raping her, but she didn't!

And it is also possible that they BOTH thought that he was raping her, and yet this is what she wanted.

And, more commonly perhaps, neither of them thought that he was raping her, and yet she didn't want sex.

And then you would have to look at all the various ins and outs, and at how they changed with time throughout the course of the interactions.

My point is that the whole area is fraught with horrendous difficulties and complexities when it comes to understanding what went on in the minds of the people involved.

And then there is all the posturing, the posing, the game-playing and the little misunderstandings that typically go on in MOST of these situations.

All in all, therefore, I suspect that polygraph tests in MOST of these situations are not going to get us that much closer to the truth - even for research purposes.

Best

Harry

Are the powers-that-be setting men up? ...

Hi Harry,

Having read every single article twice now (that I'm aware of) I can safely say that I agree with pretty much everything you have said and have confirmed many notions that I have had at the back of my mind for years.

Except for one.

As you have mentioned there are many groups that have a vested interest in stirring up hatred towards men in pretty much every aspect of life.

Their obviously well planned advancement on the lives of the people have left a question burning the back of my head for some time which none of your articles seems to address apart from saying that the rising MM is unstoppable, unfortunately I didn't find that exhaustive of the issue. The question as follows;

Are we, men, playing into their hands by forming the MM? Have they already taken the reaction of the men they are marginalising into consideration and planned accordingly?

Thanks.

C

Hello C

Yes, is the answer to your question; because the more problems that they cause to men (and to the population in general) the more do governments and government workers manage to get more power, jobs, pensions etc.

As such, the growth of the MM, which is definitely going to increase the number of societal problems in the short term, could well have been something that they were quite happy to see happening; and, as you suggest, perhaps they did believe that the MM would play right into their hands.

However, I get the distinct impression that the internet  empowers the people sufficiently well to enable them to put a stop to their heinous self-serving games.

This was very obvious after 9/11 and throughout the first three years after the invasion of Iraq.

Three years!

For three years the Bush administration (and the Pentagon) just could not see how powerful the internet was becoming.

For example, I was truly gobsmacked over the hopeless attempt by the Pentagon to deceive us over the incidents surrounding Jessica Lynch's supposed 'escape' from the Iraqis.

They also seemed totally unaware that 'unfavourable' photographs and films from Iraq could so easily end up on the internet within hours.

They made blunder after blunder.

Quite clearly, they thought that the media coverage of this war could be controlled just like it was a decade earlier; with the first Gulf War - where, for example, the Americans got away with spinning a whole load of false allegations about the behaviours of Iraqi soldiers; e.g. that they were bayoneting babies in Kuwaiti nurseries.

And there were so many other lies and deceits emanating from the White House and Downing Street after 9/11 that were, clearly, going to be exposed via the internet, that it became obvious to me that those in power were miles behind people like me! LOL!

But, then again, I was living in cyberspace and they were living 'out there'.

My point is that, quite clearly, they are not now as all-powerful and as all-seeing as they once were; though they are desperately trying to regain this power by increasing massively their close surveillance over us,

But, no longer, for example, can the president so easily give a nod and a wink to a group of mainstream media proprietors and, through this, manipulate the news and the opinion makers; because the internet remains untamed.

And so the upshot is that while they can now watch us very closely, they cannot actually control the flow of information to the public very well.

Loosely speaking, therefore, they have gained enormous power because of the internet (and other technologies) but they have also lost power because of it.

The good news, however, is this.

Their increase in power comes from their increased ability to monitor. But increasingly monitoring the MM simply means that the MM will get further inside the heads of those who are doing the monitoring!

And so, if you like, the MM (which I see as a 'consciousness' - one that is building up in cyberspace) will eventually invade the minds of millions of those who work for government - at all levels.

It is our 'way in', if you like.

And so while it is true that, as you suggest, the growth of a men's movement might well have been something that they thought would play into their hands, I suspect that the internet has scuppered this hope - and that they now feel quite threatened by the MM.

Well, those who are really aware of it will be.

And I can assure you that some of my own favourite activist targets are accommodating very nicely - but slowly - to my 'demands'.

Just little me.

So can you imagine how big a threat they will face as the MM grows?

And so they will gradually back down.

(These people might be self-serving, but they are not stupid!)

I promise you that the MM (this consciousness) is going to be huge and unstoppable.

And I am not just saying this.

About four weeks ago, for example, I wrote to a high-court judge who had irritated the hell out of me over an injunction that he had issued concerning something which I cannot mention.

In a nutshell, and because I cannot give any specifics, I yelled at him as if he was a child. LOL! And I called him all sorts of names; "arrogant twerp" being one of them, LOL! x 2

But my point is this.

I would not dream of doing such a thing unless I had him over a barrel.

Because no way am I going to end up in serious legal trouble!

In other words, I would not have done such a thing unless I was confident about my own 'power' with regard to the particular matter that was being addressed.

Just little me; knowing the internet, and knowing how powerful it can be for activist purposes - and letting him know it.

The guy might be brilliant at law, but he clearly had no clue about what is going on out here, nor about what can be done over the internet.

And I 'won' - just by showing him what could be done should he, perchance, continue to offend me so.

I recently gave a more specific example of this kind of 'power' over at MND, which Google threatened to delist from its NEWS section as a result of an article written by someone over there that was considered 'inappropriate' in some ways.

I reprint here what I wrote to Mike, ...

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

... fear not, Mike, for if MND were deGoogled, I am sure that, let us say, three of us combined, could play merry hell with Google ... and that Google would soon change its tune.

Indeed, it would provide great practice in Activism.

Is Google too powerful? Yes

Is Google infringing copyright? Yes.

Is Google making money from hate sites? Yes

Is Google making money from people calling women sluts? Yes

Is Google selling sleaze? Yes

Is Google biased against Republicans? Yes

Is Google invading people’s privacy? Yes

And no-one in his right mind at Google is going to suffer all that [continued negative publicity and aggravation] just for the sake of unblocking a ‘lil old site like this one.

They’d be fired!

So, I reckon that you must not worry too much about Google.

Worry a little – but not too much – because I feel sure that we could turn the matter round in the event of a de-listing.

.......

Thus, people with power and/or money are, in fact, quite vulnerable to serious activism on the internet - even from just a handful of committed activists.

So, how can the MM not succeed?

Furthermore, at some stage, the mainstream media are bound to open up the doors to the MM because they will lose their audience and, hence, their revenue if they continue to fail to address issues of concern to 'men'.

And, in some small way, they are already doing this via their comments sections.

And so, in summary, while it might be true that government was initially quite happy to sit back and watch the MM begin to grow, because this would give the powers-that-be further justification for various forms of 'oppression' (something which has, in fact, happened as a result of activity by F4J) my own belief is that the internet has turned the tables very significantly.

Well, let's hope so!

LOL!

Best wishes,

Harry

western women are ignorant ...

Dear Harry,

I am a 15 year old American girl.

I think that your website is not only entertaining, smart, and eye opening, but empowering for both men and women. It's obvious that most Western women are not only extremely emotionally disturbed, violent, and ignorant, but they feel entitled and they are not able to think critically or logically.

It saddens me that many of my peers are already calling themselves "feminists", claiming to be victims, and complaining about the injustices of men.

I don't want to waste any of your time, but I would like to thank you for getting the facts out there in an entertaining and awesome way.

- L

On prenuptial agreements in the UK ...

Dear Harry,

ive been reading your website on and off for about a year now. And although i dont agree 100% with what you say, i agree with most of it.

Anyway, i got my own business which ive built from the ground up. I own a home, which i work incredibly hard to pay the bills on. Im 32 years old, single and honestly dream of the day of being happily married to a beautiful woman who fills my valuable free time with romantic weekends away and long walks through the countryside. But alas i know this will never happen.

I despise the majority of english women. And the ones i dont are already taken. I thought that a nice eastern european woman would make my dream come true one day. And a prenuptual would end my paranoia of loosing everything ive worked so hard for.

Thats until i read this

http://www.terry.co.uk/pre-nuptial.html

Regards, an extremely unhappy and f**ked off man.

S

Dear S

Yep, I'm afraid that the article is correct.

Pre-nup agreements in the UK are worthless. They are just a way of lawyers making money - and divorce judges do not even need to look at them, let alone enforce them.

In other words, they are well and truly worthless.

Women are permitted to break their marriage contracts and any prior agreements with impunity - the whole idea being to make men extremely reluctant to marry and to destabilise established relationships by continually offering women numerous incentives to break them.

Finally, please do not delude yourself when it comes to finding a 'a nice eastern european woman' because if you are living in the UK together her mind will eventually be poisoned by the feminist-dominated media, by the government, and by other women.

In the UK, even your children will be trained to see you as unworthy.

Best wishes,

Harry

Where have all our rights gone? ...

Hello Harry,

I have been posting lately to the comments section of a blog called "The Motherlode", hosted by the New York Times. It reaches a broad audience because it is hosted by such a prominent news site.

I have dated women in the New York area whose views have been shaped by The Motherlode's misandric leanings.

Its main theme is that men don't do "their fair share" of housework. But lately, women viewing "The Motherlode" for a fix of man-hating have been getting an alternative point of view in the comments section :)

I believe that this sort of grass-roots, hand-to-hand, post-to-post combat is an important means of awakening men to what has become of the rights they held dear since modern humans first appeared on the planet 150,000 years ago; the right to the fruits of one's labor; the right to see and influence one's children. All largely stripped of us in the west, in the last 40 yrs.

It is dissapppointing to realize that the rights that men in my family took for granted for thousands of years are not available to me.

T

Hello T

Keep writing those comments! - because I can ***assure*** you that they are helping to wake up a 'sleeping giant'.

Harry

In response to two questions that cropped up recently ...

1. "Are you gay?" - "Why do you keep emphasizing that gays have had a positive influence on men's freedoms?"

No, I am not gay, but my view is that it was gay activists, mostly, who helped to dilute society's traditional expectations that all men had to behave like 'real men' in order to be men.

And I am old enough to remember a time wherein gentle men - perhaps those who were opposed to violence - or weak men were regarded as non-men; and, probably, gay.

To be a man, you had to be tough.

And if you were not tough, then you were regarded as being less than a man.

(Witness also the derogatory way in which computer geeks were treated and portrayed not so long ago.)

Gay activism has helped enormously to loosen the powerful constraints that bound men into certain roles and it has reduced the pressure on men to behave in a very limited and strongly circumscribed manner.

As such, heterosexual men have benefitted enormously from gay activism; though I accept that some gay activism has had the opposite effect.

2. "Will the furore in the UK over MPs' expenses make any difference in the long term?"

Yes. Definitely.

Furthermore, as I have often said, the forces stacking up against governmental powers are going to continue increasing well into the future, and the public revelations about MPs' expenses and their dishonesty is just one example of this.

And these particular revelations over their expenses will assist this process even further - because they will help the public to see just how dishonest and deceitful are so many of those who hold high positions.

But we must go much further - because it is not just the  politicians who are corrupt.

We have civil servants and academics lying through their teeth in order to build their empires, women's victim groups forever lying about their various abuse figures, and so on.

There is much to be done!

I also get the sense that politicians (and some judges) are beginning to wake up to the fact that they are supposed to be on the side of the people, not on the side of the executive.

And if we, as MRAs, can keep on pushing and pushing these people to do their jobs properly - part of which is to protect us from corruption, dishonesty and injustice at the hands of the state - then we will go far in achieving our aims.

After all, the whole point of having politicians and a parliament was to protect the people from being subjected continually to the whims of those who presumed to rule over them.

The various kings and their cronies were supposed to be made to answer to the people via their parliaments!

But we seem to have had the very opposite happening recently - with governments and their officials now colluding with politicians to interfere with and to control just about everything that we do.

Can't do this. Can't do that. Must do this. Must do that.

And they are also taking 50% of our money!

And this is because the kings and the politicians have joined forces to form a new ruling class.

When do you ever hear politicians (especially left-wing politicians) arguing for lower taxes, fewer restrictions, fewer laws, fewer regulations?

Almost never!

And so, of course, MRAs must continue to do their very best to undermine them and, indeed, to undermine everything and everybody that causes men to be disadvantaged.

And with regard to the scandal over MPs' expenses, I do not really have any doubt that MRAs have, in fact, had a hand in bringing it to the public's attention.

I cannot actually haul out a string of evidence to support this particular view, but I do have a very good nose when it comes to sniffing out the various links that are connecting different groups and ideas together (organisms!) and I can definitely sense that there is a greater awareness of men's issues unfolding from left to right on the political spectrum - at least, here in the UK.

And, in my view, this is currently manifesting itself via a growing anger towards those who are seen as being responsible for all the misandry.

And it is this anger that, in my view, helped to spur the Telegraph onward in its attacks on all those MPs who had been fiddling their expenses.

This would not have happened even one year ago.

This anger is coming from somewhere. And my belief is that the many thousands of comments received by journalists and columnists (a good proportion of which are now coming from MRAs) are stirring up the emotions and lowering the respect levels on many fronts.

In the near future, therefore, I do expect to see some politicians start talking about men's issues, though I imagine that they will do this rather obliquely to begin with (because politicians and media folk are positively deluged with female histrionics whenever they dare to talk about concerns that men might have; e.g. see Oxford Ladies.)

Indeed, yours truly has been emailing various lofty folk recently to warn them of what is in store for them if they continue to ignore men's issues - and I continually remind them that 80% of political activists are male, and that MRAs are nowadays getting through to these activists.

The implications of what I say to them are, generally, very simple. If you want to remain popular - if you want your profession to be held in high regard - if you want your organisation to be profitable - then stop bashing men and start supporting them - or you are going to find yourself coming under increasing pressures of various kinds.

This is exactly what the feminists, the gays and the blacks did - with much success - and this is exactly what MRAs should be doing, and are doing.

So, Yes, the expenses scandal will definitely have long-term implications, but it will likely be just a small part of the process through which the government - and the feminists -  are finally put firmly in their place.

Affirmative action is the problem ...

Hi Harry,

 The article you have on your site about men being redundant is ludicrous. Not ludicrous that you have it on your site, but the whole premise as to why men are looked at is completely flawed.

The reason is simply "Affirmative Action". Period.

Women used to be the butt of jokes and commercials on television, because they are inferior and acted that way. THEN they were given not only equal rights, but superiority in our cultures....and it's not like they deserve what they got.

... I found it interesting that last night, as I was looking at the mail form I was sent to renew my driver license, on the form it basically said "If you are a male between the ages of...you need to register with the Military Service". Hmmm. NOT women. Only men. Right...women are strong.

Women have become incredibly abusive, and are wallowing in the power corrupts frame of mind without even knowing it. Men are looked at as boobs because the women can get away with it. Men used to do it to women....women now do it to men.

... The whole concept of women being more collaborative and team oriented may have a small element of truth to it, but I studied this phenomenon in the Master's program I was in years ago and the whole notion that men aren't collaborative is bunk.

I work with women who have to ask each other all the time if they are making the right decisions. Used to be that you needed to. But I could make a joke about how many women it takes to get a project off the ground...all of them.

 I'm not impressed with how weak women are where I work now, and several places I've worked in the past. They can say anything they want, but we guys have to keep out mouths shut for fear of reprisals. And if you think about how many men have lost their jobs here in the US, millions, and that there has been a major net gain for women during the same time, it is obvious what the issue is.

Women have been able to play the system to their advantage. And as the economy sours further, they are working on gaining more power. This is abusive and tyrannical.

... And the media also hypes women who are in the military, and like to say "Our men and WOMEN in the Service are heroes", etc.

... From the stories about men being accused of rape, and the women go free even after it is revealed that they lied and ruined men, to the many women teachers lately being arrested for having sex with young males and get off with lighter sentences than men get when they do the same thing.

The fact of the matter is that women are just men with vaginas. They are as violent, conniving, hateful, aggressive and on and on.

... Until we men get over the fairy tale view of these evil creatures (not all of women are...necessarily) being sweet smelling, nice and decent people, we ARE going to be viewed as unnecessary and decadent. Women are hateful, and depressed. And what do hateful, resentful depressed people do? They bash others who aren't.

Western culture has made a mockery of what men are, how they are viewed, and what their role is. I am a tough male, make good money, can outsmart ANY woman, and I have senses, decency, and respect. I am not your typical male, so I think I can see objectively what is going on.

The story on your web site goes to show how men ARE BEING RELEGATED to inferiority by the feminists, media, schools, and government, NOT that they actually are inferior. These b*stards doing this have done this through careful calculation and deviant behavior.

We've let this sh*t go on long enough. Please keep up the great work. It is through sites like yours that men are understanding that they are being abused, used, and played. We ARE the stronger sex, smarter, more decent than women can ever be.

Take the gloves off from the shackles of Affirmative Action, and you'll see men come to life.

D

Hi D

Thank you. Nice piece! Much appreciated.

But I do fundamentally disagree with your notion that "Women used to be the butt of jokes and commercials on television." - because they were no more the butt of jokes than were men.

Indeed, I remember when the wailing feminists here in the UK managed to get Benny Hill off the air (in the 70s, I think) because he was - or so they alleged - 'misogynistic', that my eyes began to open up to the utterly mindless spitefulness and stupidity of feminist women.

After all, Benny Hill clearly worshipped women. His entire humour was based on himself continually being portrayed as a complete buffoon who worshipped the very ground upon which women walked.

As such, the idea that he hated women could not be more ludicrous.

And, just as now, we could see TV programme after TV programme portraying men as wife beaters, murderers, child molesters, perverts - the whole gamut of badness -  and here were the feminists proclaiming that women were the ones being portrayed in a negative light by the TV programmes because of Benny Hill!

It was utterly ridiculous.

But the mainstream media began to accommodate to these revolting women because they were terrified of the ongoing bad publicity and the wailing hysteria that was being generated by them.

But, to repeat myself, I see no evidence that women were portrayed particularly negatively in the olden days when compared to men.

It is true that women were sometimes portrayed as helpless in some way - e.g. when it came to fixing the car, or figuring out where the oil went. But, firstly, this was very mild humour based on the TRUTH and there was nothing malicious about such humour and, secondly, this was exactly how women, themselves, wished to be portrayed - because it got them out of doing certain chores and because it made men feel protective towards them.

Indeed, women were (and are) enhanced in the eyes of men when they are helpless or incapable, but men are not enhanced in the eyes of women when they are portrayed as such.

And the feminist trick is to hide this truth when they complain about the way in which women were portrayed compared to men.

Furthermore, and for example, fifty years ago, if you portrayed a particular woman as being unable to cook, then this would have been an insult - but it would not have been an insult to portray a man in such a way.

Similarly, if you had portrayed a man as being unable to lift a heavy load, then this would have been an insult - but it would not have been an insult to portray a woman in such a way. (On the contrary, such a portrayal would have suggested to men that women should be helped when it came to such chores.)

Indeed, women make their living out of being weak.

It is, in fact, their strong point.

And they know it.

This is why, for example, they always try to look 'vulnerable' in some way; e.g. via their clothing, their make-up and their shoes.

And so when, for example, you see women being portrayed as helpless in some way in some old film footage, this was very much consistent with how millions of women wanted to be perceived at the time.

So, please forget this idea that women were the main butts of all the jokes fifty years ago - because it is not true. Further, the mainstream gender jokes from 50 years ago were extremely mild and good-natured. And there was just no way that any mainstream media organisations would have gotten away with insulting women.

Women might find some of the humour insulting now but, at the time, they did not feel this way about it.

It is only because numerous women nowadays get power by being permanently offended, and because so many of them think that they are so superior that one should never make jokes about them, that even the mildest of humour can send them into a menstrual rage.

So, please get out of your head this notion that women were portrayed worse than men in the olden days, because this is definitely not the case.

Best wishes,

Harry

PS Even in Roman times, death was often seen as a fitting punishment for insulting someone's mother - no matter how lowly she might be.

PPS The Daily Mail article does indeed go off colour when it comes to talking about why men have ended up in this unhappy state of affairs - but I posted it up mostly because it listed so many examples of misandry.

Subject: Testimony from a Female Who's Been Around the Block & Agrees ...

Hello Harry

I'm a female, been around and you've got a lot of TRUE stuff to say about my (99.9%) of my sisters. Stumbled upon your website and found it most interesting. Would it be possible for you to cite more sources - not links? That's too much trouble, I know.

I grew up with four brothers a Mom and Dad who was away working (necessity) most of the year: Mom was it for the most part and did one hell of a job because SHE WAS STRONG, focused and no pathetic wimp. She was my hero. We all turned out well, highly educated and accomplished except for my sister who hates men but loves her Ph.D (fat, bitter and cruel).

I love men, understand them and have a terrific son of my own. Because I grew up with 4 brothers whom I loved, I learned about men and how they think. Men are so basic, so uncomplicated, so logical! Treat a man with respect and he will slay dragons for you; I know; I've been there - many times.

Harry, I never played games because I'm strong, confident and celebrate the differences: I adore men; they adore me - as it should be. To this day, (and I've been a jock forever) I can sincerely ask a guy at the gym if I "can borrow his muscles" to remove heavy weights - which I can't because I'm a woman and can't life 200 lbs (hello?) which is twice my weight. We understand each other.

Women are pathetic weaklings and moochers. They zero in on the guy, stop sex after marriage and take him for all he's worth. I don't think they will ever change; they're too stupid. If they had any brains, they'd stop giving it away: so simple. Let a man be a man and work for it; don't take the challenge away from them!

Men have given up their kingdoms for the women they love and built them monuments like the Taj Mahal. Why? The women were smart.

You go, Harry! And you may use my name.

Mary 

men are always the perpetrators ...

Hi Harry

Firstly I have been enthralled by your website since first stumbling across it a few days ago. Perhaps I should explain how I came to find it.

I work as Crisis Outreach worker in a rough part of Melbourne. Its strictly short-term case management and revolves mainly around housing issues. I grew up in the UK and moved out here a few years ago.

I was looking for any services that could help one of the families I currently work with. It’s a family consisting of 2 adults (male & female) and 5 children under 16 with another one the way.

The thing is that the father of the children has an intellectual disability, is completely illiterate and is regularly physically, emotionally and verbally abused by the female family member. She controls all the family income and his life is not dissimilar to that of a servant.

When I was told of this my instant reaction was to call the national “Family Violence” line to get him and his children out of the situation ASAP.

I had recently attended the “mandatory for all people working in welfare” family violence training and was pretty sure of the answer I got.

(Incidentally when I attended the training, the women giving the training made it very clear that the framework was written for women and that it could not be used for men escaping domestic violence. When challenged they said that it was the way it was and it was not going to be changed??)

When I called the number the woman on the end of the line chortled as I listed the abuse this poor man was going through. This number let us not forget is the line women who are fleeing domestic violence call.

She then said, and I quote “well we can’t help him”. I then asked if I had called the Family Violence line or Women’s Line. She answered that “men are always the perpetrators of violence” and that was that.

There only suggestion was to call the men’s referral line which I did. The men’s referral line stated that all they could do was offer him generalist counseling. They stated that “they work with perpetrators of violence, not victims”

Truly unbelievable.

I’m blown away on so many levels.

Sadly the word family seems to now exclude men, unless of course they are perpetrators of violence. So many more things, I’m reeling!

All of this of course will be no news to you.

Just thought I would share my thoughts with you.

Regards from down under

N

Will a 2010 Conservative government make a difference? ...

Hello AH

It looks fairly likely that we will have a conservative government at the next (2010) election and I wondered if you think it will benefit men's rights?

There are some encouraging signs - they seem to be broadly talking about favouring marriage and the family as the basis for society. They seem to be broadly criticising political correctness.

Do you think they will go all the way and address the many issues affecting men? (or is that still too much to hope for?)

However, do you think there might be the drawback of the architects of misandry in the labour government not being around to attack any more - will they get away with it in other words? Will people be interested in attacking past governments for their policies?

Thanks

L

Hello L

It looks fairly likely that we will have a conservative government at the next (2010) election and I wondered if you think it will benefit men's rights?

I doubt that the Conservatives will win the next election UNLESS they support 'big government'.

In other words, the conservatives are unlikely to make much difference even if they do win the next election.

(See my piece Why Governments Love Feminism to understand why, at the moment, politicians cannot openly oppose 'big government' and win elections.)

So, in a nutshell, I do not really expect that a conservative victory would bring much in the way of benefit to men, but I do think that it would slow down the rate of government growth.

Unfortunately, David Cameron himself is fairly hopeless. He is lightweight, ineffective, desperate for power and, quite frankly, a Tony Blair clone.

And the real conservatives within the conservative party are sitting on the backbenches.

But, please do not despair, because the people are waking up to the nefarious activities of their governments.

Indeed, I have spent much of this afternoon reading through a whole bunch of blogs and comments from UK lefties who are appalled at the way in which Brown's government has been behaving over many issues.

This heartens me a lot. And this is exactly what we need to see happening; both rightists and leftists waking up to the fact that our governments and many of their workers are thoroughly corrupt and self-serving.

And what we also want them to understand is that big, intrusive governments, of all persuasions, are highly detrimental to the people - in much the same way that huge corporations can be detrimental.

In addition, I would point out that I still believe very strongly that The Three Great Freedoms are the route to success in the long term; i.e. the ability for everyone to receive and transmit information at all times.

But what has been happening recently is that our governments have sought to access more information about us while trying to deny us the ability to seek similarly detailed information about them.

For example, I believe that if government workers such as police officers can access personal details about us - without extremely compelling reasons to do so - then we should be able to access personal details about those police officers.

Yep, I know it sounds crazy, but, in the long term, my belief is that this is the way in which we must go in order to curtail the ability of powerful government workers to do us wrong.

Indeed, I think that there is a strong argument for the view that the more powerful are various individuals then the more should detailed information about them be made available to the public.

At the moment, it is the other way round!

And I am quite pleased to point out that I recently discovered that George Orwell had arrived at a similar point of view.

Great minds clearly think alike!

As another example, in the long term, I want to see CCTV cameras in every hospital ward and in every classroom so that those with power over our vulnerable loved ones can be monitored. The same goes for every court case.

Once again, I know that this sounds crazy, but I think that this is the only way to go; particularly given the truly appalling catalogue of failures that have occurred in the UK in all the above domains wherein government workers operate. For example, we have actually had hundreds of our patients die of starvation in our hospital wards - so callous and uncaring are so many hospital staff.

Basically, we cannot trust our governments and we cannot trust government workers. We cannot trust them at any level.

And the only way in which we can protect ourselves from them is to ensure that we can monitor them closely while at the same time reducing their power over us.

This means that we need to be able to watch them very closely indeed.

Ho Hum. Never mind. Bar some major catastrophe, we are definitely going to win this war.

Best wishes,

Harry 

More advice needed from the master! ...

Dear Harry

I took your advice contained in your response to an email which had the heading; "For how much longer must we continue to endure? ..."

It worked beautifully.

In my office we often have discussions about women and feminism. I always do my best to promote the anti-feminist cause. However, I do not usually get much sympathy even from the men.

So for the past two weeks I tried the tactic that you suggested, by pointing out the various ways in which government workers benefited themselves by supporting feminism.

The result is that their attitudes have changed appreciably.

Just as you said, the penny began to drop.

Bravo.

Now I want to seek more advice from the master.

What is the best strategy to persuade women?

Any ideas?

Regards

A true fan.

Dear True Fan

Your master does indeed have some advice concerning your most astute of questions.

LOL!

And here it is.

When it comes to persuading the women, don't bother.

You might as well try to convince lottery jackpot winners that doing the lottery is a waste of time.

Now, I say this, not because I believe that women do actually benefit from feminism, but because, for the most part, they believe that they do. And the arguments that demonstrate otherwise are, mostly, a bit too complicated to get across to them succinctly.

Furthermore, they believe that many of the goodies that they currently enjoy are available now because of feminism when, in fact, this is mostly hokum.

The goodies that we all enjoy these days have arisen not from feminism, but from science, technology, medicine and, also, from the social/political activities of various other groups such as trades unions, gays (yes, gays), racial activists, libertarians, civil liberties groups and others.

But I can see nothing worthwhile that feminism has ever done.

Absolutely nothing.

Both men and women would now be leading far happier lives if feminism had never existed.

(Also see my piece entitled Fools and Feminists.)

As far as I am concerned, feminists are, by and large, rather nasty empty-headed women who are forever seeking to stir up hatred towards men.

Nevertheless, in order to return to your question, Yes, there is a strategy that undermines women most effectively when they try to support feminist principles and policies.

It undermines the men too.

And devastatingly so!

I have talked about this strategy many times before but, in a nutshell, it is the one wherein you point out to them that they are hypocritical scumbags of the highest order if they support notions that disadvantage or discriminate against men.

"Aha. I see. So you would be quite happy to see your son, your brother, your father or, indeed, yourself, being denied a job, being falsely imprisoned, educationally disadvantaged, demonised, ejected from the home, denied access to the children etc etc etc

"You would be quite happy with such things happening to you or to your loved ones, would you? You would not complain about such things.

"What? You say, No? You say that you would be concerned if such terrible things happened to you or to your loved ones.

"Then you are a f###cking hypocrite, aren't you?

"So long as you are not affected by such policies, you couldn't give a damn. But if you or your loved ones were affected by such things, then you would be wailing like a baby.

"I think, therefore, that we can safely discount all the nonsense that you have been espousing earlier, and conclude quite firmly that you do believe that treating men in such a fashion is wrong.

"Quite clearly, therefore, you have shown yourself to be a hypocrite - pure and simple - and a SCUMBAG!"

LOL!

Wins every time!

And then, of course, should they looked shocked, pained or outraged at your suggestion that they are hypocrites and scumbags, you look at them and sneer.

"Oh Dear, you think that I am treating you unjustly, eh?

"Well, you, yourself, can hardly complain about this without even further proving my point!

"You clearly are a hypocrite! - through and through."

Best wishes,

Harry

On gold-digging Filipino women ...

Greetings Angry Harry,

My name's K and I am from the Philippines.

I'll go straight to the point.

In my country, there's this trend of our own local women starting to prefer foreign guys instead of our own men. You see, our country is a very poor country thats why you really can't blame some women here who go gold-digging by tempting foreigners who visit our country.

What makes me mad though is that they keep on denying this fact that most of them are just lazy gold diggers wanting the easy way out from poverty. Here's their excuse, they say its because most Filipino men cannot provide enough these days for their own families (which obviously is not true).

Its an obvious scapegoat for their gold-digging behavior.

They still have the audacity to blame us Filipino men.

I'm having this online debate right now with a couple of women and i'm running out of bullets.

Can you help me on this? what can you say about this?

Thanks,

K

Hello K

>!'m having this online debate right now with a couple of women and i'm running out of bullets

As one MRA to another - stop wasting your time arguing with the women!

Spend your time talking to the men!

Harry

Hi AH, 

I'm a mother and grandmother from TX. I love visiting your site because my own son and grandson have been victimized by a very anti-male system. My son has fought for over 5 years to at least have his visitation orders upheld, and be allowed to even know where his son is at. 

His ex has been convicted of drug possession and drug delivery charges- has abandoned, abused and neglected my grandson- and the system has ignored all the motions and pleas brought before them for help with the situation. 

We've contacted every local, state and national representative about the bias and corruption here, to no avail. It's just about driven us insane, but we continue to try to make changes where we can, hoping that some day children will no longer suffer so needlessly, as my precious grandson does.

Thanks! 

C. 

Hi Harry

I have been reading your site since last summer and have probably read nearly all of it. 

It seems to me that you have a very good grip on the problems but you dont seem to come up with solutions.

What are we supposed to do? What can ordinary men do to stem the tide. 

Could you please write something that deals with this?

J

Hi J

Well, I cannot possibly suggest what individuals, themselves, can do unless I know about who they are, their line of work, their skills, their talents, and so on.

But, throughout this site, I have, in fact, given many pointers; e.g. as can be found on my page entitled Effective Activism.

In a nutshell; do your best to undermine the opposition in any way that you can.

You can join the war on any battlefront that you care to choose.

And if you haven't got the time to do much then you can always donate to your favourite men's website - preferably this one!

The sooner that the war is won, the sooner will your life change for the better - and, markedly so, would be my guess.

There is now so much men's activism going on via the internet that you will surely be able to find some niche wherein you can contribute in some way.

Beyond this, of course, there is also the real world.

Undermine those who disadvantage men whenever and wherever you can.

If there are people in your workplace who promote misandry, undermine them.

If you are talking politics with someone, undermine all those politicians and parties who fail to support men - i.e. just about all politicians and parties.

If you are talking to women who support what is going on, tell them that they are disgusting traitors to their very own loved ones; particularly if they have boys. In other words, undermine them.

If you are talking about the media - newspapers, TV etc - then badmouth and denigrate all those involved in disseminating misandry.

The same goes for businesses and their products.

Advertise and support men's activism. Push it into the consciousness of as many people as possible - particularly the men.

Turn yourself into a weapon!

I note from your email address that you probably work for a government department. If this is the case, then people like you should be particularly worried about the way things are heading; because your government will monitor you very closely indeed - as I am sure you are already aware. And this will continue to get worse.

It is no coincidence that government workers such as teachers, police officers, social workers, civil servants etc etc are the most closely monitored workers of all.

After all, the closer that you are to those who govern, the closer must you be controlled and scrutinised!

The pay is good compared to everyone else at the moment, but this won't be the case for long. Besides which, what a price, eh?

Furthermore, as the divide between those who work for government and those who do not grows wider and wider, the hostility towards government employees is bound to grow. Indeed, I strongly suspect that this is actually one of the aims of those in the governing elite. (Remember: the more disharmony, the better it is for them.)

In other words, never let go of the fact that we are all in this together.

The wholesale disadvantaging of men throughout the legal system, the health system, the educational system etc etc etc applies to all men; left and right, good and bad, black and white, day and night.

And so there are not really many men out there who would not benefit quite significantly from getting this war over - fought and won.

(Sure, there are many men whose government jobs currently thrive on all the misandry but even they - as 'men' - are definitely losing far more than they are gaining. There are a zillion jobs that we need government workers to do, but debilitating men - all men - is not one of them!)

So, if you do work for government, then please do all that you can do to undermine anybody or any policy that endorses the current situation.

Goodness me. We have now even got Harriet Harman getting away with a policy wherein even if it is proved that a woman prostitute has successfully deceived a man with regard to her true situation then it is he who will get prosecuted!

If you are a man then these people are gradually taking everything away from you; your money, your liberty, your privacy, your security, your family, your time, your dignity, your country, your justice system.

And this will never stop unless we stand up to them.

And if we do not stand up to them, then there will come a point where we no longer have the capability to stop them. The whole system will become unassailable.

And when this situation is reached, they will be able to kill you or toss you into prison without batting an eyelid.

Let us never kid ourselves and believe that the days when powerful groups can get away with gross injustice and murder are over, because they are not.

It only seems this way because of our current circumstances.

But these are changing.

In summary - undermine the opposition wherever and whenever you can. And use whatever talents, skills and opportunities that you have in order to do this.

And please do not feel any guilt about doing so. These people are out to wreck your life in order to profit themselves.

Let's get this show truly on the road and show those scumbags that they can no longer get away with all this.

In other words: Don't just talk about it all. Don't just moan about it. Don't just tell people about it.

Fight it!

Best wishes,

Harry

Dear AH:

I've been reading all your posts regarding feminism for a couple of months now. I agree with most of what you have to say-- some more or less than others-- but there is only one comment I want to touch on.

One of your most frequent comment is "If they're offended, GOOD!"

That, by far, is one of the most... stangest, un-relative comment you've ever made on any of your posts. I understand that you're doing this as, let's say, 'a taste of their own medicine' to the feminists who find it funny to hurt/diminish a man's character... but I find that highly... immature and unreasonable. Clearly, you see these acts as unnessacarily cruel, unjust, and just plain stupid-- then, why exactly are you doing the same thing?

By doing so, it shows us all that you... don't really care what feminists do, but you care as long as it's done to men. If you find putting men into such a horrid light, well, HORRID, and you don't agree with doing that to anyone-- why would you do it yourself?

I am specifically talking about your "Dealing with an Unhappy Woman" post. Or, as I like to call it, "Dealing with an Unhappy PERSON" post. You can rest assured that I would not approve of writing something like this about anyone-- men, women, children, etc.

Anyways, touching back: You've said before on some of your other posts about schooling: "Feminists blame school's teaching if girls are doing worse than boys. Feminists blame boys if boys are doing worse than girls." Therefore, one can claim that feminists change their moral values depending on female-vs-male.

You've said before on some of your other posts: "Feminists are cruel because they enjoy posting stuff that involve hurting men (i.e: you've said before, cutting off their penises)." Alternatively, you also say: "Me suggesting shooting females, however, is a-okay! (which, of course, I understand as a joke... but it still projects an image that you only care about your moral values as long as they benefit men.)"

Anyways, it makes you look a lot like... you guessed it-- a feminist! It's almost like someone trying to teach someone else not to do the wrong thing by committing the 'wrong thing' against them. Effective? Meh, maybe, or maybe not. ...The best way to do things? right? mature? I would like to say not-- if you've noticed, legal systems don't steal back from theives, rape rapists, or put drinkers into car-crashes, nor do teachers bully bullies in order to teach them the right thing.

The mature thing to do is to set up a good example. Setting up your post... esentially does nothing. Stupid feminists are only going to send hate-mail to you, and they'll most-likely get revenge on your revenge-post by putting up more revenge posts (see how stupid vengence is?). Stupid women-haters are not going to take the joke and feel more confident that it is okay to laugh at serious acts of violence against women, as you put it. The only people who'll learn from this, AH, are going to be the ones who ALREADY know it's stupid altogether.

I know you're probably going to think: "Well, FEMINISTS do this-- why can't I?"

Because, Harry, I thought that you were better than this. After preaching so long about how these things were wrong, I think a lot of us thought that you were better than this.

You've got a lot to say. Don't ruin it by turning into a feminist.

~J

Hi J

Hmmmm. 

1. My "Dealing with an Unhappy Woman" post is too stupid and over-the-top to be particularly offensive; and it is clearly not meant to be taken seriously; but maybe there is a cultural thing going on here, because humour will differ in different parts of the world.

Nevertheless, if some western women do find the aforementioned piece to be particularly offensive then I reckon that they will learn a thing or two.

(When I wrote that particular piece, however, it never crossed my mind that it would be seen by some as offensive. It was only because I received a couple of emails about it that I realised that it might be offensive to some.)

I must also add that if the piece was, indeed, likely to be highly offensive to women then my missus would have given me an earful over it.

2. I have dealt with the issue of offensiveness many times on this website (and elsewhere with MRAs) and, further, I really have thought a great deal about it. But there are soooooo many reasons why I inject hostility and, in my view, a relatively mild degree of offensiveness into this site that it would take me far too long to explain them.

3. "After preaching so long about how these things were wrong, I think a lot of us thought that you were better than this."

I did not start this fight. I, and others like me, are reacting to what has been going on for decades.

You are surely not going to tell me that men who are finally firing back the same kind of bullets that they have had to face for three decades are somehow equivalent to those who started it all - and who kept on - and keep on - firing and firing?

Furthermore, I don't actually imprison innocent people. I don't kick them out of their homes. I don't make or promote laws and policies that are wholesale stacked against one group of people etc etc etc etc.

I don't damage people's lives

I don't promote policies that would do so.

I am not an academic or a journalist who purposely fudges the evidence in order to stir up hatred towards others.

I am not a social worker who supports a regime that is designed to break up families.

I am not a police officer who arrests men and keeps them in prison for months on end solely on the basis of an accusation.

Etc Etc Etc.

And I am not part of any organisation that is actually engaged in doing such things.

But, more important by far when it comes to hostility or offensiveness on this particular website is the fact that unless the "powers-that-be" feel in some way threatened by the growth of the MM, they will do absolutely nothing to help men and they will continue to disadvantage them; e.g. see my page about Effective Activism.

As such, the offensiveness, the hostility - whatever - coming from a site like this acts as a wake-up call to those powers-that-be.

And this is part of the intention.

(And, of course, when it comes to the "powers-that-be" one can include the group called 'western women' - the most pampered and privileged group on the  planet - hence the 'humour' directed at them.)

But, of course, if this site had 1 million visitors every day then I would have to tone it all down.

After all, it is one thing to moan to your friends about women and suggest, for example, that they should all get back to the kitchen, but it is quite another thing to articulate the same notion to millions of people.

Similarly, I doubt very much that I would be calling judges 'scumbags' if I had a weekly audience of millions. 

I'd be locked up!

LOL!

Finally, I must point out that I am reasonably quite aware of how effective - or not - my various forms of activism tend to be - particularly with regard to specific targets - and I can assure you that demonstrating a willingness to be offensive and/or hostile towards them is much more effective than not doing so.

That's the way that it works out there.

And so I think that I can best address your main points as follows.

The primary reason that I am sitting here is to change things - not to demonstrate that I am better than anyone else.

Best wishes,

Harry

Dear Harry,

Firstly, great site. I stayed up half the night reading when I first discovered you and it made me alternately laugh and intensely angry. I must agree with you that Harriet Harman is nauseating, hypocritical and generaly unfit to live. 

And I'm Chinese and living in Singapore! 

But railing against her won't get us anyway. She, like all her ilk before her needs something hardcore to unseat her. Is there anything I can do/assist to further this end?

R

Hi R

Yep; you can start by educating Chinese men about the horrors that they will face if their politicians wake up to the amount of money and power that they can derive for themselves by promoting feminism.

You need to expose feminism for what it really is before it gets a stranglehold!

Best wishes,

Harry

Hello AH

A couple of years ago or so I e-mailed you to ask when you thought that your assertion that the men's movement will succeed would actually happen. Although you obviously couldn't give exact dates you guessed that by about 2010 it might start to really take off. We are now only a year away from then and I just wondered if you still stand by that?

I myself sometimes see encouraging signs with recognition on father custody and male victims of domestic violence but they seem to be small and not that often. I worry too that there is still a huge level of misandry out there and men are basically just too chilvilrous to fight back and stick up for their rights.

Thank you

R

Hello R

Actually, I think that I was even more optimistic than you suggest!  I predicted that by the year 2010 the MM would be in full swing.

I was wrong.

It is all taking much longer than I imagined; basically because the forces that profit from the disadvantaging and demonising of men are just so goddamn enormous. Nevertheless, I do take quite a bit of pride in watching just about all of my other 'predictions' coming true - albeit much more slowly than I envisaged.

Furthermore, it remains quite clear to me that the MM is growing and that, eventually, it will exert the most monumental force.

With regard to chivalry being the main obstacle to the growth of the MM, I have to disagree. Chivalry is, indeed, a problem, but, in my view, it is a fairly minor problem in comparison to some others.

What you are seeing going on out there is not mainly the result of chivalry. It is the result of huge psychological forces persistently being imposed upon the people by those millions of people who seek to profit from those forces - with one of these forces being, "If you dare to speak out, you will lose your job" ... or some malicious woman from your distant past will be encouraged to conjure up some false accusation of abuse against you in order to get a buck or two and/or to exert some kind of revenge on behalf of the sisterhood should you speak out against it.

Indeed, men often dare not protest about all the injustice lest they unwittingly raise the heckles of just one of the many thousands of deeply malicious women who exist in our midst - women who are actually encouraged, aided and abetted when it comes to making pernicious and bogus accusations against men by our very own government.

In other words, men are being intimidated into silence through a number of very powerful mechanisms.

And so, on the one hand, you have these massive forces beating down on men coupled with the fact that men still dare not resist them.

And so, of course, progress remains incredibly slow.

But I, myself, do not think there is anything particularly wrong with chivalry - at least in the sense that I understand the word.

If chivalry means protecting the weak, being honest, being sincere, being courteous and not forever thinking only about oneself, then I am all for it. And I would hate to see it disappear.

And I would also suggest that being chivalrous should apply toward both men and women - as it used to do.

But our forces are definitely a-gathering - at least here in the UK, and in my area of cyberspace. Of this I am certain. And I also see much ground being gained in America and Australia.

And more and more men are definitely beginning to see how they are purposely being duped and disadvantaged.

The current economic crisis is also helping men to wake up to the arrogance and the self-serving corruption of those in power.

And what you will see during the forthcoming months is a dramatic increase in the number of people who are prepared to rail against their own governments.

Indeed, there is an increasing number of inter-connections taking place between those whose main concern is the burgeoning power and corruption of government and those whose primary aim is to further the MM. (And, as I mentioned somewhere else, black and white males are increasingly beginning to unite in their efforts to destroy feminism.)

The upshot is that our own forces are getting much, much stronger.

And, while on the subject of government, I think that it is particularly important for me to point out that demonstrating to the public just how it is that governments (and others) actually profit from 'disharmony' (and, hence, by demonising men, by promoting fatherlessness etc etc) is one of the most effective ways to wake up people to what is going on. 

Of all the arguments that I have ever used in the course of my activism, nothing carries as much weight as pointing out to men how it is that various groups - such as governments, government workers, feminists, the abuse industry etc - actually profit from all the hatred towards men that they encourage.

And so, for example, simply claiming that men are being unfairly treated does not seem to have much impact on the average man. Bemoaning the fact that the justice system is biased against men does not seem to arouse much in the way of sympathy. And so on.

But demonstrating to men exactly how it is that a bunch of scumbags are actually profiting themselves by disadvantaging them not only seems to anger them, but it also seems to turn on a light in their brains; i.e. they begin see why certain things are happening.

For example, when I tell the uninitiated that the official 'rape' figures are baloney, they often exhibit incredulity. "Why on Earth would the police lie about the rape figures?" But when I point out that the lies are designed to buttress various empires, jobs and pensions, the penny begins to drop - and a small light comes on.

And so my current advice to all serious MRAs is that they should FOREVER be seeking to demonstrate to other men how it is that certain groups of people profit from all the misandry that they promote.

But, getting back to your question: How long is it all going to take? Well, my best guess at the moment is that it will be somewhere during the next 3-5 years that the MM finally gets some serious muscle power.

Well, let's hope so!

Best wishes,

Harry

Hi Harry,

Kudos for your continued work on the MM front.

I just wanted you to know that you've inspired me to start the White Male Support Group here in Rochester New York, USA. I'm starting to get a bit of interest, and it's awesome to meet with guys who are thinking like we are. 

The MM is definitely alive and well and living in each one of us. As time passes, here in the US, with the new Obama administration, we are in for a long 4 years. 

These liberals are out of control...surprise, eh? Here are two short videos for you to watch. 

The first is Charlie Rangel and Robert Reich talking about how the "stimulus plan" construction jobs that they aim to create here in the US with hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars are NOT to be given to white men. 

Men may bear the brunt of this sheer lunacy, but it is the white man who is being raped by these incompetents. 

The second video is of a black Superior Court judge who has been arrested a few times on DUI charges over the last 6 months. In the video she lashes out at the black cop who brought her in, calls him a n*gger, blah blah blah. To think a true racist like her is in a position to judge WHITE people....or WHITE men more descriptively. 

What I've found to be exceptionally profound is that men don't seem to research the MM issues until they themselves are discriminated against. The downfall of the liberals will be their absolute power blinding them to how radical their left wing anti-male agenda is. It is only a matter of time before the men's movement gains strength and momentum that is strong enough to gain the attention it should have. 

I very eagerly await the day when we truly fight back and are again a force to be reckoned with. Right now I see the folly of men, at least in this country, to be what a guy named Chris Argyris calls "skilled incompetence", or, roughly, the tendency to placate others so as not to discomfort oneself. The proverbial "yes dear" to the wife. 

I've spoken with a lot of men over the years....many of whom had been divorced and raked over the coals in the divorce "settlement". Many of them have given up. With my support group, I hope to change all that in at least some men. I am going to make a difference. I live it, breath it, and have tremendous passion for it. 

What excites me most about this is that I realize the tools, skills, and depth men have versus women. There really are some women of substance, but most are conniving, self-serving, narcissistic selfish dirtballs who deserve what they will get in time...that is, lack of respect from men and their male kids, less in the way of social programs, and hopefully the elimination of affirmative action. 

As they seem to think they are gaining, women actually are ruining their own lives, and those of their female children. Men are waking up thanks to people like you. I've studied you, your ideas and plans for years now. Thanks for the seed that you planted. It is now my turn to pass that on. And the more that passing happens, it will become an exponential growth. I have to admit, I like being the underdog, cuz the top dog always becomes complacent. Keep up the great work. I'm loving all this.

D

Hi D

I must say that I do, now, approve very much of a white male support group, though I would much rather that men of all colours would much more quickly join together in the battles ahead.

I am sure that the latter will arise, particularly since I have recently seen quite an upsurge in black men railing against feminism on the internet and, indeed, often clearly reaching out to white males to support them - which they are definitely doing.

But I suspect that, at the moment, waking up sleeping white men via their consciousness of their own colour will be a good way of attracting more men to the cause.

Pity! - but that's the way that it seems to be - at least for the moment.

You are absolutely right about the future 'demise' of women. I still cannot quite understand how the 'professional' feminists - even the apparently brighter ones - cannot seem to see the writing on the wall if they continue with what they are doing. And the same goes for the politically-corrected left.

Have they not read their history books?

Do they not have the brains to realise that they are driving themselves - and women - to the point wherein the most enormous backlash against them is going to take place?

... assuming, of course, that we all manage to avoid the horrendous damage that deranged and/or unhappy men will shortly be able to inflict upon huge numbers of people - e.g. via a virus, perhaps?

Or, indeed, something like this, ...

Police believe several of the more than 400 blazes that devastated town and farmland in Australiua, killed at least 130 people and destroyed 750 homes on Black Saturday were deliberately lit.

It is sheer madness to antagonise so many millions of men.

I  suspect that one of the main reasons for their blindness and their stupidity is that they are not thinking very deeply at all - probably being too pre-occupied with making sure that they are licking the appropriate backsides in order to progress up some government career ladder to have any time left to think about what they are actually doing.

But some of them know damn well what they are doing.

They are profiting themselves.

Ho Hum.

Best wishes

Harry

Men should be locked up until proved innocent ...

[my underlining]

Harry

You are freakin hilarious. 

Re. Feeding the abuse industry

Child abuse happens. It is very serious and damages children. It is very hard for a child to speak out. It is extremely hard to PROVE child abuse. These false accusations are very damaging for a mans reputation. BUT if you have ever loved a child, or been a child, I say take it like a man.

The people who are falsely accused can deal with it and have their name cleared. Each child must be believed. 

You lot (men) should voluntarily lock yourselves up until each women and child feels safe enough to report any spousal abuse or child abuse. Anyone reported should have to stay locked up until proven innocent. It is the only way to stop the cycle. If you gave a sh*t about CHILDREN, your children, your grandchildren, you would all do it. 

SL

 "S L" <s_l_12@hotmail.com>

...........

AH: Don't kid yourself that the above specimen is particularly rare. There are thousands of obnoxious women like this living within our midst. And many of them are to be found working in the abuse industry. These wicked individuals have a deep-seated hatred of men and, over the years, their malicious influence has held great sway in western societies.

Anyway. Here is my reply.

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

SL

You are clearly very concerned about women and children being abused. But I think that my idea would protect them much better than yours. We should lock them up, keep them indoors, and if ever they do venture outside, we should ensure that they are covered up from head to toe.

I think that this would protect many women and children.

Indeed, if my idea would save just one child, it would surely be worth employing, wouldn't it?

Best wishes,

AH

Dear Harry,

I am a woman who has three adult sons and three adorable grandsons. In 2006, my youngest son was accused of sex crimes by his stepdaughter. We are sure he is innocent as he insists because his wife (now ex wife) has pulled so many scams for money, and she wanted to divorce and get all assets. (which she has now done). My son has been sentenced to prison for 24 years. We are in Kansas. No justice was exercised, only a rush to manufacture evidence. There was no evidence, but he was convicted anyway.

This has been so difficult for my family to deal with, especially his own son. My eldest son came upon your site. He reads it daily. He has now, openly became a hater of women, maybe it was always there, latently. On most things, I agree, but I don't think all women are mean, I don't think I am mean. It has gotten so bad that we have now stopped speaking. He gradually diverted his feelings into hatred of me! I have never liked the women's movement. I was just fine, the way it was, and I can remember those days when mothers didn't have to work. Maybe, you could say something in your site to tone down men out there who go off the deep end, as my son has done. 

D

Dear D,

Of course, I am sorry to hear that you and your son are becoming increasingly alienated from each other, but sites like this are not the cause of this. 

The hatred towards men that has been emanating from women for the past few decades is evident for all to see. And it is this, more than anything, that is causing a backlash against women to take place - a backlash that will surely have significant negative consequences for western women if they do not wake up; e.g. see Men have Bred Dogs and Cattle. Why Not Women?

Might I suggest that you take a closer look at the hateful way in which so many western women behave and speak these days.

As an example of the latter, I simply re-print one email from a woman - without any alterations - which I received today.

...

Ha! Ha! Ha!

We women have finally earned full rights where "housekeeping" now means getting the house in the divorce, clean up your own filthy mess you pigs. To call a man a savage animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo, only capable of raping and pillaging his own planet, women and ultimately himself.

Figures given the fact that you pricks are the lesser 'Y' chromosome, clearly missing rather essential genetic components necessary for intelligent human affairs. 

...

Do you really expect your son to live in the kind of world wherein he has continually to put up with this kind of attitude?

Do you really expect him to remain unaffected and silent while the law and his very own government both allow and encourage women to walk all over him; no matter how disgusting their attitudes and their behaviours towards him might be?

And with your other son in prison for an offence that you seem sure he did not commit, I find it all rather surprising that you are not now wholeheartedly, openly and actively standing against what so many western women have now become.

Maybe it is because you are not doing this that your son's attitude towards you has deteriorated.

I suspect that he thinks that you have betrayed him.

And I do not blame him for this.

My own view is that all 'mothers' who support feminism and/or who fail to fight against it, do, indeed, betray their own sons. And they betray them very badly.

So badly, in fact, that it actually sickens me to see them masquerading as 'mothers'.

Furthermore, I actually hope that those young men who were brought up without their fathers will perhaps, one day, better understand why those fathers might have had no option but to throw in the towel and leave - often turning in upon themselves and resorting to drink and drugs simply in order to escape from the hopeless situations in which they once found themselves; situations wherein they were treated as if they were worthless by their women; women who were given every opportunity and offered every incentive to get rid of them; something which might well have happened to your son who now lives in prison.

His wife wanted all the assets, and your government gave her all the weapons that she needed to get them.

And yet you are blaming my site for your son's alienation? 

Best wishes,

Harry

Hey Harry,

I thought I'd bring this to your attention because it serves as an example of the bias in media regarding men.

This is an article about the tragic death of a woman. Nothing good about that of course. What bothered me about this article though is that it claims to pertain to the plight of the homeless. 

That's all fine and dandy I suppose. What I don't understand - and maybe you can help me out here - is that the article clearly points out that this is really a men's' issue; yet the only face the media bothers to put on this issue is that of a woman. 

I mean, here we have an article about the homeless, and it even states within its text that all the faces in line are those of men (save one) but when one woman finds herself in that same line and suffers the same conditions as all those men, it's suddenly "an issue". 

Men are murdered on the street far more often than woman are. Men comprise the vast majority of the homeless and, unlike women, they have no special shelters to go to should things really go down the tubes. This lady had all of this, and yet still she made some rotten choices. 

I'm not blaming her for being murdered. It's really not about that at all. It's the fact that with all those resources and, basically, special treatment, when she winds up in the same line with the men because she's exhausted all of her other options, SHE becomes the martyr for the homeless. WTF ? 

I guess all those men who live on the street, are abused, assaulted, murdered , drug addicted, alcoholic, and otherwise destitute don't count. 

Sincerely ,

C.

PS: Oh...it's a little late but you'd love this. About two or three years ago these two highschool twins here in town decided that they didn't want to play on the girls' high-school hockey team anymore. Actually, they wanted to play with the boys' team. 

When the school board said "Uh...no , you have a league already." the twin girls took them to our own Star Chamber (the Manitoba Human Rights Commission) 

Naturally, these two girls won the "right" to play on the boys' high-school hockey team despite the fact that the boys weren't allowed to play on the girls' team. And then they each got special coaching and four thousand dollars for "pain and suffering" due to their ordeal in advancing the cause of "equality". 

At no time did anybody ever ask the obvious. The obvious being, of course, that if these two girls got their way, wouldn't that deprive two boys of spots on a hockey team?

on rape in war ...

I was reading a post on MND wherein it was claimed that General George Patton said that he would hang any soldier who raped an enemy woman. And, while I must confess that I did not follow all the arguments too well, I do find myself being somewhat irked by the notion that raping a woman is akin to murder - and, in this particular case, the implication seems to be that raping one woman is actually worse than killing men - hundreds of them.

Furthermore, while feminists like to portray women as being particularly gentle souls when it come to "voting for war", it seems to me that one of the main reasons why women are less likely than men to "vote for war" is because it is not women who are likely to be the most damaged or the most killed by an aggressing enemy.

Putting it simply: From a woman's point of view, allowing an aggressing enemy soldier into her house is not likely to lead to her own death. From a man's point of view, it is quite likely to lead to his own death.

As such, a man is more likely to "vote for a war" in order to keep the enemy out.

Anyway, this is what I wrote.

...

My impression was that many men 'rape' enemy women in war situations because they see them as the enemy - an enemy that has often been demonised over and over again; with many soldiers therefore seeing such women as murderous, evil, wicked etc etc - i.e. much as they are indoctrinated to see the enemy men.

And, of course, such women are very often part of the enemy's war machine - even if indirectly so. As such, these women are responsible for killing your friends, bombing your country, destroying your families etc etc

[But many soldiers cannot bring themselves to kill even these 'murderous' women - and so they rape them instead.]

As such, the idea that soldiers who rape enemy women should be hanged, whereas those who kill enemy men should be given medals, strikes me as being decidedly sick.

Furthermore, let us not forget that many enemy women actually offer themselves voluntarily to incoming soldiers in the hope of saving their own necks - [which, of course, they later deny] - with many of them actually going off into the sunset with the very soldiers who have been killing their compatriots once the war is over.

Indeed, in my view, it is for reasons such as this that women tend less often to "vote" for war than do men.

The men know that they will likely be killed if the enemy gets the upper hand - hence they are prepared to fight - for their lives! - whereas women are more likely to escape death even if the enemy does win. As such, women are not as concerned about protecting themselves from an aggressing enemy as are men. Quite simply, they have less aggression to protect themselves from!

In other words, my guess would be that if women were just as likely as men to be slaughtered by an enemy, then they would be equally likely to vote for "war".

Finally, my guess would also be that in situations wherein broken and dead bodies litter the place, and bloody carnage lies all around for weeks on end, being raped would be considered by most people to be something of a lucky escape.

And this idea that being raped is akin to having your legs blown off, your family being slaughtered, or your life being extinguished, actually makes me feel quite ill.

Rape does not even come close to any of these things.

Perhaps one should ask real women - rather than the dysfunctional feminists who hog the media - the following questions.

Which would be worse for you; being raped by an enemy soldier, or having your husband, your father, your son, or your brother killed?

Which would be worse for you; being raped by an enemy soldier, or having your legs blown off?

Which would be worse for you; being raped by an enemy soldier, or having a bullet shot through your head?

Well, in my view, only the most dysfunctional of women - of which there seem to be so many these days - would see a rape as being worse.

...

This notion that rape is akin to murder and/or serious permanent debilitation is tossed around the place by the usual culprits simply in order to make the crimes of men against women sound far worse than they really are - for the usual reasons.

Indeed, I, myself, would rather be raped ten times over than see my missus lose a foot or a hand! 

And the fact that so many women, these days, would clearly not subscribe to a similar point of view should tell all you men out there something rather profound about them.

Dear AH

I am the proverbial devil in the bible of politically correct feminism: a white, Christian, heterosexual male. Oof.

For several years now, I have grown more and more disenchanted with finding a "soul mate". I have seen too much relationship tragedy, and heard too many horror stories from friends. And a ~50% divorce rate? Great Scott, that's flipping a coin! Frankly, I do not want to risk MY happiness and freedom by putting my fate in the hands of a potentially volatile person with a legal system in her back pocket.

After reading your editorial on IMBRA, I did more research and your words truly resonated with my impression of the Western social scene -- it's an ocean of self-centered, self-serving women that can't understand where all the men have gone. Politicians can stop me from marrying foreign... but they cannot make me marry local!

I've been pondering various directions for my own life for a while now, and your site gave me the clarity of thought I needed. I have voluntarily removed myself from the eligible bachelor pool as long as I live in America during these oppressive times. If an absolute gem of a woman falls into my life, so be it. Though I won't be holding my breath.

In the meantime... tick tock, ladies.

Sincerely,

Resigned to Singlehood

Dear Resigned

I, too, have learned a great deal from the thousands of men who inhabit cyberspace, and I can tell you that, with few exceptions, singlehood appears to be no bad thing.

Sure, there is something missing, but the many compensations seem to outweigh that 'something' for most of the time.

Indeed, there is an article linked to somewhere on this site written by a man who, for some reason that I cannot remember, was castrated, and he claims that this was one of the best things that had ever happened to him.

And I think that most men can understand why this might well be the case.

LOL!

Best wishes

Harry

Dear Harry

I have been a long time fan of your website and have not written earlier. However, I have a burning question for you.

In your 'most fabulous' piece 'Why Violence is often Justified' [LINK] you argue that violence by men who are being threatend with losng their children is 'justified'. 

Would you say the same for those who threaten violence against abortion doctors?

G

Hello G

Yes, is the simple answer. Of course violence is 'justified' - at least in the eyes of those who believe that abortion is murder.

After all, if you are a person who believes that killing millions of these 14-week old beings ... 

... every year, is the same as killing millions of these beings ...

... or these beings ...

... every year, then how can it not be 'justifiable' to do all that you can do to prevent such massacres and, if necessary, to target those people who are doing all the killings?

Well, there's your answer!

Interestingly, a few days ago I was being wound up by a radio programme wherein a typical selfish, self-aggrandised woman was parroting the usual tripe about, "Men should keep their pants on if they want to avoid unwanted pregnancies."

She was also arguing that men are just as responsible as women for unwanted babies - when, in fact, it is women who are nowadays totally responsible for producing babies (e.g. see my piece Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to have a Baby?) and then, later in the same programme, the issue of abortion came up. And, needless to say, this woman then argued that women should be completely entitled to have abortions more or less on demand.

She did not say, "Women should keep their knickers on if they want to avoid unwanted pregnancies."

No, Sir!

When it comes to women wanting to get themselves out of having to deal with the consequences of unwanted pregnancies, no financial or moral expense must be spared.

(Men, of course, have to bear the consequences - whether they like it or not - of whatever the woman chooses to do; e.g. Rant Against the Child Support Agency.)

And then, this very same woman started jabbering on about the patriarchy and how women should be able to do whatever they want to do with their own bodies.

"My body, my choice."

I nearly suffered a hernia as a result of screaming so loudly at the radio - more or less as follows ...

This ...

... is most definitely NOT

'YOUR'

body!

But, back to the issue.

How can it not be justified for you to attack those whom you perceive to be committing millions of acts of murder every year?

My own view on the moral aspects of abortion are fairly ropy, and not at all clear.

Thankfully!

I say, "thankfully", because if I was one of those people who was certain that thousands of children were being killed every week by abortionists, then I think that I would be driven insane by what is going on.

Well, thankfully, I do not know whether or not that 14-week old being in the picture is a child or not.

And I think that most of me does not actually want to know.

But I know this.

The 'my body, my choice' argument fails completely and utterly if that being is a child.

And if that being is a child, then abortionists are, indeed, committing thousands of murders every week.

And if the above sounds somewhat muddled and confused then this is because somewhat muddled and confused is exactly how I feel about the whole issue.

Best wishes,

Harry 

Harry, you prince among men, I have an unfortunate event to relate concerning schools being used as hubs for pushing the feminist agenda.

Last night my sister asked me for help with her English homework, which I was all too happy to oblige. 

However once i started it was difficult to conceal my horror at what she had been tasked with. 

Basically, it was a naked attempt to turn English into History in order to push the feminist agenda. She had been given three short stories, each of which was supposed to show how oppressed women were in the 1930s and told to ''describe what these stories tell us about the status, power and relationships of men and women in the 1930s''. 

Well that's easy NOTHING. They are stories, not historical sources, so they tell us nothing about the position of women in the 1930s. 

That question would not look at all out of place in a History exam, though of course you'd have to replace the fictional bullsh*t for credible sources. They can't teach this sh*t as History because its boll*cks and never happened, so it gets slipped in as English. 

It got even worse when I saw the notes she had been given in class. 

I wouldn't have been surprised to find any of it in the Vagina Monologues or any other piece of feminist garbage, and the teacher is MALE. 

I tried to guide my sister towards some more neutral points but it wasn't easy. Its scary to find this sort of thing in a prestigious grammar school like the one my sister attends.

Just thought I'd brighten your day with some excellent news from the front.

O

Hello O

Well, I am afraid that this sort of indoctrination occurs at a very early age; e.g. see my piece Girls Aged Eight To Be Indoctrinated.

And many girls' schools in the UK even have regular lectures given to them by feminist outsiders who will tell the girls how awful men have behaved towards women over the past many thousand years - and that it is now time for women to get even with them.

These lectures would be considered as orchestrated hate speech if any other groups were being targeted.

It is absolutely outrageous.

Indeed, it was only a few days ago that I was talking to a couple of girls who attend the highly-respected, world-renowned, St Paul's Girls School here in London (where Harriet Harman once attended as a pupil) and they were very forthcoming about how anti-male were so many of their daily lessons and their 'lectures' from invited speakers.

The only thing that cheered me up about what I heard was that these two girls had clearly recognised that they were being indoctrinated by the school to feel antagonistic towards men. 

And one of them was only thirteen!

With regard to the feminist teacher being male in your sister's case, this does not surprise me at all.

He is probably trying to climb high in his career and so he will do his best to ingratiate himself to those higher up the ladder.

Besides which, teachers are not the brightest of individuals - particularly these days, I'm sorry to say. And, for the most part, they just read the textbooks that have been allocated to them by the various examining boards - and, needless to say, these textbooks will have been politically-corrected through and through.

(Nevertheless, I simply do not see how teachers of history or the classics etc etc can possibly remain ignorant of the fact that men have always been on the receiving end of the worst treatment, unless, of course, they are not very bright.)

There is a well-known saying by George Bernard Shaw that goes something like this; "“He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches.”

LOL!

But when it comes to the soft, wooly, airy-fairy subjects (which even much of History has now become) I think that GBS was probably correct with regard to the teachers of today. 

And my impression is that we nowadays have very third-rate teachers indeed - even in colleges and universities. And, essentially, they will just regurgitate the wholly biased politically-correct nonsense that they have been told to parrot by their masters and mistresses.

If they do anything else, then their careers are likely to suffer.

And this is not an exaggeration.

I know quite a few teachers - older ones; who qualified decades ago, and they make no bones about it.

Either they conform to politically-correct notions, or their careers are going nowhere.

In other words, our children are being taught to believe in what politically-corrected leftists want them to believe - the idea being to break apart the relationships between men and women so that left-wing governments can grow, and become more powerful, as a result of the ensuing disharmony that is caused by doing this.

Though, of course, most teachers remain blissfully unaware of this agenda.

Ho Hum.

Thank you for your email.

Best wishes 

Harry

Harry

You are an inspiration and a role model, and despite its vibrant hues your website is a sight for sore eyes.

I am a design student at RIT and your articles inspire me to do something - anything - about the horrible injustices against the men in our world. Good work; and for the love of whom ever you deem holy, keep going, there's a lot of us "listening". =)

Thank you
-KW. (A woman!)

Hi Harry

I like your site, I enjoy reading your passionate views on one of the asinine aspects of the human race. I agree with you on a lot of topics, like how "feminists" exaggerate and victimize men, instead of simply trying to make a level playing field. I have to tell you, I've been a victim of men (I get to generalize if you do) all of my life, from the age of 8 until now, but the only people that really supported me were also men, except for one sole female friend. 

The real tragedy for women I think is that other women do not support them, even the ones that tout "feminism". They compete, snipe, undermine, it's a primal bullsh*t thing because they all want the attention of men, they DON'T actually want equality, they are too stupid to see that in undermining each other they are undermining themselves. 

And so people like me who don't get why the genders are competing in the first place get blindsided (Oh yeah I'm also small and blond, women treat me like I'm a dipsh*t whore and men either treat me with flirtatiousness or with utter arrogance, again the dipsh*t whore thing). 

Why aren't there clubs for women like the Masons or the Knights of Columbus, the Elks, why aren't there pro baseball teams that are all female and the players are multimillionaires? 

Why do WOMEN LET MEN RUN EVERYTHING? 

BECAUSE THEY WANT THEM TO. 

All most women care about, as I said, is the approval and attention from men. If there is a female anywhere near that might be prettier, smarter, more attractive in any way, they will DESTROY her, in any subtle or overt means possible. 

So to sum up, I think women are the biggest enemy of women. 

By the way Harry I'm a carpenter by trade, and the people that treat me with the most disdain because I'm a tiny blond woman in a "man's trade" are the female clients. 

Frankly I'm thinking of just making custom furniture at home because I'm so sick of these nonstop gender issues that people throw in my face all day. But that's another email :) 

Thank you so much for making people THINK, Harry!!!!

M

Greetings!

Being a thinking woman, a non-feminist lesbian, an inveterate iconoclast, who has experience of the horrors of Inquisition 21, I ventured onto your site, expecting a mediocre offering. But... it's ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT, and has kept me enthralled for hours! Your attitudes towards the 'law', political correctness, feminist dogma, etc. are spot on. I have a few questions : where do we go from here? How do we reach the brainwashed masses and force back the pendulum? How can I meet others of similar views (gender irrelevant)?

Keep it up; sanity needs people like you!

M

PS - I have so many radical views that I'm almost afraid to speak for fear of offending the PC-police-state juggernaut, and being ostracised or worse. Most of us are blindly walking along the primrose path that, during WWII, let to the gas chambers. I could rant on and on... but I'll stop...for now...

Hi M

Thank you for your email.

How do we reach the brainwashed masses and force back the pendulum?

Keep reading my stuff! - and spread the word as best as you can.

But, in a nutshell, my own view is that one must fire with fire; and so we have to keep attacking and demonising those people who have been doing such things to us over the past many years.

There are more of us than there are them.

I have so many radical views that I'm almost afraid to speak for fear of offending the PC-police-state juggernaut, and being ostracised or worse.

Obviously, one does not want to lose one's job - or anything drastic like that - but when it comes to friends and family etc, my own view is that one should always be up front and speak one's true mind.

Honesty and openness I value almost above everything else.

Indeed, I have given my anti-pc views on numerous occasions to people all over the place (try stopping me!) and I do not recall ever suffering any major consequence.

Besides which, I do not mind being ostracised by people whose values I despise.

Why on Earth would I want to have anything to do with them?

In one of his pieces which I read many years ago, David Icke - strange man that he is - said something that really resonated very strongly with me because I had the same experience that he described. I cannot quote him exactly, but he said something like this.

"The minute that I stopped caring about what other people thought about my views, I became free. It was the most liberating experience that I have ever had, and I have never looked back since that time."

Of course, he wasn't saying that he did not care about other people, and nor was he saying that his views were always correct. His point was that he would express his (current) views as best as he could, and as honestly as he could, but if people saw him as an idiot or as insane then he just didn't care. He genuinely didn't care.

Well, that's how I feel. And it really is a liberating experience.

The problem with dealing with the feminists and the politically-correct, of course, is that they do not just regard you as an idiot or insane if you disagree with them, the problem is that they try to stir up hatred towards you in some way - often accompanied by the threat of some kind of violence or heavy sanction (e.g. losing your job).

But, of course, two can play at that game.

And now, thanks to the internet, it is much easier for those of us who are opposed to the current situation to give them a taste of their own medicine - hence the presence of this website.

Most of us are blindly walking along the primrose path that, during WWII, let to the gas chambers.

Yes indeed - which is why we need to do our very best to disempower our very own governments in those areas where they are overplaying their hand. And the best way to do this, in general, is to reduce the money that governments receive - which means encouraging people to vote only for politicians who promise to reduce taxes, or not to vote at all.

Best wishes

Harry

Dear Harry,

Reading your longer piece on the gender pay gap made me remember this year's Wimbledon results:

player    gender working time           prize money 

Williams female 1h 51 minutes (2 sets) L 750,000 
Nadal male 4h 48 minutes (5 sets) L 750,000

Isn't this something to comment on? This is the kind of gender equality so heartily embraced by, for example, Billary Clinton and her dedicated followers.

Keep up the good work

B

Hi B

Yes indeed.

But the notion that it is fair to pay women for playing fewer sets than men is being slowly extended into the workplace. 

And it won't be long before women will expect to get paid for three hours work what men get paid for doing five hours work.

The move in this direction is already happening - especially through the 'benefit' system.

Harry

Hi Harry,

I have been a fan of your web site for quite some time. Reading your emails gives me solace. I agree with you that the important thing to help the MM is for men to pay attention to the issues. 

For example, a recent statistic that came out in the US stated that since November 2007 to April 2008, 300,000 men lost their jobs, while a net 700,000 women gained jobs in our economy. This is a disturbing statistic. When you add to this that starting a few years ago; womens' businesses grew faster than mens' for the first time; more women are attending college than men for the first time; and more women are attaining advanced degrees than men for the first time, you have, on the surface, a intolerable situation. 

By all accounts, this seems like quite a disparity that maybe can't be overcome. I've had conversations with men about this kind of thing, but they show total indifference, only because they haven't been affected by this kind of thing yet. It is frustrating to be a male who has been discriminated against because of affirmative action laws here in the US, as well as being on the defensive in the workplace. 

However, I can't agree with you more when you state that it will only take men's attention before there will be a pretty serious correction in the unfair treatment of men. As one of your emailers said, I too have lost all respect for women, but being a bit more affected by all this, they can't earn my respect and never will. Unfortunately for the women, all the years of the feminists trying to prove that women are a force to be reckoned with and are equal to men (although it is more pragmatic to see it as their wanting superiority), having given women so much freedom, attention, and control has left them to chart new courses for themselves, and they are doing such a wonderful job of destroying the exact goal of the feminist agenda. 

When you turn on the television, they commercials are about women and their makeup, hair, skin, and they all act so juvenile that you can't take them seriously. The programs that gained popularity in the US are reality programs, like "The Real Housewives of Orange County" and "Sex and the City". These programs are waking men up, and I'm loving it. It is now chic for women to show their bellies by wearing short shirts, act like children (there is NOTHING worse than a 60 year old woman trying to act like her daughter), and to show no or little responsibility in their lives. One in 4 teenage girls has an STD. Millions of abortions are performed every year. 

All you have to do is go to web sites and watch how relentlessly childish, selfish, and uncompromising women are now. Women have always accused men of thinking with their penises. It now appears that a woman's WHOLE existence is her vagina. It thinks for them, it affects their moods, it is all encompassing. Their weight, breast sizes....it is ALL about their vaginas. 

Gotta admit I love to hear stories about women who wake up late in life realizing what asses they are and have been. The most sensible people I meet are all men. It used to be that we viewed women as being sensible, calm cool and collected. But it's hard to look at women and feel anything like that. They have brought about the first phase of the own demise. 

I agree with you, and have felt this long before I found you and your website, that it was only a matter of time before men would wake up and become aggressive, tough, competitive people they are. The ultraliberalism that the world is enjoying is a facade, and time will show this to be true. I have told my wife about my thoughts. She initially thought I was a nut, but funny thing has happened...when we watch tv, it is she who now despises women for what they have become and are portraying themselves to be, which is loose, pathetic, and not capable of being trusted. 

My own wife. It doesn't get any better than that. 

So, while I agree that the MM has to pay attention, it will be the women also who will see what has happened and they too will participate in the coming of man again. Keep up the remarkable work. I so enjoy stopping in to read you. You are a tremendous source of pragmatism for a lot of men. 

Thanks. I love being male (couldn't imagine not) and am looking forward to when we will not have to suffer the BS we do now. 

Many thanks!

D

Hi Harry, 

just love your site. I have been a fan for a couple of years now. 

You often seem to talk about spreading the word and all. Well check this out. I am a frequent player of a game called Counter Strike. 

You might have heard of it. It is the most popular game on earth. 

Many braindead youngsters play that sh#t. Youngster who does not know whats out there waiting for them. 

And gues what? My nickname in the game is WWW.angryharry.com (hope it is ok with you). Every single day I am sendig thousands of youngsters to your site. If you play the game for like 1 hour, you can be sure that at least 100 people have seen it. I am recruiting your young soldiers. 

We are going to win this war, dont worry.

M

Hi M

Yo!

Get those 'braindead' youngsters to wake up a bit, and prepare them for World War III; because there will be many bloody battles ahead in the near future. 

And they will need to be armed.

Heads will be rolling. Guts will be spilling. And flailing limbs will be flying around in all directions.

But, at the end of the day, there will be a huge victory for the MM.

And the 'defeated' (whom I shall not identify lest they get wind of their forthcoming demise) shall be exiled to all the hottest deserts round the globe. And they shall not return until they apologise for all their wickedness and all their foul deeds, and until they promise never to whinge and whine about whatever they are prone to whinge and whine about. And all their bank accounts and credit cards shall be suspended forthwith so that they cannot continue to spend all our money on stupid things and make-up. And no longer will they be given flowers or jewellery, for there will be no special days for them!

No, Sir.

No more birthdays. No more 'anniversaries'. And definitely no more holidays for them.

From now on, it's going to be, "And what does my master require of me today?" 

And, "How can I service my master most magnificently before he goes out clubbin'?"

And, "I have prepared six main courses for dinner for my master to choose from. Perhaps my master would care to peruse the menu while I pour him some wine and give him a massage - a massage of the most heinous kind!"

And, "If I ever fail to provide my master with the maximum of satisfaction that is humanly possible then I shall consider myself a failure; and find him a younger woman to assist me in my everlasting servitude."

Yep: You'd better get used to it, M - because that's where we're all heading.

I've already warned my missus that when the victory is won, then she had better straighten herself out pretty smartish, or I'll put her up for sale on EBay and hand her over to the highest bidder. 

Minimum Starting Bid: "Free!"

Delivery Details: "Will even pay cost of transport." 

Delivery Restrictions: "None - Anywhere in the Solar System will do."

And if that doesn't work, then I'll simply get rid of her by giving 50 bucks to "a man with a van".

It'll be worth every cent!

I've got an old sack in the cellar already prepared.

Vooooosh.

Gone!

Yes, Sir. When the war is finally won, every day will be a day to partay.

So, get those young men ready for action!

LOL!

Thank you, M

Your activism is much appreciated.

Harry

Message to young men.

I have often see young men (particularly in the USA) talking on the internet about how they have found themselves in trouble with their teachers or professors simply because they have wanted to talk about - or write about - the anti-feminist point of view.

Well, my advice is that you should never push your luck too much in such a direction and always remember that getting good grades in education is always a good idea!

Besides which, you are sitting in front of the most powerful activist tool ever invented.

So, you don't need to aggravate your teachers in order to fly into battle.

You can join the war right here.

Imagine the internet as a huge, psychological video game.

That's what I do.

And so, for example, enticing more troops into the war - perhaps a student friend or two - by showing them what is going on would be much more effective in furthering the cause than, let's say, writing an essay about it all.

And there really is going to be a war - with many battlefronts.

Many, many, many battlefronts.

And there are these huge forces that have to be fought.

They are so huge that they are, literally, unimaginable.

And they are all over the place.

There are thousands of empires, billions of dollars, millions of careers, and trillions of thoughts, notions and ideas that promote the stirring up of hatred towards men.

And I am not exaggerating in the slightest.

So. We could always do with a few more troops!

But it simply is not necessary for young men to risk their grades in order to score a few points here and there.

End of Lecture.

Hey, my name is Eliza i girl.

I'm search friend message me my mail !! Eliza724@GuyVr.info !! 

I send my foto .

Ah yes. Let's face it, Boys. Some men have it. And some men don't.

This is not to say that all women bring about this effect but, for the most part, they do.

For example, in the piece on my front page - to which you refer - I point out that the BBC makes humour out of men being castrated and having their eyes gouged out.

Any MRA should be absolutely disgusted and appalled by this. 

But what are you moaning about? You are moaning about some silly comments that I made about women.

Well, this site is designed for men. It is not designed to appeal to women. 

And sometimes we men like to poke light fun at women.

Sorry if this "irritates" you, but there we are.

Furthermore, women - as a whole - need to be pushed off their highly-privileged lofty pedestals for the MM to make any headway; because while they remain sitting up there - being perceived as superior beings - they will continue to have everybody rushing around catering for them at the expense of everyone else.

I am often reminded of the Jews who dared not utter a word of disrespect towards the Nazis while the Nazis themselves felt that they could say anything - no matter how disgusting - about them.

Much of my 'humour' is designed to help counter this sort of thing.

The message is, if you like; "reasonably intelligent bloke thinks that it is all right to poke fun at women".

But, hey, it is publicly acceptable for the BBC to make fun out of men being castrated and having their eyes gouged out. So, be grateful that you are not a man, eh? - or you would probably be more than just 'irritated' at this moment in time.

Foaming with fury, would be my guess.

Putting this altogether: At the moment, it is far more important for the MM to topple 'women' as a whole off their lofty pedestals than it is to have the support of a few of them.

Indeed, it seems quite clear to me that western 'women' - as a whole - nowadays make up the most selfish, greedy and uncaring group of people that dwell amongst us.

I still find it difficult to see how they can actually endorse and promote policies that force their own sons, fathers, husbands, brothers etc etc to have to live in a world wherein they are continually having to face either serious injustice or the strong possibility of it - in so many important areas of their lives.

Yes, of course, we can certainly blame the usual culprits - our governments, the feminists, the abuse industry etc etc - for much of this situation, but the fact that 'women' know damn well what is going on and, yet, they say and do nothing to counter this state of affairs, truly appalls me.

Indeed, the number of women who have been caught actually colluding with each other to fabricate allegations of 'abuse' for some kind of gain is sufficiently high to indicate very strongly that most women are well aware of what other women get up to. And yet women, as a whole, clearly collude with each other to hide, as best as they can, the fact that this sort of thing goes on.

Pretty disgusting, don't you think?

And you can see them all over the place conspiring with each other and with various disreputable groups in order to continue escalating the notion that women are always suffering greatly no matter how privileged are their circumstances nor how trivial are their discomforts.

And, quite frankly, the idea that women make up the 'caring' gender - the gender also allegedly endowed with greater 'empathy' - seems to me to be utter nonsense.

When compared to men, 'selfish', 'greedy' and 'uncaring' strike me as being far more appropriate adjectives with which to describe them.

And so, all in all, I think that it is probably a waste of time for MRAs to try to elicit the support of 'women'; because not only do they seem to undermine their efforts, I doubt very much that 'women' will ever care very much about 'men' - especially now that they think that they don't need them.

(Given my diatribe, I must re-emphasise that I am talking about 'women' as a whole - because there are now quite a few individual women who are very effective MRAs.)

5. Of course, one of the reasons that the mainstream media are so loathe to make much humour out of women's failings - relative to those of men - is precisely because women like you are so quick to start complaining about it - and in many cases, such women do not just complain, they launch into full hostility over the most trivial of matters. Once again, they seem to think that they are superior beings - so lofty in the scheme of things that it should be forbidden for people to make any remarks about them even in jest that might sound derogatory.

But women are not a minority group in the west like blacks and gays, you know, and neither are they more vulnerable than men with regard to the world out there. Indeed, western women are the least likely to be the victims of just about anything when compared to those in other major groups.

Perhaps, therefore, they could stop whining and stop bleating so loudly about their allegedly permanent state of victimhood.

Tell me, are you one of those many women who hisses whenever a comedian on stage dares to make a joke at the expense of women - even though he might have spent the previous ten minutes taking pot shots at men?

I'll bet you are.

Best wishes 

Harry

Harry, 

I'm glad I stumbled upon your web site yesterday. I read as much as I could in 24 hours of your pages, and I'll be returning to it often to keep on informing myself.

I want to thank you for opening my eyes - a 34 year old American, single, heterosexual, white, male - to many of the social issues, and social self-destruction, that has taken place for the majority of my life. 

It seems I may have escaped the worst of what is being perpetrated now thanks to being in the American South, where thank God, men still have some balls left, and many women still realize the importance of their roles as mothers.

Please know that your site has given me some hope. I had not come to the entirely correct conclusion about the true nature of feminism.... like most brainwashed men (& women) today.

I want to offer you my sincere thanks.

Again Harry, thank you, and keep up the good work. Try to keep your head straight & level, and your rage focused and clear, as the Feminazicomisocialistas & their Useful Idiot pussy-boys do their best to make you look like a misogynistic fool. Real men know better. And more and more of us are opening our eyes to the truth.

One last tip: You may also find the American film "Fight Club" (1999) with Brad Pitt to also be quite intriguing, as it deals with some of these very issues, albeit in a most unusual way.

Sincerely, 

M, South Carolina - USA

Hi M

Thank you kindly.

1. I started watching Fight Club some months ago, but I had to stop after about 25 minutes because- to put it bluntly - violence that is realistically portrayed messes up my brain; can't eat, can't sleep - and I spend the rest of the evening being wound up and shouting at everybody.

2. "... as the Feminazicomisocialistas & their Useful Idiot pussy-boys do their best to make you look like a misogynistic fool ... "

LOL

Oh Ye of Little Faith!

Surely, the very last thing that such people would want to do is to give this site any publicity; unless, that is, they are stupid enough to undermine themselves - in which case, of course, it should not be too difficult to deal with them; which, in fact, has been my experience of them.

Indeed, the only people who could look at this site and think that I am a "misogynistic fool" are usually too stupid for me to bother with. And this, in fact, has also been my experience.

LOL!

Harry

....

And now, I can feel a pontification coming upon me!

And here it is!

It does not matter what you say on social issues, there will always be people who loathe and detest what you are saying.

ALWAYS!

Anyone who makes statements on social issues in a public arena is going to attract some 'hatred' from some source or other. (Ask any mainstream journalist.)

(Even Mother Theresa used to wind up large numbers of people!)

And all MRAs need to understand this if they are to rise above the hostile criticisms that will most definitely come their way.

And, in my view, the best way to deal with this is to look closely at what criticisms are being made - particularly if they seem to be coming from an authoritative source - and, if they are valid, to take them on board and, if necessary, change one's point of view. If they are not valid, then toss them aside.

But it really is the case that it does not matter what you say, there will always be people who will hate what you are saying.

And there is no escape from this when you project your voice into the ether.

As such, do not let the very fact that you are being criticised be an indication that you must necessarily be wrong in what you are saying. And do not worry too much about the fact that you receive criticism.

Indeed, if you have an 'audience' - perhaps you run a blog or a website - then, provided that your feedback is, on balance, positive, then, loosely speaking, you are winning! - at least, in your area of cyberspace you are winning - and, surely, this is the only area that really counts.

After all, your area of cyberspace is your arena!

Hi Harry

I love you. 

That is all.

I love you!!!!

Jeff

Hi AH,

Firstly, let me say that I am a big fan of your work and a quiet supporter of your movement. I particularly enjoyed reading your piece regarding the angry E-Mail you got from a XXXX [censored by AH] student about the knife block, though I must say that I was wholly embarrassed about the whole thing. 

As a criminologist and XXXXXX [censored by AH] researcher on Domestic Violence, I happened to come across your website whilst looking for literature on Erin Pizzey, who I admire for her courage against the wave of intolerable feminist hysterical lesbian types.

I happened upon this article which is more bad news for John Leslie. I cannot say whether or not he did what the original claim said he did, but the incredible uprising of random women who claim he raped them is, frankly, astounding! This woman is now claiming that he raped her, get this, over a decade ago!! 

Unbe-freaking-lievable that he was actually ARRESTED and questioned for 3 hours about this. 3!! 

About something that happened half of my lifetime ago! I can barely remember last month, let alone that amount of time! How is it at all possible that this case could be held up for enough time that the police could get a warrant for his arrest? It truly boggles the mind.

Kind regards,

Keep up the good fight,

L

Hello L

The number of women who come forward claiming falsely to have been abused by some poor sod who happens to have hit the headlines recently over some abuse allegation or other is positively obscene.

In one case - from about 7 years ago according to my memory - which concerned 'abuse' in the 1970s in Ireland - some male social worker ended up being accused by about 40 people who had never even been to the care home wherein he had worked. They simply fabricated their allegations out of thin air and hoped that the police would be unable to check out their details.

They were wrong.

Clearly, the smell of possible compensation money and the thirst to portray oneself as a victim who has 'survived' is a great incentive for many people to make false accusations of 'abuse'.

After all, what have they got to lose?

Here is what Carol Sarler wrote in the Times about the large number of women who trump up false allegations against some poor man who has just been accused of something sexual and whose name has, therefore, appeared in the media ...

(My underlining.)

... out from the woodwork crawl the snipers and the vipers, each busting guts to help the Crown Prosecution Service to bolster potentially wobbly prosecutions. Facts don’t come into it. The nature of most of these cases means no witnesses, no evidence, no forensics; allegations are frequently carbon-dated – King’s went back 30 years, as did Kelly’s, and Langham’s nearly a decade – so one word against another is all there is. If the anonymous accuser is not believed, he or she has lost little but time and theatrics; if he or she is, the rewards are great and, crucially, calculable before the trial begins. 

Criminal compensation is awarded according to published tariff; you can actually look it up to see how much for oral sex, how much for intercourse, how much for buggery — so if there is to be no supporting evidence anyway, the incentive is clearly to go for broke. [i.e. lie and exaggerate as much as you can] Meanwhile, agent purveyors can tell you, in advance and to the penny, the eventual return for waiving anonymity and flogging the sorry tale to a panting Sunday rag . . . if, that is, you manage to be convincing enough in court. ...

The bigger pity, of course, is not just that a minx makes money. It is that in this mutually back-scratching collusion of interests, between alleged victim and instruments of prosecution, it is truth that is the first casualty.

Harry

Hello Harry, 

I would just like to say that you are indeed a hero. I found your site while doing research for a female friend of mine. I was concerned about the level of objectification of women in the media and how this is affecting them. I had been a long time believer that sexism affected men almost as much as women ( I have been verbally and physically abused for this "radical" view before mind you) as I did the research I was rapidly coming into the idea that sexism against women wasn't that bad after all. And then I found the innocent looking site of one humble Angry Harry. I read the first page I came across "What a piece of sh*t is man". By the end I was hooked. 

I spent the next 6 hours reading materials from your site and doing research to back it up (Just to be sure) I skipped two classes since I just couldn't stop. 

By the three hour mark I was so incensed, so enraged I was litterally shaking. This was two weeks ago and I have been doing everything I can to educate myself and others on the horrendous and intollerable state of things. 

I have swayed two very feminist minded friends, one male and one female, to the cause and I am currently in the process of creating posters and writing messages on white boards through all of the buildings on campus. If people begin to read your site and believe I think things will change. 

I am an 18 (very soon to be 19) year old MALE Biology student, at the XXXXXX [censored by AH] Institute of Technology in XX, USA. Your articles and site in general have changed my life. I knew that I have been descriminated against for my gender before but the degree to which it is happening sickens me. 

Thank you for organizing such a magnificent display for mens rights. And I want everyone who reads this to know that I have taken up the sword and shield of men's rights and I will be fighting this battle for the rest of my life. Thank you once again.

R

Hi Harry

I have been reading your articles for hours and basically I agree. However, you are blaming the radical women who could have done nothing on their own. It is like husbands blaming their wives when it is the attorneys that file all the papers and make all the decisions.

I cannot convince you in a brief email. However, why do the think the press and the laws are so much alike in UK, USA, Australia, and Canada. If they were truly independent countries, there would not be so much similarity on women's lib.

Nick Rockefeller told Russo that the elite families created and financed the women's lib movement so they could tax another half of the population and so that the children would be trained by them in government schools rather than in the context of the family unit. (See the video interview.)

It is the international bankers that own the federal reserve and the national banks that make all the decisions. They own the printing press, they can create hundreds of billions if necessary to finance whatever. With the printing press they have purchased control of the media and entertainment industry. If they didn't agree, the radical women would have no outlet. They certainly don't have the money to buy the media. These international bankers control most of the politicians, the judges, and most every aspect of government. Few politicians can get elected unless they are supported by the media.

Maybe there is a men's movement, but they don't have a hundred billion and cannot raises 1/10 of one percent of that. And neither could the women. You are limited to the internet and maybe at best a million in donations. The bankers, using the government, radical women, and the media will outspend you and men's movement by more than 10,000 to one.

I always have some degree of hope; however realistically, it may be hopeless. Look how bad it was for the slaves before that world revolt during the Roman times. Until it gets that bad, or almost that bad, it is unlikely that the men will revolt.

D

Hello D

Let me state quite categorically that I do not have any doubts at all that very powerful forces are behind the feminists and their aims. And I mentioned some of these in my piece entitled Fathers Groups Miss The Big Picture.

It is quite clear to me that bankers, corporations and governments are well aware that they have very much to gain for themselves if they can continually stir up gender disharmony and, further, that they are doing exactly this. 

To me, this is blatantly obvious. It is as clear as daylight!

And, as you say, this is why, for example, 'feminism' is rapidly taking hold across the world.

The forces that promote feminism and relationship breakdown are incredibly powerful. Unimaginably powerful.

But I tend to view them as arising from huge self-serving organisms that dwell amongst us rather than as the result of a few highfaluting social engineers (senior bankers, Bilderberg, etc) lording it over us. 

I do not doubt that such social engineers exist at the top of the tree - the 'Illuminati', in the view of some - but these people simply could not wield such huge power without the aid of the forces of the self-serving organisms of which they are merely a tiny part.

If you like, these social engineers might be the train drivers - but they are not the train!

My favourite way of demonstrating this is with reference to the senior Japanese car-manufacturing executive who admitted that the TV adverts for his cars (which showed women kicking men out of moving cars in a humorous way) were likely to make women feel more assertive and more aggressive towards men and, hence, as such, his company would likely sell more cars to women as they became increasingly independent of men.

In other words, this is just one example of how stirring up gender disharmony can result in the sale of more products - in this case, cars. But the same can be said of very many other products - or 'services'; such as those provided by governments.

However, the advertising department of this Japanese car company would be tiny in comparison to the tens of thousands of workers who actually build the cars, distribute them, sell them to the public etc etc. And it is also tiny in comparison to the number of people who actually buy the cars.

And so my point is this.

Yes; huge power is being wielded by a few people working in the advertising department of this Japanese car company (the 'illuminati' of the company) when it spends internationally millions upon millions of dollars in such a manner that stirs up gender disharmony, but this power is, nevertheless, dependent upon the millions of other people who are necessarily involved in the buying and selling of these cars - and, of course, this includes the customers who buy the cars.

And if some of these people - one or two million, say - decide that they are unhappy with what the advertising department is doing, then, in my view, the advertising department can quite easily be persuaded to change its tune.

Indeed, if just a few of those people in the 'powerful' advertising department can be persuaded (through fair means or foul) to change their point of view or, perhaps, if they become disenchanted with what feminism is doing to them, then, once again, the huge power that they wield can be diverted.

And, of course, if the general public can gradually be moved towards experiencing misandry as distasteful - rather than as humorous - then those in the advertising department will have to switch tactics in order to sell their cars.

Harry

Angry Harry you are so cool. Take a look at this. It will put a smile upon your face.

http://tinyurl.com/2b5akf

What time will you get back tonight?

M

Stop pestering me with your emails Bi#ch, or I'll find a Russian woman who can cook.

About 8.

Yo!

H

Yo! again!

BTW; That devious ho's cholesterol level turned out to be 3.5. In other words, she is probably going to live to be 100. So, Yep; that's right Boys, Angry Harry, man o' the world, and slayer of all things foul and feminist, is probably going to be stuck with this scheming harlot for another four decades.

Oh cruel world. 

Cruel, cruel world.

Firstly, I must apologise if I have not replied to your emails, but I just do not have the time.

Anyway. Here are some short answers to questions that keep cropping up. They are in no special order, and I am now going to zap through some of my emails to refresh my memory.

1. Yes. The MM  is very definitely growing. I do not just say this to keep the troops motivated.

2. No. I have not visited a forum in ages. I know that some people post stuff on forums on my behalf - and it sometimes looks as if it comes from me - but me it is not.

3. Yes. I do nowadays post various comments on mainstream media sites - but not under the name Angry Harry. I have a fistful of aliases and email addresses. However, most of what I write goes on this website.

4. No. I am not a  police officer or a closet agent for MI5, MI6 or the FBI. I genuinely believe that our law enforcement agencies need to be able to access more information about potential terrorists or criminals. In particular, I want a national DNA database to be set up, and I can see no valid reason for being scared of one.

5. No. I am not a racist. I couldn't give two hoots about the colour of people's skins or their racial backgrounds.

6. No. I am not concerned that some of my articles might induce aggression against government officials such as judges or politicians. Why should I be concerned? These people seem to have no qualms at all about destroying completely the lives of others. Indeed, how many men commit suicide and even murder as a result of the policies of these self-serving corrupt officials? 

Hundreds every year - in the UK alone. 

And they do not give a damn.

7. No. I have never had any aggravation at all from sources allied to government.

8. I do not link to MND because MND does not link to me - but, yes, I do visit MND. Furthermore, I think that Mike LaSalle deserves far more support and credit than he ever gets. And if MND was to vanish, it would be a monumental loss to the MM.

9. Yes. I do like Glenn Sacks very much. Indeed, I think that Glenn Sacks is a truly top-notch activist - and, quite probably, the best all-round activist in the MM. 

10. Yes. I do receive emails from feminists but I do not post them up. I see no reason to give feminists a voice on this website and I can see no benefit that would arise from doing so. Besides which, they never really say anything of value. Their emails are usually completely devoid of anything but worn-out empty-headed unsubstantiated assertions - usually coupled with a strong sense of victimhood.

Women are victims. Women are victims. Women are victims. 

Women are just as good as men. Women are just as good as men.

... just about sums them all up.

11. I am 56 years old.

12. Heretical Sex is my favourite blogger - closely followed by CoolTools4Men.

13. Yes. I think that politicians like Harriet Harman should one day be prosecuted for purposely, knowingly and maliciously stirring up hatred towards an entire class of people - men - for persistently deceiving the public, and for corrupting the justice system to such an extent that hundreds of thousands of men every year are treated absolutely appallingly as a result.

Indeed, I think that it is important that people like her are strongly punished and publicly vilified so that never again will our politicians willfully stir up hatred towards their very own people and cause so much distress and hurt to so many of them.

It is one thing for politicians to make mistakes. It is quite another for them to persist in causing serious - and, often, lifelong - damage to people - particularly when they are fully aware of what they are doing.

Which she is.

14. In my view, the most important issue that the MM should currently be addressing concerns 'the government'.

I believe that most departments of western governments need to be reduced in terms of both size and power. Their ability to interfere in the work place and in the home needs to be diminished. The amount of red tape needs to be cut down dramatically, and all policies and procedures relating to political correctness need to be discarded; e.g. no more 'diversity' or 'gender equality' officers, no more corrupt family courts, no more prosecutions of men without strong evidence that a crime has actually been committed etc.

I also think that government officials should be prosecuted when they cover up wrongdoing, whereas government whistleblowers should be protected by law from any retribution.

And I could go on!

But I won't.

I will just say this.

Very few of you out there realise just how malicious, uncaring and self-serving are those who nowadays work in the higher echelons of government.

15. My favourite books are to do with Science. My favourite 'films' are documentaries - though I quite like good thrillers such as the Bourne series.

16. Yes. Everything I write, I believe. And nowadays I really do try my best not to exaggerate - unless I am attempting to be humorous - but, sometimes, my anger gets the better of me - and so I sometimes find myself having to re-write bits that I posted earlier.

And now I am off to bed.

I am a bit worried at the moment, and I need to rest myself, because my missus is going off to have her cholesterol checked tomorrow morning - and if its level is but a micro-nano-milli-mol outside of the optimum, it's lettuce leaves, boiled cabbage, tofu and porridge for everybody for at least a month!

Hi Harry,

Tracy Brooks falsely accused 5 guys of rape, and avoided jail. The story shows up on a daily mail web page and a Sun web page, but the BBC has so far not covered it, on TV, radio or even the internet. I phoned their complaints department, and have had THEM write to ME, explaining why they chose not to cover the story. I ask you to implore your readers to do the same. I have emailed therightsofman , and will email mensactivism next. Let's make this as time-consuming an issue as possible for the BBC, so it remembers not to ignore these stories in the future.

Thanks for your great website, as always.

T

Harry

your piece pointing out that the Home Office
likes to equate rape allegations with actual rapes.

Only a couple of days ago, on 'The Wright
Stuff', Matthew Wright referred to men being
allowed to rape their wives prior to 1992.
Obviously this is not true because a man could
not *rape* his wife before 1992.

B

Hi B

This is a typical distortion of the truth by those with a feminist-dominated mindset.

In the olden days, if it was thought - e.g. by the police or other men - that you had raped your wife - or any other woman - the chances are very high that you would have been beaten up by them.

Does anyone really think that men who opened doors for women, gave up their chairs to them, etc etc, simply sat by while men happily raped their wives? - wives who would also be sisters, daughters, mothers, friends?

My belief is that a lack of the law in this area arose for at least the following reasons.

1. It was known that it would be virtually impossible to prove rape in marital cases - as is the situation today. And, as with most other prospective laws that cannot be enforced easily, such laws tend not to be enacted.

2. The government did not have the power to interfere with families in those days because, quite simply, the government was not very powerful then. Indeed, officials who interfered with family life were likely to get the whole community raging after them, and this would then lead to the government losing power in many other areas - such as happens today in various crime-ridden communities.

3. Until the huge distortions of the feminists arrived on the scene - buttressed by a mighty force via the media - it was probably well-recognised by most people that many women are prone to lying about being 'abused' in some way - usually in order to get other men to aggress on their behalf. Indeed, one of the main reasons that 'no-fault' divorce was introduced was because government officials - judges - recognised that it was virtually impossible to sort out the ins and outs of people with a long intimate history together who were now fighting each other in the divorce courts.

In other words, the people and the government accepted the fact that when intimates are at each others throats, you cannot get to the truth behind their problems.

Clearly, they still believe this to be the case when it comes to divorce.

(But, perversely, they do not believe this to be the case when it comes to domestic violence and marital rape!)

4. The attitude of both government and the people in the past was very much in line with the view that people were actually responsible for their own personal decisions. (What an amazing idea!) And so, for example, if two people stayed together then that was their choice. If they did not like each other's behaviour then they could always part company. Furthermore, the attitude was that marriage was a very serous affair and that if people embarked upon it then it was up to them to make sure that they had made the right choice, and they also had to realise that they were, in effect, becoming one person.

5. A common female attitude towards sex with their husbands was that they should just "lie back and think of England" whenever their husbands wanted sex when they did not. This is now called 'rape'. The reality, however, was that most wives recognised that their husbands were labouring for many hours every day on their behalf and it was their husbands who brought back the goodies for the family. And submitting to him sexually was part of the deal - something which both parties understood.

And one of the reasons for this understanding was that it was well-recognised that men were mostly attracted to women because of their personal attractiveness, whereas women were more influenced by a man's wealth - or prospective wealth.  

Now, a woman's attractiveness fades over time, but a man's wealth tends to accumulate. And so one good way of keeping the balance was to advise the wives to keep up their sexiness levels regardless of their feelings - hence, "lie back and think of England".

This was not 'rape'. This was part of the deal.

And it was quite a good deal from a woman's point of view.

After all, when the children are older and do not need much care, and the wife has grown older and become less attractive, what is left when it comes to marriage for the man?

Why should he spend his increasing wealth on her?

(Remember: We are talking about 'rape' situations, not about those married couples who got along well.)

Well, part of the deal was that she submitted to him sexually. And if she did not keep to this part of the deal then both men and women would have said that she was unworthy of being his 'wife'.

After all, he continues doing all the work and providing all the goodies - and she is doing virtually nothing; except pottering around the house and chatting with her neighbours.

(Indeed, this was one of the main complaints of 'feminists' around the 1860s. They were not complaining about rape or domestic violence or discrimination in the workplace. They were complaining about women having nothing of value to do once the children were older.)

Furthermore, the notion that females can get males to do almost anything in return for sex was figured out even before the arrival of chimpanzees.

And you will see women all over the world using sex to get what they want. 

(Indeed, men were actually designed to fall for this kind of manipulation; e.g. see Women and Chimps. Those men who failed to fall for the sexual manipulations of women, failed to reproduce!)

In other words, submitting sexually to your husband - who had to toil through long hours of work every day - was never in the past considered to be a big deal.

And, in fact, most women recognised it as a good deal.

It is only because we are nowadays dominated by the views of dysfunctional feminist women - most of who hate men - that having sex with your husband when you are not in the mood is considered to be an act of 'rape'.

All in all, therefore, it was not the case that it was all right for a husband to 'rape' his wife. The situation was that, in practice, it was not possible to enforce a law which prohibited such an event. It was impossible to determine if such an event had taken place. It was known that women lie about such things. It was believed by both men and women that women had some kind of duty to recompense the men who laboured on their behalf and, of course, it was recognised that bringing the law into 'the home' would likely cause huge disruption to the whole of society - which is exactly what has now happened.

But the claim that it was considered 'acceptable' for a husband to 'rape' his wife is utter nonsense. A husband who did such a thing might have got away with it, but there is no way that such a thing was considered to be 'acceptable'.

And by 1908 ...

The wife has but to scream and appeal to the nearest policeman, and prison, separation, custody of children, and maintenance, are decreed as matters of course. Belfort Bax (1908)

Best wishes

Harry

Dear Harry

I was alerted to your site recently by a work colleague and am glad to see that you link to the Manifesto Club.

Last week the club received the following email from a Mr Parker.

'Last week I was watching some building work on an empty old school building near me being renovated when two police officers came and demanded my details and photo ID. They said it was because in their judgement I had displayed "an unhealthy interest in children", which was amazing because there was not a single child to be seen, anywhere. The children were all at a brand new building which can't even be seen from where I was standing."

K

Dear Harry.

I have just read your latest article on trafficking entitled “Where Are All The Sex Slaves?” I agree with your comment regarding the substantial incentives for these women to lie, claiming to have been forced into this particulair industry against their will. What a crazy situation indeed where incentives are given to people to lie rather than tell the truth. 

I live in Sweden where prostitution is illegal. This means of course 'illegal to buy' but not 'illegal to sell', as of course all women who sell sex are total victims who are forced into it by evil men or cruel life circumstances beyond their control..... You get my point. 

The concept of free will does`nt seem to apply to females anymore (Did it ever??). Anyway - the feminist brigade in Sweden (almost the entire population btw.) are thus faced with the problem of how to explain why so many young middle class Swedish women still sell their bodies for money, both in Sweden as well as in even richer countries like Saudi Arabia or Japan and, more importantly, why so many eastern european women come to Sweden to “ply their trade”.

Feminists have no real explanation for why young middle class western women still continue to sell their bodies both at home, other than that all these girls are probably addicted to hard drugs. On the other hand these same feminists choose generally to keep very quiet about middle class swedish girls who sell sex in Japan and other rich countries . When it comes to eastern block women though, feminists just repeat the same old mantra - that these women are forced through violence or decieved by manipulative svengali type males who get them here on the pretext of working as nannies or waitresses!

If you are a criminal in Russia or Estonia working in the sex trade, with the job of recruiting, say, 20 women to work in Sweden in an underground brothel then it obviously makes sense to get 20 women who will co-operate and who will work voluntarily rather than instead try to trick or threaten 20 “normal women” who would probably be horrified at the prospect of working as a prostitute. These women would not be “good workers”, neither could they be trusted not to escape and blow the whistle to the authorities at the first available opportunity, ending the whole lucrative enterprise and putting the organisers in prison.

An operation of this scale takes a hell of a lot of organising I would imagine. People need to be employed as couriers to bring the girls over. False work permits and other credentials would also presumably be needed, premises and apartments would need to be rented where the girls can live and work. Maybe most important of all clients/customers for the girls would also need to be made available. All this takes manpower, time, effort and money in order to get the enterprise up and running – it does`nt just happen. There is also a huge risk involved to the organisers too, as the whole enterprise is illegal.

But such an organisation does stand to make alot of money - for everyone involved. If these girls have sex with 5 customers per day at £60 a time then just 1 girl can earn £300 per day!!! That is over £2000 per week or over £8000 per month - taxfree!!! It beggars belief how much 20 girls could earn in a month, but it would be plenty enough to go around I would imagine. Everone wins! – JUST AS LONG AS THE ENTERPRISE RUNS SMOOTHLY and the authorities don`t catch a whiff of whats going on - which is why it would be madness to trick and coerce these women when there would be so many hardened “professional girls” presumably, in these eastern european countries, who would gladly do the work without having to be manipulated or threatened!!!

Even if these women only kept 20% of their earnings then they would still earn £1600 per month each – taxfree!!! How many Russians or Estonians earn that much a month after tax??? I bet that even doctors over there don`t earn that much!

The bottom line is that Russian women come to richer contries like Sweden and sell sex, for the same reason that Swedish women go to richer countries to sell sex – because it is an easy way for them to make a lot of money – much more than they would otherwise be able to make working in a clothes shop or behind a perfume counter somewhere. The majority of these women are not starving and destitute and they are not forced in any way to do what they do. They are exercizing their free will as adults and they do it presumably because they want a better standard of living (materialistically speaking).

My guess is that if these girls are addicted to anything then it is, more often than not, their own consumer spending – rather than hard drugs like heroin.

Regards

L

PS. It happens in Sweden just the same as you described in the article. When these prostitution rings get busted and the women admit to coming here of their own free will, they get penalized and sent straight back. But - if they roll over and play victim, blaming the nearest man, then they are given all the benefits you described.

Hi Harry,

I just read that 'victims' of rape will be allowed to sue their 'attackers' for compensation ...

... I barely need to imprint on you the significance of this ruling. From now on, women will regularly seek to make false allegations - particularly against wealthy men - since they can do so with full anonymity and are VERY unlikely to be punished if caught-out. Women who make false allegations stand to make MILLIONS of pounds. Due to this ruling, innocent men will lose their lives, liberty and property.

Wealthy men are rendered particularly vulnerable by this ruling. There isn't a woman alive who wouldn't consider making a false allegation if she stood to gain a considerable sum of money.

If I were Peter Stringfellow [a wealthy nightclub owner] I'd be VERY afraid.

I wonder if men will be allowed to seek similar complaints against women who make false allegations? I wonder if PIGS MIGHT FLY!!!

And this doesn't just apply to rich men; ANY man who has more than a few grand in the bank or who owns a house or who has ANY future earning capacity is a potential target.

Regards,

C

Hi C

I would merely add that this ruling is completely consistent with the very essence of feminism - the desire to make it virtually impossible for men and women to have close relationships - in this case, by further encouraging women to make false accusations and by making men more fearful of having close relationships with women. 

As I am forever saying, the major driving force behind the feminists is a hatred of men - nothing else explains what they say and do - and their left-wing friends in power support them because they profit very handsomely indeed - to the tune of billions of dollars - from promoting inter-gender disharmony and relationship breakdown.

With regard to any wealthy men who get taken to the cleaners, I can only say that they should have given more support to websites such as this one!

Best wishes,

Harry

Dear Harry,

I thought you may find this news story of interest, since it is yet another example of the state agenda's attempts to oppress men in the name of 'justice'. Whilst an individual of your experience will doubtless realise this for yourself, the practice described is flawed in both its premise and execution:

In premise, it assumes that the low conviction rate is due to some 'miscarriage of justice' rather than an excess of false accusations. This is nothing new to the Rape illusion.

In practice, the example described to elicit a confession is exceptionally vague ...

Police are considering employing controversial text message tactics to trick rape suspects into incriminating themselves, it is reported.

As an aside, I would like to thank you for all the work you have put in to your site. Having been a male 'victim' for so long, I say without a modicum of insincerity that some of your work has helped my emotional recovery from a mindset that threatened my career. As a male Oxford student, this has rescued my degree and should see me continue my studies in the US in medical nanotechnology. 

Fortunately I no longer feel obliged to earn lots of money in a job that saps my soul in order that I might attempt to please a materialistic Western woman.

Thanks again for your hard work,

P

Harry,

your view on this appreciated. 

Peter Hitchens expressed a proposal that in order to get more convictions he would like to see rape laws devolved into 2nd degree and probably even 3rd degree. 

I am totally against this,

I say if a man is convicted of any degree of rape his life is virtually over. It is not necessarily the length of term which is important. 

However ,although all my arguments were cogent and totally non abusive using your and other sites conclusions I was flamed for "spam comment". Free speech--huh.

M

Hi M

I must confess that this "degrees of rape" issue is not something that I have really thought about.

And one reason for my lack of thought about the matter is that I do not really see it as being very important.

Why? - because the public's attitude towards women who allege rape is going to continue changing in a direction that is less favourable toward them - thanks to the activities of the MM and, of course, thanks to the appallingly high number of false accusations that are made by lying women.

Furthermore, it is already the case that juries in the UK are mostly unconvinced about the veracity of most current rape claims and, in my view, the more that the justice system is corrupted simply in order to gain more convictions, the more will the public and the juries refuse to co-operate; e.g. see Futile Changes by James Cox - in the Guardian!

Indeed, thanks to the growing MM, and thanks to the internet, the more that men are mistreated, the bigger will be the backlash and the more powerful will the MM grow.

And, of course, with regard to the rape issue, it will not just be 'women' who will bear the brunt of the backlash that arises from this, it will be the justice system and the politicians as well.

But I do agree very strongly with your view that, currently, a man's life is ruined whatever 'degree' of rape he is convicted of.

However, in the long term, I suspect that if there are increasing numbers of men who are convicted of minor degrees of rape - or accused of such, but not convicted - then 'rape' will become something of a joke - a bit like what has happened with regard to shoplifting - and, for example, comedians will start fooling around with humorous scenarios that, allegedly, constitute 'rapes'.

And so, all in all, I am not too worried about the dividing of 'rape' into different degrees because this will help to energise the MM quite significantly while the collateral damage (the number of falsely accused men) will be relatively small.

Indeed, thanks to the internet, the same sort of logic is clearly going to apply in many areas of concern to men. 

In the past, 'men' were unable to protest effectively. And so whenever 'men' were being mistreated or disadvantaged they just had to sit back and take it. But those days are over. And, henceforth, every injustice will play right into our hands.

Ah yes.

Activism!

LOL!

Best wishes

Harry

Dear Angry Harry

I just saw your reference [Homosexual Sadism] to a commercial featuring Mark "Chopper " Read on the Swartz Foundation web site. I absolutely agree with your comments about this. I find the use of threats to men who go to gaol for wife beating rather stupid. What about the women who bash and even kill their husbands but never get gaol time?

What an imbalance! As for Mark Read, he has been on TV over here on a number of occasions notably on the Elle Mcfeast program where he was discussing how he killed other criminals. Disgusting stuff really. He is the author of several books on his life in gaol etc.

I wonder what the publics reaction would be to a TV commercial where women who bash their husbands are threatened with violence if they go to gaol.

It seems that its quite OK to inflict violence on men and we are supposed to just take it . This has got to change, and I think its people doing what you do that will bring this change about. 

Take care

Kind Regards

P