Female, anti feminist, egalitarian.
I'm against sexism of all kinds but there are plenty of blogs whose sole focus is on women but very few even recognise that sexism does not equal Man against Woman.
This blog focuses on Misandry: The hatred, discimination or distrust of men and boys. Pointing out the representation of men in the media, deliberate misinformation/misrepresentation, the demonisation of men in our society and the imbalance this causes.
Rather than think of ourselves as in competition we should cater to everyone as needed.
If you think I'm being unfair to other women just know that I consider all sides of an argument, normally I prefer to be the fence. But for the purposes of this blog I have taken a side so apologies if this offends you.
I answer all asks privately unless otherwise requested or anonymous.


Pakistan's Hidden Shame - 4oD

Found it. Only viewable in the UK unless you have proxies. Won’t play if you have adblock.

It’s pretty gut wrenching hearing boys as young as 8 describing the sexual acts done to them, and which they’ve done for food and money, so casually. Some go on to repeat the abuse to others and most of the abusers were victims themselves, further demonstrating the cyclical nature of abuse.

About three quarters of the way through, they try to shoehorn some “oppression of women” explanation in there, despite many people actually being concerned about the safety of any women that might find themselves there. And the fact that male victims who repeat the abuse, tend to target other males, females victims of women target other females, male victims of women target females and vice versa. So a boy abused by a man wouldn’t be likely to abuse women. Then say that the society wants to protect women despite the fact they said they were detested objects. That they have no rights then immediately show an educated woman who was working with the boys. It felt very much like a sort of disclaimer, that they have to throw in a “women affected worse” line in there to justify their focus on male victims.

appledoze said: So basically it was brushing aside the boy victims and painting them as a side effect of the oppression and hatred of women. Because of course even little boys are less important than women when it comes to victimhood.

And when they said that the people didn’t want women in those places because the same might happen to them, and just so happened to mention people’s unwillingness to help the boys, they implied that they would prefer that nearly all children there were repeatedly raped than any woman possibly be in any danger. Even though when they asked the ones doing it, they wanted wives, not sex slaves, they believed it was wrong to do it to women and they also worried for women’s safety if they were there.




I was at my partner’s place earlier and there was a programme on about the sexual abuse of boys in Pakistan, it’s rare people give a toss about that so I watched it. There were interviews with some of the boys, the social workers trying to help them and some abusers (oddly enough also abuse…

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

I think that a lot of “weird practices” that are in place had a purpose once. I believe that going really far back someone got the idea, right or wrong, it doesn’t matter, that to protect women they had to be covered up and sheltered from much of the harsh realities of life.

Biologically some of it makes sense. It’s the whole extinction business. Any tribe that would send out their women to hunt, war or explore would lose too many women in the process. The cold, hard calculus of creating life can’t be cheated: women had a production rate of about one child each 4-5 years (often they’d not be fertile, or have sex, until the kid was about that age). Any tribe that whittled down their female numbers would either be very small or eventually go extinct in preference to those who make an extra effort to keep their women alive so they could have babies.

The huge problem among the Arabic peoples is Islam. It’s a religion and it has codified these rules in absolute ways and have forgotten the real reasons for the rules.

And the feminists seem to want to take us right back there. With their “rape culture” hysteria and making laws that treat them like infants but which are still not enough for them. They reject the “protection of women” in favour of “protection of women”. It makes no sense.

I was at my partner’s place earlier and there was a programme on about the sexual abuse of boys in Pakistan, it’s rare people give a toss about that so I watched it. There were interviews with some of the boys, the social workers trying to help them and some abusers (oddly enough also abuse victims themselves).

It’s depressing stuff but worth watching, I’ll have a look for it later, if they put it online. One thing really distracted from the message though.

They just had to inject some female victimhood in there, saying women are despised property and the only reason the boys are abused is because there are no women there. Despite the fact that some of the people working at the places that try to help the victims were women, female relatives of the boys being treated remarkably well for the worthless scum they’re supposedly considered, working, educated, not enslaved chained to the kitchen women. But who do they go to to say that women are worthless property? One uneducated, drug addicted child rapist of course, because he’ll have the most accurate reading of the entire culture.

The narrator went on to talk about the protection of women being important and that the people don’t want women in the places where 9 out of 10 male children on the street are raped because they might be victimised themselves. Now why would they care if they hated them so much?

Why would people go through such pains for the protection of detested objects? Would you die to protect a piece of property that you hated? Why do they feel the need to ram this down our throats when they’re talking about young children being raped every day and not getting the treatment they need. At least they could have not immediately contradicted themselves by having a woman who defied that demeaning description in the very next shot talking about how the ones raping the children see it as wrong to rape women but not boys. Maybe it was intentional.

Anonymous asked
so i'm watching this north west programme called "inside out" and a local radio presenter is doing a little weight loss experiment for seven weeks and his main concern? looking good for his daughters wedding. funny that, a man concerned with the way he looks. i thought it was only women *sarcasm* at the end the dr told him he lost about five pound and he was really happy

At Renewal there’s a guy there who’s part of a weight loss group at his work, he was looking forward to showing them how much weight he lost over the weekend. Though he wasn’t going to tell them it was from running and battling through woodland while playing an elf for 4 days. He said you can always tell a LARPer by how many prescriptions he has.

It struck me then too that I’m always coming across men who are concerned with their weight but nothing much is ever said about them.

Anonymous asked
Lori's problem isn't fan sexism as feminist fans want you to believe, it's pure inconsistent writing... For no apparent reason she goes from "HUR BLUR RICK YOU GOTTA KILL THIS GUY" and then after he does it "HUR BLUR RICK WHY YOU DO THAT??? I HATE YOU NEVER SPEAK TO ME AGAIN." But yeah, I always hated her nonstop "Let's just kill ourselves instead of trying to survive!" At least Andrea KIND OF redeemed herself at the very end.

I’ve seen feminists claim that hating her is misogyny but they say that about every female character. She is immensely frustrating. Since writers started really pandering to what the vocal minority demanded they wanted, they’ve just gotten more unbearable. Still you get feminists complaining about the very few decent ones that slip through the net, dismissing them as “retrosexist” stereotypes if their not self absorbed, bitchy ingrates and “men with boobs” if they’re in any way realistically competent and not a man hating arrogant twat.

Kind of makes me want to make a list of “feminist tropes” (even though they’re not tropes) with all the feminist inspired bullshit infecting telly these days. With all male characters being “rapist” or something. Like what they did to Khal Drogo and Jaime in Game of Thrones.

poorpoorpitifulme said: I stopped watching about halfway through series three though, so maybe his character gets let down later. What do you think of Glenn? I love Glenn. Also I like Andrea although she does make some stupid choices later on…

There’s usually a point in any invincible character where they just get a bit stale, because they’re loved the way they are they don’t want to risk even any character growth of any kind because it might change them too much. It’s rare for a series to really do that well and realistically while still keeping the character very much themselves.

fuckallthesepeople said: He’s actually pretty cool and shows some major character flaws later on. He’s invincible because he’s popular right now, but that doesn’t stop me from liking him.

He was the reason I wanted to watch it, besides the story, the rest of the characters seemed off putting or didn’t stand out but I was looking forward to seeing Norman Reedus in something that wasn’t that crappy film with Alan Rickman (ending totally worth it though).

neutral-gray said: No. Don’t fall for Daryl. The only reason he’s kept alive now is because he’s a “bad boy heartthrob.” He is now AMC’s walking cash maker. His invincibility is stupidly evident later in the series. Defies the one rule of TWD’s universe: anyone can die

I’ve been warned of the implausibility of some character’s survival, it can make it a bit dull when there’s no risk. Also the habit of having no character growth because female fans like an arsehole. He’s the most relatable character so far though, crossbow, resourceful, collection of meds that might come in handy, some might call that implausible but I do that. Plus he doesn’t immediately trust someone just because they’re female which makes a nice change. Don’t worry, I’m well prepared for the inevitable let down.

Oh my god what a bitch. That Lori woman complaining that the only person who has even the slightest iota of knowledge of how to save a kid in the no time they have, is not experienced with human physiology. What is it with these utter wanktards preferring people dying a quick agonising death to possibly being saved? They’re lucky they don’t tell them to go forth and multiply. Ingrates.



Finally got into Walking Dead, loving it so far. But I now see what some of you meant by there being no likeable women in it. “How dare you save my life!”, “How dare you risk your life to try and save my child’s”. Oh my god being “strong” does not equal being an ungrateful arse of a twat.

Yeah…. Lori kind of sucks horribly. And Andrea is terrible and useless. But Carol develops really well. And Michonne, a character not there from the start, is an awesome character.

Also, you should read the comics. The comics are more brutal and just written better. Less pointless melodrama and there are lots of characters of all kinds of backgrounds to love immediately: Woman, man, or otherwise.

I’m looking forward to her, she seemed the most bearable. I like the main guy constantly forgetting what accent he’s supposed to be putting on.

Finally got into Walking Dead, loving it so far. But I now see what some of you meant by there being no likeable women in it. “How dare you save my life!”, “How dare you risk your life to try and save my child’s”. Oh my god being “strong” does not equal being an ungrateful arse of a twat.


thing one: Zoe Quinn admits to rape (by her definition) and gaming websites say it’s wrong to report on developer’s personal lives, Cards Against Humanity developer gets accused of rape and denies it, but gets endless coverage and criticism from those same gaming websites.

Read More

This Week in Stupid (24/08/2014) - Sargon of Akkad

The crap I missed while I was away.

There’s quite a revealing article from 1921 which quite firmly disproves the bullshit older feminists spout when they know they can say just about anything because the rest are too young to remember it.

poorpoorpitifulme said: Who wouldn’t with justicar though…

Absolutely. My sister said she would have a sex change just for a chance. And he’s only 5’4” which makes him even more adorablehot.

poorpoorpitifulme said: To be fair, the two are not necessarily contradictory as different cultures can have different attitudes and so two different cultures could, potentially, both be misogynistic but one express that with homophobia and one with homosexuality.

How would hatred of gay men even be misogyny in any way though? That’s what I don’t understand. Especially in societies that fiercely protected women, if they considered gay men to be women, why beat and murder them? Also, while male homosexuality was made illegal in the 1800s, female homosexuality has never been illegal in this country, not sure about others but I wouldn’t be surprised.

Also, I meant that I’d seen the same feminists, on the same culture, often even in the same bloody comment, claim that men in ancient times shunned homosexual relationships because misogyny then go on to say that they had relationships with men because misogyny. Something along the lines of: “Ancient societies hated gay men because they took on the female role of being dominated by a man but they hated women so much they would rather fuck each other than any woman”. The anti-porn feminists often use the same “logic” when talking about how gay porn is also hatred, objectification and rape of women because the man on the receiving end represents a woman and that the very essence of femininity is violated in the act.