The League of Anti
"Audemus Jura Nostra Defendere!"
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
MANPOWER applauds passage of Patriot Act amendment

Here is some great news on the gender war front. Finally, no more feminist hate!

PATRIOT ACT first step in labeling feminist terror.

(PRWEB) July 7, 2004 -- Manpower, the centrist government lobby group, today applauded the revised version of HR 3162, otherwise known as the Patriot Act. The new provisions in the bill are said to be the first step towards countering feminist terror.

"The people behind this ideology oppose free expression and due process and favor solving complex problems through an inflexible imposition of punishment by the state", a spokesperson from Manpower commented.

Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) explained that the feminist 'cell groups' operate as "a cadre of radical extremists who are spouting bogus science and silencing their critics with a combination of illogical mantras and vicious tirades." The widely contested bill is expected to have new provisions for any group or ideology that claims "universal gender superiority", and attempts to incite hatred and terror by espousing those beliefs.

"In the case of these rogue feminist cells, what they are doing is attempting to use the machinery of the state to commit terrorist acts by proxy on half of the population. With this bill the government is sending a message that violence based in ideology and committed by proxy is unacceptable, and a threat to American freedom and safety."

Saturday, June 12, 2004
First Law of Thermodynamics is Misogynist

TLoA Newswire

The Propaganda Organization for Women (POW) physics department today
anounced the acceptance of a grant from the federal government for the study
of hate speech contained within the First Law of Thermodynamics. "We're
concerned that the law as it stands is really just a cover for the rampant
misogyny contained therein", said Ms. Andrist, spokeswomyn for POW.

Ms. Andrist went on to say that the law claims that 'something can neither
be created nor destroyed'. "We understand this premise to be misogynist
hate speech because of how it could apply to abortion rights. If a fetus
can't be created than obviously it can't be destroyed, and that's a problem
for us. We support a woman's right to create and destroy. Conversely, we
support a woman's right not to have to hear male defined definitions of
creation and destruction. We really need to examine the hate speech in
these laws so that they can be written to apply to everyone more equally."

Ms. Andrist also said that female students had trouble with the harsh
language used in the law. "Using words like 'destruction' is really just
verbal rape and sexual harrassment of women. We all know that this is
simply a male term designed to oppress women. We'd like to see the law
re-written to include concepts of equity and fairness. In all truth, the
law should be re-written to say that 'womenhood cannot be made or unmade'.

The conclusion of the report will be given to academic officials, so that
the revised law can be included in sweeping syllabus changes throughout
women's studies departments nationally. "We feel that this new focus will
allow women to learn in an environment that is tailored to their greater
needs", said Ms. Andrist. "There is currently far too much emphasis on
linear male modes of thought, when what we should really be learning is how
to be the women we are".

Eventually, POW hope the changes will be introduced at a national level.
"Science is a field that doesn't have enough women, and we feel changing
these laws will encourage women into the field", claims Ms. Andrist.

When asked about the decline of men enrolling at universities, Ms. Andrist
said that this will affect the 'ability' of women to get an education.
"Obviously if men aren't going into university, then less of them will be
able to afford a university education for their daughters. To fix this we
are asking the government, in the name of fairness, to give women free
university education. "

Thursday, May 27, 2004
Wage Gap Myth Still a Big Lie

Link to Pacific Research story

Vol. , No. 7 May 20, 2004
The 76-cent figure is meaningless because women's earnings reflect lifestyle
choices that are different than those of men. High-salaried, intelligent
women are choosing to spend time at home with their families. And that time
at home is, of course, reflected in earnings.

A study on salary differences between men and women should focus not on
census data, as with this report. It should examine pay levels for the same
job and with the same number of continuous years in the workforce. When that
information is analyzed, as this column has often pointed out, there is very
little difference between men and women. But facts count for little with
proponents of this study. [..]

That is why, in a free society, statistical disparities are the rule, not
the exception. The ideology behind this study assumes that in every area of
life, especially the workplace, women and minorities must be represented
according to their percentage in the population. Such proportionality is not
found in the Constitution but such realities count for little with those who
see discrimination everywhere...[..]

Tuesday, May 25, 2004
A Real Transformer??

More info on this interesting "project" (complete with videos!)
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
POW Says Girls Shortchanged on Height
It's time for our weekly dosage of that comedian known only as Per...

Girls do not reach the same height as men because society discourages their growth, says Colleen Hyphenated-Lastname, president of the Propaganda Organization for Women.
"Society sends girls the message that they are not expected to grow tall," said Ms. Hyphenated-Lastname. "Girls are told to 'be a good little girl,' and to be 'mama's little helper,' while boys are encouraged to 'stand tall' and be a 'big man.' The reason that girls do not achieve equal tallness is that they aren't encouraged to.

"And the enforcement of lower expectations continue into adulthood, when wives are referred to as 'the little woman.' The differences in the heights of men and women can be attributed only to socialization. To suggest any other cause is biological determinism.

"To raise girls' negative self-image about their bodies, we are going to have to do something about Barbie dolls," said Ms. Hyphenated- Lastname. "Barbie dolls are, of course, a terrible, negative influence. Look at how Barbie is built. She's only eight inches tall. With a negative role model like that, it's no wonder that girls never grow taller.

"Obviously, to undo centuries of negative brainwashing will require the establishment of new federal programs run by feminists. We will have to raise girls' self esteem. The best way this can be done is by teaching them feminist philosophy, organizing them into a political constituency, getting them to carry our message and distribute our literature, and instructing them to vote out of office anyone who questions our program. At this rate, our program can go on forever. And with that much time to work with, who knows, we might even get around to addressing the original issues the program was created for.

"Funding for the program should be easy enough to come by. We can take money away from programs designed to keep boys from dropping out of school. If the boys are going to drop out of school, why should we spend our school funding on them? After all, the money should rightly be going to the people with the biggest bureaucracy, not the biggestneed.

"This patriarchal suppression of girls' height has not always been the rule. In ancient times, women grew as tall as men, or taller. We know this because feminist historians and archaeologists have been at work. During excavations in neolithic Sumeria, they discovered a gender-equal society that erected statues of women eight feet tall. So obviously, women were taller in the past. In fact, because history has tended to minimize and shrink the contributions of women, it is strong evidence that women in the past were nine or ten feet tall."

"Close study of these statues by feminist historians also reveal that women in the ancient past were dominant and peaceful, bore no prejudices, were equally left-handed and right-handed, did not litter, managed to balance the budget AND save Medicare, thought only nice thoughts, voted 'no' on 209, felt as one with the earth, and ran homeless shelters for orphaned bunny rabbits and fuzzy baby duckies."

"The statues showed that this was a matriarchal, goddess-worshipping society because all the statues were of women. But here's an interesting fact. Our researchers discovered that some of the statues had an odd, fleshy appendage hanging between their thighs. We're not quite sure what function this curious apppendage served. A ceremonial decoration, perhaps. But we almost lost the chance to study them further. One of our researchers was inexplicably overcome with the urge to start knocking these things off with a chisel.

Abu Ghraib Abuse is a Feminist’s Dream, Says Military Expert
By David Thibault
CNSNews.com Managing Editor
May 10, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - The globally distributed photo of a U.S. servicewoman holding a naked Iraqi prisoner by a leash "is exactly what feminists have dreamed of for years," according to a military expert and frequent critic of attempts to integrate all aspects of the U.S. armed forces.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, also believes social-engineering in the military and the degradation of American culture are to blame for the abuse of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib facility near Baghdad.

"That demeaning photo of a female soldier with an Iraqi man on a leash - a woman had to have taken that picture," Donnelly said. "And I understand the other woman soldier has admitted that she did."

Donnelly believes the majority of American women reject what she calls the "attitude of hostility," toward men but she warns the feminist message has a powerful influence on young women.

"In this case, these women may not have been aware of it. But if they've been raised in a culture that you have a lack of respect between men and women, it becomes a little bit more understandable even though it's not excusable," Donnelly added.

Although certain feminists would not admit it publicly, "they're probably quite fond" of the photo showing the Iraqi prisoner being held on a leash, said Donnelly. That's "because it is demeaning to a man -- any man."

continued [..] link

Monday, April 26, 2004
Towards a New Chivalry

Pete Jensen, in his infamous article about chivalry writes, “Nowadays chivalry has become one sided. Not only do women feel free challenge me, I'm expected to give them a five step head start and carry a seventy-five pound pack to "make it fair." I speak gently to them, and they get to berate me like a fishwife. I hold the door, and it's their due. I merit no thanks - why? Because I'm a peasant, as a male. I'm obligated to them, but they are under no obligation in returne. So, speaking in modern terms, we can only arrive at one conclusion - chivalry has been perverted into becoming strictly a regulation of male behavior, of obligating men to behave towards women in a certain fashion, with no commeasurate obligation of a woman to courtesy beyond what she deigns to give.”

However, the perversion of the chivalrous code into something that is self-serving for women’s interests extends far beyond the examples I’ve extracted from Pete’s essay. In today’s modernity, even common courtesy has been confused and intertwined with the modern mythos surrounding chivalry. My thesis for this essay will be that chivalry has not only been perverted, but also institutionalized into the very organizations that form the foundation of our society. I will attempt to show that chivalry is not only an elusive concept, it is also something tangible and real, made distinctive by its uniqueness when contrasted with common courtesy. Indeed, I will show that institutionalized chivalry presents itself as a liability for today’s man, while the practice of courtesy is simply a part of civility.

Institutionalized Chivalry

When most people think of chivalry, they don’t think of things like Affirmative Action for women or favoritism in the court system. Yet I contend that this is the very essence of our collective expression of chivalry. Male prisons for example, have always had worse conditions than female prisons, in terms of facilities. I use prisons as an example, because like men’s washrooms, our facilities are generally worse than women’s in most public institutions (schools, shopping malls, public buildings etc.). If we as men and women think about it, this is similar to how we treat our daughters. We treat them like little princesses. While in itself there is nothing wrong with this, this mentality of chivalristic deference does not evaporate at the higher levels of our society; it simply expresses itself in different ways. Our boys are expected to fend for themselves to a much larger degree for example, while a certain paternal deference and provisions are made for our girls. It is this same extension of chivalry in our public institutions that I term, ‘Institutionalized Chivalry’.

The same case could be made as well for Affirmative Action for women. Bowing to collective guilt and shame, men have raised very little objection to hiring preferences or 55% quotas in favor of women. The ‘Chivalristic’ man would not dare object to such things; after all – he – is a real man. A kind and courteous man, who only wishes to be fair and accommodating. He hears how women have been horribly oppressed for millenniums, and he only wishes to do the right thing, which in this case is to give political pressure groups what they demand. In his chivalristic quest to be fair, such a man has denied himself a level playing field, he has abdicated his fair place, and given preferential deference to one he views as inferior to himself in some way so as to be in need of special assistance. The astute observer will notice how affirmative action for women is never applied to things like trash collection or selective service registration.

Likewise, the same case for institutionalized chivalry could be made of court judges who view women as the perpetual victim, and rule as such. This paternal chivalristic bias exists to such an extent that women face less harsher punishment than men at every level of the justice system; whether it be arrest, conviction, sentencing, or even custody battles.

I submit that the phenomenon of institutionalized chivalry is a factor that adds to the way in which women are treated with (often paternal) preference; as less than full, rational adults in our society. I submit to the reader that such deference on the part of men is irrational, and in fact poses a liability to the free interaction and mobility of men within society.

The case for chivalry versus common courtesy

This brings me to my next point, which I believe is a very important one. As we read in Pete Jensen’s extract earlier, chivalry in modernity has become a concept that is perverted far beyond the bounds of civility, into something that is much more duplicitous that borders on being classified as a feudal relationship with men as peasants and women as noblemen. Pete’s analogy resonates with me because it is based on the comparison with a relationship that has a large degree of inherent deference. This to me, is what has always been the determinate condition between common courtesy and chivalry. These are both concepts with which many people have trouble, as they define them both as the same thing. As we will see, this is clearly not the case.

Common courtesy is easily distinguished from today’s bastardization of chivalrous behaviour as courtesy is something we define as applying to all: the elderly, the unable, and the defenseless. That is why for example, we would define as common courtesy an act such as helping an old woman down the stairs, or opening a door for a man with a large package. Common courtesy is based on need and civility. In contrast, the current understanding of many regarding what passes for chivalrous behaviour is acts like: paying for dates, opening the car door for a woman, pulling out her chair, letting her win, and defending her from slander even at expense to your person(s). This treatise of mine is not a rant against the practicing of chivalrous behaviour to one you love or one who loves you, however. In that case, your chivalry is much more likely to be reciprocated, and appreciated.

What men may find as they continue to practice chivalry in a collective sense, is that they are in fact being taken advantage of. What I mean to infer by that is only the generalities of what most consider chivalry to be. Consider: in any healthy, ethical peer relationship, there is reciprocity. If your chivalrous behavior exists in a vacuum, there is much more of a likely chance you are being taken advantage of. For this reason, I submit that the collective, uniformed expression of chivalry among men is to their detriment. In the 70’s some women lectured men who dared to hold the doors open for them as being too ‘oppressive’ with their expressions of deference towards them. In the year 2004, they are far more likely to utilize your door opening services without so much as a ‘thank you’. Your attempt at expressing what you understand to be chivalrous behaviour is more likely to be met with as an expression of woman’s just due. All of this of course raises the question of whether women are full adults capable of opening their own doors, paying for their own dates, and indeed even subsidizing a man’s existence as a househusband and father.

I am not arguing however, for the end of civility and common courtesy. I am simply attempting to delineate between them, and show how civility and courtesy are possible, indeed quite without chivalry. In the end analysis, I think what we may find lacking in our society is not chivalry, but female chivalry – or – stated another way, the reciprocal reaction for every action. In ideology, theology, and philosophy, perhaps the time has come for us as humans to work towards a female chivalry – a counterpart to our collective expression and understanding of current chivalry.

Wednesday, April 21, 2004

Dead men are healthier than most women, says a new study released by the Propaganda Organization for Women (POW).
"We've long known that women are being shortchanged on health care," says Colleen Hyphenated-Lastname, president of POW. "Now this report proves it."

"Statistics show that women live about seven years longer than men," she said. "Thus women live long enough to suffer a variety of ailments that men never have to suffer. Consider the scourge of osteoporosis -- the brittle-bone disease that occurs in older people. Most victims of this disease are women. That's because they live long enough to get it. Men don't live as long as women, so they don't suffer as much osteoporosis. Obviously, if fewer men are suffering from this insidious and debilitating disease, then men are healthier than women."

"Also, we have found that many widows have a tough time getting by on the pensions of their late husbands. These widows cannot always afford the finest health care. This causes them to suffer from a variety of ailments their late husbands are not forced to endure."

"Some people ask us -- ‘what should be done about men dying earlier than women?' We say that obviously it means we have to put more money into improving the health of women. After all, it doesn't make any sense to spend our scarce health-care dollars on dead people."

"Some backlashers point out that men have higher rates of depression, alcoholism and drug abuse. ‘Isn't that a health issue?' they say. We don't think so. After all, many of the men who have alcoholism or addictions will go on to commit suicide. Once you're dead, obviously you aren't suffering from a disease anymore."

"Meanwhile there are all these living women who suffer from depression. It is our job to help the living."

"Also, suicide is a personal choice. This is one area in which feminists will defend a man's right to choose."

"We also found that dead men are healthier in one other key area. In strict, laboratory conditions, we scanned the brain waves of a random sampling of dead men. For a control group, we then scanned the brain waves of a random sampling of members of our feminist group."

"The dead men scored higher in every respect." -- Per

Friday, April 16, 2004
What are Men's Issues?

Here is a document that delineates the critical men's issues of our time.
More Neat Science!

Minato's motors consume just 20 percent or less of the power of conventional motors with the same torque and horse power. They run cool to the touch and produce almost no acoustic or electrical noise. They are significantly safer and cheaper (in terms of power consumed), and they are sounder environmentally.[..] The magnetic motor will be cheaper than a standard motor to make, as the rotor and stator assemblies can be set into plastic housings, due to the fact that the system creates very little heat. Further, with the motor's energy efficiency, it will be well suited for any application where a motor has limited energy to drive it. While development is still focused on replacing existing devices, Minato says that his motor has sufficient torque to power a vehicle.
Neat Science

"Tuesday on Good Morning America, a representative from Tyco Fire & Security demonstrated an amazing new substance called Sapphire: a water-like fluid that does not get things wet. He filled a small fish tank with Sapphire and submerged a book, a laptop, and a flat panel TV. Both electronics were turned on when submerged; all three items came out completely unharmed.
Per's Manifesto
Well I've been swamped with work lately, so I haven't had the opportunity to post much of what is
going on in the world. However, I have recently resurrected Per's Manifesto from the depths of the abyss (thanks Michael). I think I'll start the day out by posting a reprint of one of his satirical articles. Enjoy!

It's time to discuss the extra burden that gravity places on women, says Colleen Hyphenated-Lastname, president of the Propaganda Organization for Women.
"Feminist scientists on an archaeological dig in Mesopotamia have discovered illustrations of women who seem to be floating in the air," Hyphenated-Lastname says. "This cutting-edge research indicates that there once was a time when gravity did not exist. In fact, these artifacts indicate that society was once gender equal, and women held most high offices of power and controlled the television remote."

"But all this changed with the onset of western patriarchal societies that wanted to keep women down. If there were no distinctions between men and women, patriarchal oppressors had to invent them. And if there was no gravity, the patriarchy had to invent that, too."

"Gravity is designed to benefit men, who have thicker bones and greater upper-body strength. Today, we see the results everywhere of the patriarchy's efforts to keep women down. Gravity causes women to fall to their deaths out of windows or down stairs. It makes buildings collapse, killing women and children. It damages women's cars when some inconsiderate construction worker topples from the tenth floor and bounces off the hood. Gravity makes the complete, leather-bound editions of Carrie Chapman Catt fall off my bookshelf and give me such a smack I can hardly see straight."

"Navy pilot Kara Hultgreen would not have crashed her jet except for gravity. Clearly, she was set up to fail."

"Women seek treatment for depression at far higher rates. Obviously, more women are feeling 'down.' Gravity is just another way in which women's health is being shortchanged."

"This oppression is historical, the product of white, western men who wanted to hold onto power. The laws of physics were written long before women had the right to vote. If women had had more input, the laws of physics would have been kinder, and gravity would have been supportive. Instead, we are shackled with the competitive, conflict-oriented mode of men. Isaac Newton, a typical dead white European male, was obsessed with 'opposing' reactions, even if he hypocritically admitted that some of them were equal. When he declared that for every action there is opposed an equal reaction, he was doing nothing less than defining the backlash. If women had had a chance to shape these laws, their conflict-free style of interaction would have made sure that there were no opposed reactions. All reactions simply would have been equal."

"We can undo the oppressive, patriarchal mindset that would have us believe that gravity really represents the 'natural' order of things," says Hyphenated-Lastname. "It will require spending money on programs to elevate girls' self esteem so that they are not held down by artificial concepts of patriarchy."

"This will cost a lot of money," says Hyphenated-Lastname.

"But I'm up for that."

Tuesday, April 06, 2004
'Spin Sisters' Reveals How Media Sell Misery to Women

Paige McKenzie from NewsMax.com reports on Myrna Blyth's (cough, cough,) stunning revelation: women's media promotes victimism for political ends. Now to those of us in the know, this isn't news. Mostly these portrayals on Oxygen etc. show men in a very bad light indeed! They are shown as abusers, scoundrels, and rapists. Rarely does ANY media portray men in a positive light anymore. The net result is the psychopoliticalization of women for politically expedient totalitarian ends. If you are not in the know, take a gander at what one of the top executives in the field thinks.

The networks began to mimic the magazines, writes Blyth, with “hyped-up stories of murder and mayhem, usually at the hands of abusive husbands or boyfriends, evil corporations, or incompetent doctors. It could be you!”
Television executive and "20/20" creator Av Westin, which helped pioneer many news magazine shows, told Blyth: “We started every story with a victim. That’s what we said. We need a victim. Find me the victim.”

Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Is There Really a Fatherhood Crisis?

Stephen Baskerville explains how the governments of many Western nations have concocted a 'fatherhood' crisis
as a ruse to expand the intrusive machinery of state into our private lives, and to expand the criminal child support collection system.

"Virtually every major social pathology has been linked to fatherless children: violent crime, drug and alcohol abuse, truancy, unwed pregnancy, suicide, and psychological disorders—all correlating more strongly with fatherlessness than with any other single factor. Tragically, however, government policies intended to deal with the “fatherhood crisis” have been ineffective at best because the root cause is not child abandonment by fathers but policies that give mothers an incentive to initiate marital separation and divorce." link

Monday, March 29, 2004
A ride through Chernobyl
Well, there isn't a whole lot going on in the world that I'd like to comment on today.
This is really interesting.
A Russian lady takes a tour through Chernobyl on her bike.
Friday, March 26, 2004
If Men Have All the Power, How Come Women Make All the Rules?

Another free e-book that will
be of special interest to male readers, from rulymob.com. Check it out.
Breaking the Shackles -- book promotion
This is a free e-book I found over at Mensactivism.org. "For Centuries , shame was used in western culture to coerce both men and women into conformity with sex roles that were limiting at best, and frequently onerous. As women's liberation worked to free women from the shame of breaking long-encultured taboos, it became almost standard practice to blame men for the origin and maintenance of these constraints. [..] But from birth, males are also subjected to another devastating shame message. It tells men, with almost hypnotic effect, that we should feel ashamed simply because we are male. Whatever we may call this message—The Shame of Maleness (Schenk) or Basic Male Shame (Gagnon) – it places us in a Catch-22 predicament. We are shamed when we deviate from our traditional gender roles, but shamed also when we conform to these same roles. The book explores the sources of this shaming."
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Shared parenting
Interesting transcript from SBS's Inside regarding
shared parenting after divorce. [..]TONY MILLER: They certainly are. You know one of the things I'd like to see to be honest with you - I'd like to see is that we can somehow tie in that our child support payments with access and I know people don't like that, but as an enforcement to make sure that we are allowed to see our kids. At the moment, look, 98% of the guys that we see - and we saw nearly 7,000 men last year - are not getting to see their kids. They're frustrated with the system.

Dave Sim: Genius among men

Well really. Who else could have written a 6000 page epic comic book that took 26 years to finish? WITHIN THE WORLD OF comic books, Sim has achieved something unprecedented in length and focus: 6,000 pages all telling a single life story, all written and drawn by the same man. But he's not much loved for it. Somewhere along the line, Sim decided he had a mission with his story. Its theme became the evils and perfidy of feminism, in all its varieties, especially the notion that a man ought to cleave unto a woman and become one flesh. [..] Sim's representation of himself as the embattled last defender of reason and masculinity against the Marxist-feminist axis that he thinks rules the world has marginalized him, to the point that he seriously seems to expect an angry mob of feminazis to lock him up for thoughtcrime. (Well, he is Canadian, so perhaps that's not so unrealistic a notion.) Brian Doherty of The American Spectator editorializes.

Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Ginsburg ignores the constitution!
AIM reports

Here we have a case of a sitting Supreme Court Justice associating with a partisan political group, bashing the Bush administration, and ignoring the U.S. Constitution while citing foreign courts and rulings in making her decisions. (ed: !!!!!!) Yet the media go after Scalia for going duck-hunting with the vice-president.

She, and every other judge like her should be forced to abdicate.
Kidnap a Child? No problem! We'll give you free counselling!
Heaven forbid we actually hold her accountable and give her, uh, well you know....a DETERENT?

Traitor to freedom

This is from The Bleat blog, and he has an excellent rant against the utopian left. Ahh freedom. The freedom to be an idiot, the freedom to be a traitorous bastard. All I can say is that this guy is lucky he is hiding his face.

Powered by Blogger This counter provided for free from HTMLcounter.com!