Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - PaulGuelph

The KKK are marching against Black crime. Feminists march against male violence.

The KKK focuses on white victims of black crimes. Feminists marches focus on female victims of male violence.

Organizers of the women's marches are employed in shelters that actively discriminate against men and older boys.

KKK believes in white superiority, while feminists believe in female superiority.

It is the same thing.
MND Guest Commentaries & News

Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Men's Activists: Stop Asking and Start Telling!
by George Rolph

Sometimes I get so frustrated with the men's movement I want to don a bandana, pick up a machine gun and go pay a visit to all those so-called "leaders" of mens groups out there who are doing as much damage to men as the enemies of men are!

Why so angry?

Let me show you something I read today. This is from a press report in Australia:

"The Men's Rights Agency, like dozens of men's groups that have flourished in recent years, has been lobbying long and hard for family law reform. It was delighted when the Howard Government announced a review, and it sweated on the Government's Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill.

"We had high hopes for the law," Price says. "But now I think the whole thing has been a waste of time."

How long will it take to dawn on men that the only way to effect change is not to go cap in hand to radical feminised government (i.e.. The enemy) and beg them nicely, over cups of tea and a plate of biscuits, for the right to be thought of as human beings? You are talking to the wrong people! These are the same politicians that put the laws in place that stole your rights. Do you honestly think they are going to turn around and tell the people who elected them, "Oh, Sorry. We have totally destroyed family life and ruined the futures of millions of kids and men and we have all been idiots!" Anyone who thinks that has no understanding of the average political animal at all.

Politicians do not give a damn about ordinary people. They listen to whoever makes the most noise. They only change direction when it becomes obvious that to carry on will lose them votes and threaten their power base. Ten years ago, as a brand new activist for men's rights and still a little wet behind the ears and timid, I wrote to a news group that I thought talking to politicians was a waste of time. I was howled down as an idiot who knew nothing. Figuring that my detractors were probably right, I kept quiet for while and carried on researching the problems men were facing. Eventually I realised that in fact, it was I who was right and them who were the idiots.

When the suffragettes became militant and turned their rage onto property, governments began to listen.

* "The Suffragettes had existed since 1903, but the first 'official' violent Suffragette incident occurred in 1909, when Mrs Bouvier and a number of others threw stones at the Home Office windows. She wrote in the Suffragettes magazine Votes for Women:

'We had decided that the time for political arguments was thoroughly exhausted, and we made up our minds that the time for militant action had arrived. We decided to wait till 9 o'clock , when we could be sure that the peaceful deputation headed by Mrs Pankhurst had been arrested, then we determined to show by our action what we thought of the Prime Minister in refusing these ladies admission to the House of Commons. That was our motive for throwing stones at the windows.'"

When reading this, note a couple of things. First, that it took just 6 years for these women's patience to run out. By contrast, men are still begging politicians for help twelve years after the first men's movement groups appeared. That women did this at all is remarkable when you consider the times and social conventions in play during the early 1900's. Note also, that once their patience was gone, the women attacked property and not people. This was a shrewd move. Property has always meant more than lives to politicians. Thirdly, prison conditions then were a lot worse than they are today. You have to admire their commitment!

* "They consciously adopted violence as a way to influence the men. Emmeline Pankhurst said: 'The argument of the broken pane is the most valuable argument in modern politics'. In this interpretation, violence was a cold, conscious tactic.

There is a lovely letter to the Daily Telegraph, dated 26 Feb 1913 , which reads:

'Everyone seems to agree upon the necessity of putting a stop to Suffragist outrages, but no one seems certain how to do so. There are two, only two ways in which this can be done.

1. Kill every woman in the United Kingdom .

2. Give women the vote.

Yours truly, Bertha Brewster'.."

* Source:

These women went on to burn down castles and other buildings, set fire to post boxes, shatter more windows, go on hunger strikes, attack art works, get themselves imprisoned and one even threw herself under the kings horse and was killed in the process. What was the result?

Women eventually gained the vote in 1918 when the Qualification of Women Act (1918) gave women over the age of thirty the vote if they were householders. Ten years later, the Equal Franchise Act (1928) gave all men and women aged 21 or over the vote. (Note my bold text).

In 9 years they achieved their objects and not a cup of tea or biscuit eaten. No begging letters to deaf politicians necessary. No members of the public died as far as I am aware, and the women became a real voice in politics. Gradually though, things slowed down and women went back to being non political. In the early 1970's that all changed again. Once more women became militant. Bombs were exploded in an outside TV broadcasting vehicle when the BBC were filming a Miss World Contest. The post office tower in London was also blown up. Andy Warhole got shot, TV news studios were occupied during national news broadcasts. Suddenly, politicians began the listen once more.

Meanwhile, men's groups supp tea and eat biscuits and write begging letters.

Grrrrr! Pass me that machine gun.

So, what am I saying? Do we have to start shooting people and planting bombs? No! I am not saying that, but I am saying that we have to start getting tough. We have to stop asking politicians, (if they don't mind), we would like them, (if they have the time and are not too busy), to possibly, (if it won't put them out too much), pay attention to our pathetic little pleas to be allowed to live like human beings and instead, we must tell them that we aint gonna take this shit no more! In other words its time we fought back like men and not like beaten wimps.

It's time to get militant and it's time to get properly organised. Nothing else is going to cut it.

George Rolph

posted by Mike at 4:17 PM
Do you have any vision for the future other than not liking feminism?

Forgetting about feminism for now, how would you change things to improve the lot of men and boys?

What about social programs, interactions, and general outlook?

If you started from 1950, assuming no feminism, how would you have brought our culture forward to improve the way people live? What would have been your alternate approach?  :?:
The Washington Times ;

21 August 2005.

Driving home from a high school mentoring luncheon held by the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, I contemplated my discussion with the girls at my table.

   They were troubled by the information at the weekend conference. It seemed a few considered themselves feminists. Luce Policy Institute President Michelle Easton's speech -- aptly titled "The Failures of Feminism" -- worried them.

   Now a junior at Drake University, I couldn't help but think of my
own high school days. For all I knew, I was a feminist. Packing up my belongings for that all-important first year of college, I never bothered to categorize myself as a Democrat or a Republican or even a liberal or a conservative. I was 17 and in the middle of that angst/rebellion stage, meaning I no longer went to church with my parents and had purposefully chosen a college 500 miles from home.

   Surprisingly, my otherwise mediocre public high school employed a teacher passionate about American history. Come to think of it, the man is the most objective instructor I ever had. My younger sister's revelation the teacher was a Kerry supporter came as quite a blow. Nevertheless, he taught my Advanced Placement U.S. History class and he did so fairly. We spent a good deal of time on the suffragettes at Seneca Falls,
and I grew to respect the women who fought for equal rights.

   Thus, my view of feminism was neutral, if anything. There was a
general appreciation -- "isn't it nice women have the right to work and vote." I didn't see modern feminism directly affecting me. Equal pay for equal work? Sounded logical. I was OK with claims that women should seek fulfillment outside the home.

   Naively assuming Women's Studies would be a thorough analysis of the obstacles women had overcome and, perhaps, a comparison of the rights American women have versus the rights of women in other countries, I followed my orientation counselor's advice and enrolled in Women's Studies 101. Call me gullible, but alongside courses titled Marxist Principles of Economics, Intro to Women's Studies looked harmless.

   "Harmless" is perhaps the perfect description of how feminist
activity seems to those, like my high school lunch companions, who have yet to experience the hateful wrath of the actual movement. This movement is often glamorous and fashionable present but still ever-present in some shape or form on every American college campus.

   For three hours a week during my first semester of college, my
tuition dollars were spent studying that oppressive beast, the white male. I don't exactly specialize in staying quiet, so for 12 long weeks I was known as the enemy by my Women's Studies professor and classmates.

   Soon after leaving home, I had an <i>"Aha"</i> moment. I stopped hating my mother for her selfless devotion to her children and began looking forward to having children of my own. I voiced this desire in class, in response to a question about any justification of heterosexuality, and it was not well received.

   If you haven't been in a Women's Studies classroom, just imagine a situation where open-mindedness is touted so long as everyone shares the same liberal ideology. Then multiply it by one woman with a Marxist agenda equally fond of saying "America entered Iraq unpre[expletive deleted]pared" and "King George II," to 30 impressionable and self-conscious peers.

   Combine that with assorted readings and film clips shining a
positive light on self-centered, lesbian, anti-male existence, and you might see the feminist movement for what it really is: Anything but harmless.

   Most despicable in my view is the movement claim to represent all women equally. My professor could not get her mind around anyone disagreeing with her. Her open-mindedness simply did not extend to someone with pro-family convictions.

   The Women's Awareness Coalition at my school certainly does raise awareness -- the question is: of what? Trying to explain to a feminist that feminism furthers a leftist agenda, not the rights of all women, is something I think I'll have earned a minor in if I survive the second half of my college career.

   After the mentoring lunch, a ninth-grader wrote to me, "I learned
that most feminists are very confused." I couldn't have put it better



   Miss Sturgis is the recipient of the Phillips Foundation Clare
Boothe Luce Journalism Award at the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute. She is a junior at Drake University in Iowa.
to his rapist? Maybe the laws need to be reformed?

She is probably gone now, but I think that only feminist logic can explain why this is not a miscarraige of justice.
Will that include feminists?

Where would they be deported to? Sweden? :D

How quickly does he think it can be done?

My heart is racing. It just sounds too good to be true.
Main / Androphobic!
Jul 21, 2005, 08:42 PM
The fear of men. That describes feminist organizations. Sounds like a good word to get into circulation. Almost as good as "misandry".

"... and other androphobic organizations, such as NOW and SOW." That sounds right.  :lol:
Main / War of the Worlds - Really Trashy
Jul 04, 2005, 07:26 PM
In this movie the aliens really did a really good job of trashing the earth.  But the movie trashed non-custodial dads even more thoroughly.

According to this movie non-custodial dads are absolute morons, who can't even make a sandwich and they are so lazy they apparently live like animals in their own filth and don't do the smallest bit of housework in their own homes.  They are completely self-centered don't care about their children. Only when their children are about to be sucked up by a people munching monster do they start to care.

The mother on the other hand apparently has no faults at all.

Additionally, they fathers apparently have zero interpersonal skills. Actually I think that is male-bashing rather than father bashing.

I would have walked out, except that I must write a review for my Men's Movie Guide.

Besides it being male-bashing throughout, it just sucked in the entertainment area.

For those who read the book. It is nothing like the book. It is completely changed.

Friday, June 17, 2005

Girlfriend charged with murder

By Steve Silverman
[email protected]

BLOOMINGTON -- A Bloomington woman was charged today with second-degree murder in connection with the fatal stabbing of her disabled boyfriend, whom she claims instigated the incident by attacking her.

McLean County Circuit Judge Scott Drazewski ordered Guadelupe Medina jailed in lieu of $25,000. Prosecutors dismissed a previously filed felony count of obstruction of justice, for which she had been in custody.

Assistant State's Attorney Jennifer Patton said Medina stabbed Alberto Ramos 42 times during the May 26 incident at Ramos' apartment in the 1200 block of Orchard Road. He suffered wounds to the head, neck and upper torso.

Medina, a 30-year-old native of Honduras, reportedly told investigators that Ramos attacked her with a knife while she was in the bathroom. She claimed a struggle ensued in which she wrested the knife from Ramos and stabbed him, according to court documents.

Police found a note written by Ramos that said "Death to Lupe" in Spanish, according to court documents.

The second-degree murder charge states that Medina killed Ramos while believing her actions were justified, but that belief was "unreasonable."

Patton wouldn't say whether authorities believe Ramos was the initial aggressor or comment on the specific reasoning behind the new charge.

But she did say a review of the case by prosecutors determined that charging Medina with first-degree murder wouldn't have been appropriate. First-degree murder cases typically involve deaths in which fatal injuries were inflicted by a killer who had no basis for believing his or her actions were justified.

Medina's attorney, Tracy Smith, said he doesn't yet know enough about the case to comment on a possible defense or Medina's version of the incident.

Ramos, 30, of Guatemala was disabled by polio. He used a wheelchair and only had the use of one hand at the time of the struggle, Patton said.

Patton said Medina showed up at a home seeking refuge the night of Ramos' death. She had cuts on her hand and side, and claimed she'd been attacked by another person in the street, Patton said.

The people Medina was staying with heard about Ramos' death and called police because they thought Medina -- who was about to take a bus to St. Louis -- might have been involved, Patton said.

Medina was located and questioned. According to court records, she gave police the following account:

She initially said Ramos stabbed her but she escaped and left him alive, while a man entered the apartment. She later admitted she was lying about the other man.

She then said Ramos stabbed her in the shower after she told him she was going to leave him. She said Ramos threatened to kill her, but she grabbed the knife away. She said she was examining her wounds when Ramos tried to regain the knife and threatened to kill her.

Medina said she stabbed Ramos in the head and neck but couldn't remember how many wounds she inflicted. She said she was frightened because Ramos had previously abused her and threatened to kill her.

Medina also apologized to police for lying, saying she was worried about her two children in Honduras, according to court records.

Medina has a pending federal immigration case in which she's accused of illegally entering the country.


May. 6 2005 3:43 PM ET

"Fathers' rights group protests in Toronto"

By News Staff

Brad Mastin unfurls a banner for 'Fathers 4 Justice'

A fathers' rights group took its fight for justice to new heights today as one dad scaled the outside of a Toronto city court building.

Dressed in a Superman costume of a blue spandex bodysuit and a red cape, Brad Mastin shimmied up repair work scaffolding outside Old City Hall to unfurl a banner on behalf of the "Fathers 4 Justice."

Mastin claims he's typical of many fathers who've been given a raw deal by Canada's court system after a marriage breakup and have been denied access to their children.

"We cry. We have the same heartache. We have the same feelings... and yet we don't get to see our kids," he told reporters after climbing down from the scaffolding. "This is what it's all about -- equal parenting."

Fathers 4 Justice says that Canada's divorce laws have been skewed against men. They say that too many parents never get to see their children simply because the other parent chooses to deny them access.

And they note that while federal and provincial governments have cracked down on enforcement of child support, they have avoided taking a stand on enforcement of access and equal parenting.

Given that 43 per cent of Canadian marriages fail, and countless studies point to the benefits of equal parenting, the group says that the government needs to focus on righting the wrongs in the divorce law system.

Fathers 4 Justice says that non-violent civil disobedience is their only means to raise awareness of their plight.

Last year in London, England, another branch of the fathers' rights group staged a similar protest. A man dressed as Batman climbed the front wall of Buckingham Palace. The group has pulled off similar stunts at St Paul's Cathedral and on Downing Street.

It's also a scene that's played out over the last year in various parts of Canada. In March, fathers dressed as Batman and Robin climbed cranes and bridges in B.C., stopping traffic and bringing police out in force.

Fathers 4 Justice says their protests that are about to become more frequent now that Prime Minister Paul Martin has ignored a 40-day ultimatum they instituted for fathers to be given equal rights.
Main / What happened to
Apr 27, 2005, 07:02 PM
I visit that site every day, but have not been able to access it for several days now.  It is/was a very good site that selected just the most interesting stories, so I'm a bit troubled by the prospect that it might be down. :?:  :?:  :!:  :?  :?
When I saw thousands of Ukraines camped out in the streets to oust the unlawfully elected President of Ukraine, I was envious.  How is it that they can get so many people out to demonstrate when we can get so few to protest for men's causes? They were so organized too, with tents and food and communications etc.

Did a few university radicals whip this up in a couple weeks? Actually, no. :shock:

In fact, the US government spent close to a billion dollars on the "spontaneous" rallies. The US also sent in numerous trained experts and equipment to organize and rally the people. These US experts had been working in the Ukraine for two years in planning these rallies and with liberal expense accounts. They looked far ahead and planned everything in minute detail.

What lessons are there for us?

1, We need money to get things done.
2, Don't be naive or idealistic about how things get done. Everything takes money and time. Don't be too embarrassed to do the things that are required to produce the desired end result.
3, Don't expect to achieve anything over night. Everything takes time, planning, and patience

Paul Guelph
Montréal, Que., Canada, 3 février 2001  /  No 76    

David MacRae is a software consultant who works out of his home in St. Laurent, Quebec.

by David MacRae
         After six years of searching for compassion from Canadian legal system, Robert Latimer must finally, as the statists like to put it, « pay his debt to society » for the crime of killing a vegetable in human form. After three trials, the Supreme Court of Canada has delivered its verdict. There will be no more appeals. He will spend at least ten years in prison.

         Almost forgotten in the national debate over this case is the fact Latimer's case has finally established the principle in Canadian law that if the Crown doesn't like a jury's verdict, it simply has to appeal to one of its own in order to get it changed. Formerly, the most an appeal court could do was to order a new trial. Yet another limit on state power has been erased.
         Equally forgotten is the fact that Mr. Latimer had an accomplice. He did not make the decision to terminate the existence of his misbegotten daughter on his own. He discussed it beforehand with his wife Laura and they both agreed that it was time for Tracy to die.
A simple error
         Why would apparently-loving parents decide to terminate the life of their only daughter?
         Well, advocates for the disabled may applaud the court decision, claiming that it demonstrates respect for their rights, but the fact remains that Tracy Latimer was not handicapped. As I said, she was a vegetable.  
         A vegetable who knew nothing of life except excruciating pain. She couldn't walk, talk or feed herself. She functioned at the level of a three-month-old. She had already endured several major operations and would certainly have needed many more.  
         After twelve years, her parents decided to end the life of this travesty. No one will ever know whether they did this to end her pain or because they needed to move on in their own lives. Probably they cannot even sort out their motives themselves.
         Whatever you think about the ethics of their decision, Robert and Laura Latimer made a simple error which would have prevented the Canadian legal system from hounding them for six years, destroying their family, slandering their reputation and committing him to prison.
         They chose the wrong person to perform the deed.  
         Had Laura killed their daughter, it is almost certain that no one would have gone to prison. The system would have been sympathetic and sentenced her to « treatment », not prison. This assumes that case would ever have reached trial. This is far from certain.
         There is a vast difference in the way that women and men are treated for the crime of killing their children.
         Surprised? You shouldn't be. Consider.
Female compassion
         In the time between Latimer's first and second trials, Danielle Blais of Montreal drowned her six-year-old son Charles-Antoine in a bathtub. Like Tracy Latimer, Charles-Antoine had a handicap, in his case autism. Unlike Tracy, he had a life. He could get out of his bed. He attended school. He had the hope of one day becoming independent, perhaps even productive.
         Like Robert Latimer, Danielle Blais was charged with murder for her act. Like Latimer, Blais was initially sentenced to two years in prison. Thereafter, the stories differ.  
         The Latimer verdict provoked a national outcry. The Crown appealed with the result, as we have already noted, that he will spend at least ten years in prison.  
         And Blais? Her sentence was suspended. Few people, even in Montreal, have ever heard of her. There was no appeal. Did disabled activists react with outrage at this travesty of justice? Well, not exactly. The Quebec Society for Autistic Children hired her as a spokesperson - to explain how difficult it is to live with autism.
Want more?
         While the Latimer case waited to be heard before the Supreme Court of Canada, in British Columbia Cheryl Baker let her ten-year-old daughter Katie Lynn die from starvation. At the end Katie Lynn weighed 20 pounds. Yes, you read that right. She was ten years old and weighed 20 pounds.  
         In mommy's defence, Katie Lynn had Rett's Syndrome, a severe form of autism and one of the symptoms of this disorder is a lack of the desire to eat. Still, like Charles-Antoine Blais, Katie-Lynn Baker was well enough to attend school. Her mother has never been charged for criminal negligence, let alone murder. Nor have any of the numerous social workers and school officials who watched her die. In all likelihood, no one ever will be charged.
    « Women who kill their children are given sympathy and sentenced to "treatment" while men who do the same thing are charged with murder and sentenced to life. »
         At the same time as the Supreme Court rendered its verdict on the Latimer case, an inquest in Toronto tried to make sense of the death of Jordan Heikamp. Like Katie Lynn Baker, Jordan died of starvation under the watch of social workers and women's shelter bureaucrats. As in her case, society's protectors did nothing.
         Unlike Katie Lynn, Jordan Heikamp was not handicapped. He suffered simply from the misfortune of being born to the wrong woman. She never provided him with any sustenance and he therefore died. Renee Heikamp was charged with criminal negligence, as was a social worker. Still... the result was the same. When the case went to court, the judge threw out the case, absolving both women of all blame. And yes, there was no appeal.
Parenting skills
         All of this points to one conclusion: women who kill their children are given sympathy and sentenced to « treatment » while men who do the same thing are charged with murder and sentenced to life.
         Perhaps it is not a coincidence that women are many times more likely to murder their offspring than men.
         A hospital in Great Britain installed hidden cameras to survey children who they feared to be at risk of abuse by their parents. They found dozens of cases and made headlines about abuse by « parents » and « step-parents ». The Life Channel chronicled the story (this version was translated and ran on Canal Vie as well).  
         What all the commentators carefully hid was who these « parents » were: there was one grandmother, one father... and thirty-seven mothers. Judging from the references to « step-parents », I suspect that the man wasn't really a father either.  
         How did the hospital choose the people to watch? Every case involved previous children who had died in mysterious circumstances. To be more precise, 37 killer moms murdered 40 children. Total jail sentences imposed: 0, even though some of the women confessed when confronted afterwards.  
         About 1300 child murders took place in the US last year. About 500 perpetrators were non-parents, roughly divided between men and women. Of the rest, only 30 (!) were fathers. In other words, mothers were more than 25 times more likely to kill their progeny than fathers. Yet somehow, men are viewed as being more dangerous to their children than women.  
         In Canada, many crime statistics are presented in such a way as to hide female malevolence. As an example, we do not break down statistics on child murder by sex of the offender. Consequently, this information is not available here. However, there is no reason to assume that things are any different north of the border.
         This favoured treatment of women is not limited to child murder. Rose Cece and Mary Taylor, a lesbian couple in Toronto, decided on a lark to kill a police officer. Had a man done so, he would have been convicted with first-degree murder almost without regard to the facts. If not, police associations across the country would have been outraged. In fact, Cece and Taylor were convicted of manslaughter and no one commented.
         At least they went to jail. Women are often let off with suspended sentences. As the Ottawa Citizen said in one case, « husband-killer Lilian Getkate's sentence of two years less a day at home is an insult to our sense of natural justice. » The murderer herself reacted by saying: « I was startled. I took someone's life and I'm not going to jail. Of course I'm surprised by that. » Once again, the Crown did not appeal.
Getting away with murder
         This reluctance to convict women murderers goes back a long way. In fact, it is the reason for the invention of the crime of infanticide at the turn of the last century. Juries refused to convict women of murdering their own children.
         Or their parents, it would appear.
  Lizzie Borden took an axe
  Gave her mother forty whacks
  When she saw what she had done
  She gave her father forty-one.
         What the ditty doesn't mention is that the 1892 Boston jury let Lizzie off. One of the main reasons for this is that her judge, like the one in the Getkate case, practically directed the jury to acquit. Plus ça change...
         One difference between women who are committed to jail and those who are not appears to be familial relationships. Only two women have ever been convicted of first-degree murder in this country. Yvonne Johnson killed a man she barely knew. Sarabjit Kaur Minhas strangled her nephew. In other words, women are given greater latitude when they kill their husbands, parents or children. Of course, they always get some slack - Cece and Taylor are proof enough of that.  
         The discrimination of the courts in favour of women is not limited to murder. It is true of all crimes. Officially, women commit 15% of serious crimes in Canada, almost certainly an understatement of the facts. Whatever the real number, they form approximately 1% of the people in our prisons. Texas statistics indicate that women are actually more likely to commit fraud than men. Despite this, men are ten times more likely to serve time for the offence.
         There seems to be a fundamental refusal to admit that women are capable of committing crimes. When they do, we tend to downplay the act and to view her as the victim, not as the victimizer. A book has been written about the Johnson case. Its title is Stolen Life. Guess whose life the author feels was robbed. It isn't the man she killed.
         While feminism may be partially responsible for this, the answer appears to be more profound. Lizzy Borden's parents died long before the appearance of this form of collective insanity. The reality is that people, in all societies, assume that the female of the species must be protected, even from the consequences of her own actions.
         Whatever. The bottom line is that male misbehaviour, however you to define this word, is treated far more severely than equivalent female crimes.
         Robert Latimer would be free today had he insisted that his wife take responsibility for her decisions instead of doing it for her. So would she. After all, she was never even investigated for her part in the killing, let alone charged, convicted or sentenced.