Emily Maitlis

According to the feminist-dominated BBC's Newsnight team, Hillary Clinton's failure to secure the nomination was because America was absolutely riddled with 'misogyny' - the BBC never stops trying to stir up hatred in women towards men.

It was truly pathetic. And the relatively empty-headed (in my view) Emily Maitlis ...

... kept desperately trying to goad her interviewees into blaming misogyny for Hillary Clinton's demise.

I was almost cringing with embarrassment on her behalf while watching her.

What is it with these empty-headed feminist women who believe that anyone who does not like them or who does not approve of their views or support their cause must be a misogynist, eh?

They are utterly ridiculous.

But, thankfully, my sanity was restored when Brendan O'Neill (who writes in the Guardian, on Spiked, and all over the place) and Rod Liddle (in the Times) poured scorn on this notion and pointed out that misogyny had absolutely nothing to do with Hillary Clinton's failure. 

Indeed, the fact that she is a woman probably gained her millions of extra votes judging by the huge amount of college-campus and media feminist activism that was deployed to encourage American women to vote for her.

And it all failed - Ha Ha Ha.

The political power of the feminists is clearly a-weakening!

Yo!

And a similar defeat for the politically-corrected feminist-dominated left was delivered in London, where a very leftist London Mayor, Ken Livingstone, was beaten at the ballot box by Boris Johnson - a rightist candidate.

And this occurred despite the fact that Ken Livingstone was well-liked, very popular and had not been a particularly bad mayor at all for the past eight years.

So, what is going on? 

Is it just a coincidence that two popular heavily-supported high-profile lefties were tossed out by the voters over the past few months (one in the USA and the other in the UK) or is there something connecting the two?

Well, I'll tell you - without charging you a cent.

A significant proportion of the public is finally waking up to the fact that our long-time, 'experienced' left-wing politicians are precious little more than self-serving crooks.

And the MM is now having some CONSIDERABLE impact when it comes to spreading this point of view. 

So, MRAs, please keep up all your activism - because it is getting through.

Which reminds me.

I had a bit of a contretemps a couple of weeks ago with a woman who turned up at my door asking for donations to Amnesty International.

"I would rather throw my money into the river," is what I told her.

"Why?" she asked, looking shocked.

"Because Amnesty International seems determined to hide the fact that men are the majority of victims of violence."

And, if you can believe it, her reply went something like this.

"Well," she replied defensively, "women between the ages of 15 and 44 across the world are more likely to die from male violence than from war, cancer and traffic accidents combined."

I was struck almost speechless.

But not quite!

"Well, there you go," I retorted. "You've just done it!"

"Done what?" she said.

"You've just given me an alleged fact about women being victims. How's about a statement from you about the men who have died in the various circumstances that you are talking about. Tell me how many."

"I don't know," she replied.

"Well, I'll enlighten you then," I said. "There are many times more men dying from 'male violence' than there are women.  But you do not know the figures concerning this. The only figure that you seem to know about or care about concerns women."

"But it is men who are the cause of violence," she said.

I knew that it was pointless talking to her.

"Goodbye," I replied. And I closed the door - thinking that if ever this country was invaded by some murderous hostiles then I would probably hope that no man would ever risk his life - or even his little finger - to defend this woman. After all, she would simply later categorise him as a 'violent male' - and his death or debilitation as a result of attempting to protect her would not count in any of her statistics.

Besides which, she would most likely end up sleeping with or marrying one of the hostiles if they were victorious.

Both, probably.

Women are such hussies when you are not looking at them.

IF WOMAN.VISIBLE = FALSE THEN HUSSY.REALITY = TRUE
IF WOMAN.VISIBLE = TRUE THEN HUSSY.VISIBLE = FALSE

(You think I jest, eh? No, Sir. Women are more likely than men to cheat when on holiday.)

Indeed, I remember well when I first noticed Amnesty International disappearing 'men' from their list of victims. It was during the long period of crisis in the Balkans. Thousands of ***UNARMED*** men who were being killed - simply because they were men - were barely being commented upon in the mainstream media, and Amnesty International's focus was always on the 'fleeing refuges' ... "70% of whom are women and children" being a phrase that was constantly used.

The dead men and the fleeing male refugees were simply expunged out of the story.

They did not exist.

And, needless to say, we also kept hearing far more about the alleged incidents of rape during the crisis than we ever got to hear about the thousands of decidedly murdered men.

And I decided that, thereafter, despite all its good work, I would badmouth Amnesty International until it made some major effort to point out to the public that the vast majority of victims of violence are men! - not women. 

Because that's the kind of wicked dude that I am!

LOL!

But also because IF influential organisations like Amnesty were to goad men into thinking that, "it is outrageous for the likes of me to be killed/executed/tortured/mistreated etc," then the effects that Amnesty allegedly wants to bring about across the planet would more likely take place.

It is soooooo obvious!

As it is, however, the media, the politicians and Amnesty itself do their very best to hide the fact that men are the vast majority of victims and so, guess what? -  the men around the planet think, "Violence? Who cares? It doesn't affect me, Matey. ... ... ...  Nope. No men refugees there. ... ... ... Nope. No dead men there. ... Nope. No reason for me to be concerned."

In other words, if men were allowed to become conscious of the fact that it is they who make up the vast majority of victims when it comes to violence then men would more likely want to do something about the scale of violence that Amnesty is forever complaining about.

And, of course, all this hatred towards men being perpetually fuelled by the likes of Amnesty International simply increases the levels of violence across the world - because 'men' are only portrayed as the perpetrators - not the victims!

(And so every man thinks that every other man is an aggressor or 'perpetrator' of some sort - which, of course, then leads to men being aggressive towards other men - for safety's sake, if nothing else. And then the whole thing escalates.)

Duh!

Now, I am not suggesting that men are not very often 'aggressors' and 'perpetrators', because they surely are. But, firstly, the percentage of men who fall into such categories is not as high as is constantly being portrayed - particularly so when it comes to harming or abusing women and children - which, percentage-wise, they rarely do - and, most importantly, REGARDLESS of how high this percentage is, the perception that men are nearly all 'aggressors' and 'perpetrators' - and rarely victims - is simply going to make matters worse - as per above.

In other words, we will never solve the problems of 'male violence' or 'abuse' if men are continually portrayed in the way in which they are currently being portrayed.

Unfortunately, however, western governments, feminists and the abuse industry profit greatly by demonising men and, collectively, they have huge power.

Not for much longer, however.

Anyway. I highly recommend this fairly academic piece by Dr Adam Jones to new readers who want to learn more about the way in which male victims are forever being kept out of the picture; Effacing the Male -  a repost from a few months ago. 

+

Exposing The Lies Of The Abuse Industry The domestic violence industry is reeling from a recent series of high-profile scandals, leaving abuse workers to wonder how things could have possibly gone so wrong. Carey Roberts

+ Exposing Domestic Violence Shelters - Video - 50 min - Another video in the women’s shelter series in which a mother from Ontario, Canada describes her horrifying experience residing in women’s shelters in Ontario. 

In the shelters where she was a resident, women were beaten, robbed, intimidated and sexually exploited. Children were exposed to violence, swearing and abuse by the women and often witnessed their mothers being abused and humiliated by shelter staff. Children are being taught that being “Canadian” and respecting yourself means to hate fathers, lie to your own parents and to call the Children’s Aid Society on your mother if you don’t get your way.

The DV industry always seeks to suggest to the public that its refuges are positively overflowing with women fleeing abusive partners. Well, here are some facts that you should know about.

1. Many DV shelters are filled with women immigrants who have nowhere to live. It suits the government and the feminists to sneak these women into DV shelters. The government benefits because it hides the true scale of immigration and the feminists benefit by being able to claim that their DV shelters are full up with 'abused' women.

They are not.

Without the influx of immigrant women, many would be virtually empty.

2. Of those women who are residing in DV shelters as a result of domestic violence problems, the evidence suggests that most of them are, in fact, the main perpetrators of domestic violence, not the victims of it.

3. Just about all the staff who work in DV shelters are virulently anti-male and/or they are lesbians - many of the latter being highly predatory. Indeed, predatory lesbians make up a significant portion of the anti-male 'abuse' industry; e.g. see my piece Clit Shortage Fuels Envy.