Austria Austrian police have staged a series of raids on bakeries across the country acting on information that their doughnuts do not contain enough jam.

And quite right too!

It is absolutely outrageous that the good folk of Austria should arrive home after a hard day's shopping only to find when they have poured the tea and settled themselves in front of the TV that their doughnuts are acutely and heinously jam deficient.

What is the world coming to?

The European Union in its infinite and incontestable wisdom - Praise Be To Chirac - has made it abundantly clear that jam doughnuts must contain at least 15% of jam and that there should be a perfectly reasonable three-year prison sentence in store for those who have the audacity to think otherwise or who have the nerve to suggest that doughnuts should not really need to be defined by a percentagewise determination of their constituents.

In the UK, however, in a clear demonstration of just how feeble and lacking are politicians when it comes to the defence of those liberties considered most precious by citizens, the government seems to have willfully defied this most reasonable and scientific of nutritional dictats. 

No Sirree. Jam doughnuts in the UK do not need to have any jam in them at all! 

The only requirement appears to be that there must be a whopping great hole in the centre of the dough with sufficient volume to accommodate a tennis ball. 

And should some paltry and highly suspect and circumstantial filling of any sort be discovered therein by one's roving and unsuspecting tongue it is nowadays considered best to regard the entire episode as a particularly fortuitous occasion worthy of some celebration and perhaps later also to send a grovelling letter of undying gratitude to the manufacturers lest they never allow it to happen again.

A fabulous idea.

No more stupid people; i.e. no more political correctoids or women gullible enough to support those hateful feminists would ever again be born!

Also ... "Watson, no stranger to controversy, also suggests that genes influencing beauty could also be engineered. "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."

Another fabulous idea!

Women should be granted an inalienable right not to be ugly.

And the UN should pass an urgent resolution to this effect forthwith.

Yo!

Now, talking of ugly women, let AH let his younger readers into a little secret.

Bar the extremes of ugliness, which is actually pretty rare these days, the desirability of womenfolk when based upon their prettiness is akin to that of little children comparing the taste of sweet and fruity juices to that of beer or whisky.

Figure out that one if you can!

The success of this pill would be a significant step forward in the liberation of men who, currently, for complete safety from unwanted pregnancies, have to rely - foolishly - on the competence, the honesty and the integrity of the females with whom they are conjugating - qualities which are clearly so lacking in many females these days that unwanted pregnancies in the UK exceed those of any other European nation.

Too often have men been defrauded of their futures because they have been hoodwinked into trusting their female partners.

And remember that there are some 180,000 abortions per year in the UK. These, too, are 'unwanted pregnancies'.

AH recently saw a report showing that one of the main reasons that young teenage women became pregnant even though they were taking the contraceptive pill was because they did not understand the instructions! 

For example, some of these hapless females thought that they only needed to take the pill ONCE in order for it to be effective for the next 24 hours. Others had actually inserted the damn things into their vaginas believing that this is how the pill is supposed to be administered. 

And, as we know, many others, preferring free accommodation, 'liberation' from their parents, and welfare cheques - as well as money from the luckless semen donors - to a forty-hour week working in Woolworths, manage to get themselves pregnant by deception.

Indeed, a male contraceptive pill could have saved Boris Becker £3 million - a sum which he paid to the woman who had sex with him just ONCE inside a dank but roomy broom cupboard! 

But, of course, he shouldn't have had to pay a penny! (e.g. Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to have a Baby?)

Whatever the circumstances that prevail whereby men are essentially deceived into creating babies, an effective male contraceptive pill would afford them a great deal of protection, and it would give them far more control over their own reproductive capacities.

And it is about time that this happened!

And, of course, not only is it in the area of unwanted pregnancies and abortions that such a pill would save many men from the failures of some womenfolk. There is also the huge question of paternity fraud, in which large numbers of men - currently estimated at about 10% - are bamboozled into believing that they have fathered children when they have not. 

And a male contraceptive pill would clearly protect many men from such a circumstance because any pregnancy while using it would be highly suspicious and decidedly worthy of further investigation.

The article then goes on to describe her roaring success without once giving any evidence for all the prejudice that she allegedly had to fight against.

Indeed, by the time she was 23, she already had her own TV show! - i.e. she couldn't have had to fight any prejudice for very long.

Compared to most black men this queen of bullsh*t probably doesn't even know the meaning of the word prejudice.

And quite right too!

How can politicians possibly discuss serious national issues if their voices are being crowded out by the ghastly racket being generated by Ms Marshall's most recent of uterine evacuations as it sucks and slurps furiously at her plump moist teats?

Was this inconsiderate woman also expecting to remove her neonate's sticky and malodorous nappies while her highly distinguished parliamentary colleagues struggled to engage in both instructive and forceful debate?

Is there anything else that this woman would require of her country?

Are there no ends to the demands of western womenfolk?

Hi Jack

Let me point out just three things.

1. About 20 years ago, for some reason which I cannot quite remember, I read some in-depth research about the effects of an advertising campaign promoting Pan Yan Pickle - a sandwich spread. The advert was being displayed in different months in various TV regions in different parts of the UK, and the resulting change in sales in those regions was being very closely scrutinised by the manufacturing company - Rowntrees, I think.

Anyway.

Most of the advert consisted basically of a middle-aged man sitting peacefully by the river eating his sandwiches and watching his fishing line - with a monologue to do with how nice and peaceful fishing was. 

Only toward the very end of the advert was some association made with Pan Yan Pickle i.e. the product was hardly mentioned at all throughout the advert.

The findings were that product sales more than doubled in those regions where the advert was shown - which, to the company, represented MILLIONS of pounds.

I was astonished. Not only because the product was hardly mentioned in the advert, but because it also didn't have anything directly to do with fishing!

And my point is this.

The 'plots' of adverts are almost inconsequential. Provided that they produce a good feeling, they can succeed wonderfully well.

And so the male-bashing found in so many adverts these days often arises simply because the advertisers want to connect their product with a storyline - any storyline - that has a 'good feeling' to it.

Humour often produces a good feeling. But, in today's climate, while humour is permitted at the expense of men, it is not permitted at the expense of women.

This a major problem for the advertisers.

2. My guess is that, for the most part, advertisers are not particularly setting out to bash males, but they have to come up with something! However, they wouldn't dare poke fun at women, because the feminists would be after them - which means, basically, that they can only poke fun at men.

3. I do not think that people realise just how powerful, dishonourable and manipulative are those leading lights in the feminist movement. For the most part, these are very nasty emotionally-dysfunctional hypercritical women who are full of hatred toward men. And by disseminating their false propaganda they manage to hoodwink very many gullible women into supporting their cause. If advertisements portray the female gender in any negative light at all, these gullible women are easily aroused into making hundreds of complaints.

Never mind.

We will soon obliterate the feminists from the scene.

AH

Ten year sentence - for yapping at an American woman

A large pizza feeds a family of four!

ZZZZZZZZZ !

"Ooo Ungry Hurry. It eez so goot ist bing yo hosse clooner. Ant mie Engleesh ist improveng. Yest? I well pooter dis mopper ant bukketer ere, ant fo yo makjer ay nicer cup off the tee. Yest?" 

Well, what a surprise!

As AH keeps saying, unless they change the teaching methods, these amazingly incompetent politically-corrected educationalists will achieve very little.

Having said this, the bottom 5% of 'normal' children (i.e. those without recognised specific learning disabilities such as 'dyslexia') have amazing difficulties when it comes to their ability to deal with symbolic information - letters, numbers, words, formulae etc.

And these 'normal' children are mostly not very bright in other ways too!

However, many teachers have been trained over the years to believe that children do not vary in terms of their cognitive abilities - a clear demonstration of how almost unbelievable is the stupidity and/or deceitfulness of many educationalists in the universities - but, the truth of the matter is that children differ enormously in terms of their abilities.

Their differences emulate those between a Pentium III and a 486!

And some of them, of course, are actually brain damaged in some way, despite the fact that this may not be very obvious - particularly to those professionals who believe that differences between children are merely caused by their environmental circumstances.

And now here is one of AH's anecdotes! 

Some 12 years ago he came across a woman teacher with some 8 years of professional experience who was explaining why the following clue in a junior crossword for 7 year-olds was sexist and should not be allowed.

"A girl may wear this to a party. dr..."

The reason was, she argued, that the question implied that only a girl would wear a dress and, further, that it would encourage girls to wear dresses.

It was eye-rolling stuff!

Anyway.

It also transpired that her firm belief was that the only reason that children differed in terms of their academic performance was related to their economic circumstance, and that the concept of intelligence was nothing more than hot air. 

And no amount of argument would change her mind on this.

But an opportunity arose to relieve her of this ridiculous notion.

It happened by chance that two boys, aged 10, arrived in her class having been transferred from other schools.

Boy D was transferred for being too Disruptive and aggressive in his last school - a normal primary state school.

Boy P had been in a Private school with a significant reputation but he was just unable to cope academically and so he was withdrawn.

Needless to say, Boy D's academic performance was not as good as was Boy P's, by a long way!

And here is the interesting thing. Both boys had been investigated by Educational Psychologists to understand the reasons for their 'failures', and as part of their investigations, the IQs of the boys had been assessed.

Now, these IQ tests suggested that Boy D, the Disruptive boy, was, in fact, much brighter, by a long way, than Boy P, the one who had been to a good Private school..

And our feminist teacher was made fully aware of this when she looked at the reports on them. The IQ results, she dismissed completely.

And, of course, the 'proof' of her position was in front of her!

After all, Boy D was economically poor - living on a council estate. He was of mixed race and lived in a single-mother household. And his academic standard was low.

Conversely, Boy P, whose parents were well-off, middle class, white, and willing to spend a fortune on their son's education, was far more advanced than Boy D.

Case proved!

Until, that was, our feminist friend actually had to teach the pair of them.

Well, to cut a long story short, Boy D was very soon sitting near the top of the class with hardly any effort, while Boy P had barely progressed at all. In fact, according to our feminist friend, he seemed to have gone backward - which was probably the case.

And so the IQ scores meant something!

However! To give this feminist woman her due, the evidence before her completely changed her attitude toward IQ tests and toward claims about the nature of intelligence, and she began to see - and admit -  that she had once been taught, and believed, a lot of politically-correct nonsense.

She had seen the light!

But Angry Harry! Did she change her views about the dress question in the crossword? 

Did she? Did she? Did she? 

Well, the truth is that AH doesn't know.

But, probably not!

But he failed in his attempt!

Still. No matter how much you hate your lawyer - or, even more likely, her lawyer - murder will achieve nothing. It will do the exact opposite of what you really desire.

If on occasion you feel like murdering a lawyer or two - and don't we all!? - then do it with words on the internet.

Kill the lawyers with your grammar, your punctuation, your vocabulary and your stocks of verbal weaponry!

"Hurry up Woman! It's freezing out here."

But the very notion reminds AH of an off-the-cuff remark that he once made many years ago and which did not go down too well with those who heard it.

Whilst having afternoon tea with a few others in the sunny garden of a friend whose daughter was celebrating something or other - her first experience of domestic violence probably - a rather large dog with big teeth in the adjacent garden - safely ensconced behind a wooden fence - perchance started to bark and snarl at him rather viciously for no apparent reason.

The hostess smiled at AH sympathetically. "She doesn't like men," she said, offering him a sandwich.

"A feminist bitch then!?" AH retorted most cleverly - expecting rapturous applause from all those around him. (female dog, bitch, get it?)

But nobody even smiled.

And so AH shortly thereafter skulked off to the living room and spent the remainder of the afternoon in the company of a pair of old grandmothers who kept busily dipping biscuits in their tea and talking about their families while the laughter from a TV game show playing out in the background oftentimes attracted their attention.

But there was a ray of light that cheered him up.

After about half an hour, one of the old dears suddenly looked away from the TV and peered over at AH with added scrutiny.

"Are you the one who dislikes feminists?" she asked sternly - out of the blue.

"Er. Yes. Sort of," AH replied, completely thrown off guard.

"Good for you," she said, nodding approvingly while turning back toward the TV. "I don't like them either." 

And, fortunately or otherwise, the conversation never went any further.

But it was enough!

The Future is Female

And, according to the article, they also do most of the housework and the child-rearing!

Ah yes, feminism. The great liberator of womenfolk.

Further, of course, the more that women go to work, the more taxes will they pay.

Excellent!

It is about time that women paid more for the governmental services that they vote for and use. 

Even now, they still put far less into the government pot than they take out of it - whereas the converse is true for men.

So, AH says, Let them do more of the housework!

Indeed, men live for five fewer years than do women. So why should they waste their fewer and more precious years doing housework?

Eight wives! And every one of them turns out to be a harlot and a hustler!?

This just goes to show what scurrilous schemers and cunning connivers are these Brazilian womenfolk.

The proof is now in.

Women the world over are nowadays nothing more than heartless hussies and heinous hos!

Hmm. Sounds good!

But, reducing the voting age to 16? Hmm. AH doesn't think so. 

At the age of 16 people are far too young to understand the ins and outs of life. They're butt-full of emotions and crazy ideals.

And the politicians will end up pandering to them!

Free food for everybody! Yeeeesssss!

No more schools! Yeeeesssss!

No tax on alcohol. Free transport. Join Europe. Join the world. No borders. No immigration rules! 

Yeeeesssss!

Giving 16 year olds the vote is a ridiculous idea.

They will have an effect that will push us in the wrong directions.

They should be listened to, of course. 

But only people over 25 should have the vote.

And people over 50 should get two votes! 

And people over 75 should get three votes! 

And people over 100 should get four votes!

V = int(a/25) 

The power of Maths!

In AH's opinion, the votes should be weighted in the direction of greater experience and general wisdom.

But Angry Harry, there are four times as many women as men over the age of 75. The male vote would be completely swamped!

Hmm.

And therein lies the flaw.

But there are many solutions that come to mind!

A good solution to such a diabolical and heinous form of sex-discrimination against men would be to take back the vote from women altogether.

After all, what have they done with it, except to create the most unwholesome mess?

Anyway. What was the point of giving women the vote?

Whom did it benefit?

Not AH!

That's for sure!

Men should just take it back and say, "OK. OK. You've had your fun now. You've had a fair chance to prove that you are worthy of such a privilege. But you failed the test. It's time to get your arse back into the kitchen to make the tea."

You see. Women will never do anything worthwhile with the vote.

It's like giving a typewriter to a female chimpanzee and expecting her to write like Shakespeare.

It's like giving candy to a five year old girl and saying, "Share it with your friends."

It's like giving an adolescent female a mirror and telling her not to spend all day looking at it.

Giving the vote to women was the cultural equivalent of giving the population the Black Plague.

It has caused no end of hardship and misery.

And a good solution is for men to take it back!

That would put an end to all this sex-discrimination!

Ah yes. Here in the UK, where we spend eight times more on women's health issues than on men's, and where people even with cancer have to wait some considerable time before they are seen or treated, and in a country which has one of the poorest results in Europe when it comes to cancer treatment, we manage to find the money to pay for women to enlarge their breasts despite the fact that the health service workers are constantly complaining that they are short of resources.

In one English county demand has risen to such an extent that psychologists are now asked to vet the women with small breasts and decide who will benefit from breast enlargement surgery. 

Sounds like a job for AH!

"Hmm. Let's have a look at these liitle things. Get them out. Hmm. Not bad. Turn to the side a little. Hmm. A little on the flat side. They feel quite firm though. And they rub quite well. Hmm. Put your hands on your head. Hmm. Jiggle them up and down a bit. Hmm. No, I don't think so. Come back and see me next week and I'll see how they are progressing. That'll be fifty pounds."

There are real fortunes being made in this ever-growing breast industry.

And AH would like a piece of the action!

Just found your site; wonderful. I have been off work for several months due to sickness. Day time TV nearly drove me mad, it consists of a diet of largely anti-male anecdotes, and apologists for some appalling behaviour by women.

I used to be a male feminist, but my experiences of the last few years, particularly of the way the law operates in relation to divorce and child custody has drastically changed my opinion of the gender balance of power.

(I loved your article on multi-tasking. I am a neuropsychologist and from my reading of the literature there is absolutely no evidence to support the view that women are superior at multi-tasking).

Good luck 

S

Thanks S

Those afternoon programs used to drive me potty when, about ten years ago, I found myself parked daily in front of the TV for a couple of hours during the daytime.

It was wall-to wall carpeting of male hatred - including great adulation and applause for women who, for example, had killed their partners or, say, who had managed to have men sacked from their jobs for sexual harassment.

I remember one woman on John Stapleton’s show boasting how, over the past few years, three men had lost their jobs after she had reported them for sexual harassment. Three of them! And these were in completely different jobs! One of these had been an ambulance driver who lost his job after 20 years of service. Another was in some American company. And I have forgotten what the other one was.

This woman actually looked like a dog. And it was impossible to believe that anyone would harass her sexually - unless she was up for it.

But the female audience applauded her for her 'bravery'.

It didn't seem to occur to anyone that SHE was the common denominator.

Further, this woman was basically trying to arouse the female viewers to allege harassment in their own jobs in order to demonstrate their power and to advantage themselves in some way.

The whole rationale behind these programs seemed to be to generate a hatred of men and to inspire within the female audience an urge to attack men and to view any of their actions of which they disapproved as some form of 'abuse' - domestic violence being a very popular theme.

They were being daily trained to hate men and to regard much of their normal behaviour as abusive.

What was also clear was the almost ecstatic pleasure that the women were deriving from recognising that they were becoming so 'powerful' in that they were now being enabled to destroy men with impunity - and often merely by making accusations. They were actually getting high on it.

But I now haven't watched daytime TV for some years.

Has it gotten any better? I just don't know.

But I do know that a big backlash is on its way!

AH

The future is female.

The polls show that men are consistently more supportive of a war than women. Doesn't this 'prove' that men, rather than women, are more likely to try to resolve their problems using violence?

Or do you have someother theory to explain the difference?

Jane

Hello Jane

Well, statistically speaking, of course, it is not surprising that women are less likely to want to put up with the aggravation and expense of a war. After all, statistically speaking, they are far less likely to be killed or to be maimed as a result of a war. Indeed, history shows quite clearly that while the men mostly get killed off or badly damaged by trying to fight off those who would, for example, wish to invade their lands, the women, statistically speaking of course, can often survive by opening their legs.

Perhaps this is why women are less inclined to war when it comes to the defence of their own people. 

You see. They have much less to fear from the enemy.

Statistically speaking of course.

Well. That's one of my theories!

AH

AH always does his morning exercise before breakfast.

ZZZZZZZZZ !

"Oh Angry Harry. Are you really, really, really sure that if I cut my hair and dye it blonde you will still find me desirable?"

Trisha, the one whose TV chat programme has, in AH's view, probably done more to damage UK men than any other e.g. see AH's Why Should a Man Bear Responsibility for a Woman who Decides to have a Baby? 

How many times as AH told his readers that the women who continually fuel the hate-stirring propaganda against men are, well, let's just say, not normal?

Hundreds of times.

And from this article it would appear that "Trisha" fits the bill rather well.

Who's the common denominator when it comes to all the disharmony and 'abuse', eh?

An interesting idea!

Perhaps someone out there can produce something similar in relation to men's issues.

You have missed your Child Support Payment. Do not pass Go. Hand in your licence. Go Directly To Jail.

But, returning to the issue of the 'slave sex' rackets run by the Mafia, it is important to realise that there seems to be a great deal of the customary sex hysteria over this matter - at least in some places.

A recent TV programme that claimed to have uncovered evidence of these heinous rackets fell rather flat when ...

1. A supposed sex slave turned out to be the long-time girlfriend of her so-called pimp. In fact, she simply worked in a brothel to provide money for the pair of them while her boyfriend, her 'pimp', busied himself with trying to find a job.

2. A pair of Ukranian girls allegedly being sold to any westerner who could come up with £5,000 turned out to be quite prepared to sell themselves further down the line if they could be allowed to stay in the country.

3. Because such prostitution is illegal in many places, it was quite clear in at least some of the raids on the foreign brothels, that the women involved had a powerful vested interest in claiming that they had been coerced into the job - to avoid prosecution - when, in fact, not long earlier they did not appear to be suffering from any coercion at all.

None of this is to say that criminal gangs are not involved in abusing women through the sex trade. They undoubtedly are.

But with so many women wanting desperately to get into the west (and one can also seem them offering themselves in western lonely hearts columns) the waters are rather muddied.

As a parallel example, we are often told that heinous criminal gangs are helping to smuggle people out of various countries into the west (e.g. from China) but, in fact, many of these gangs are seen as heroes in their host countries - in much the same way that those who helped to smuggle Jews out of Nazi Germany are seen as heroes.

For many of these people, the west seems to be paved with gold in comparison to where they live. And they often look forward to getting jobs so that they can send money to their loved ones back home. And so they will do a great deal very willingly in order to get into the west - including having sex.

Having said this, AH doesn't know the real extent of the coercive sex trade. He has never researched it.

But where there is much money to be made out of illegal activities, the most serious of criminals will also be found to be engaged in them.

One imagines that there is a whole range of criminal activity within the area of illegal sex, just as there is a whole range within the illegal drugs trade. There are the serious and dangerous criminals at the top - doing the very worst of things - and there are those who are far less serious, dangerous or terrible at the bottom - the vast majority. 

This is the way that it tends to be!

However, the hysteria that is usually generated these days by those who seek more funding and/or more power tends to exaggerate the problems enormously. And the abuse industry - particular when supported by the feminist lobby - is one of the very worst offenders in this respect.

Only 2%?

What do they mean by 'only' 2%?

How on earth are women in their 80s and 90s managing to have any sex at all?

And what kind of sex are they actually having without breaking anything? This is what AH would like to know.

And where are the luckless men who are undoubtedly being ruthlessly and rudely forced into giving these feeble old skinbags some sex actually coming from?

Ah yes. Perhaps from the planet Krypton.

Yes, that must be it!

When the lights are out and Doris has finally set her teeth fizzing away in the glass, through the doorway appears a handsome rugged-jaw hunk with the pectorals of a polar bear dressed in leotards.

What other explanation is there?

Human men are mostly dead and gone by then, surely?

And the few remaining men who do survive to such an old age can barely walk and talk, never mind hump and pump.

Men who manage to survive into their 80s and 90s have heart disease, brittle bones, arthritis and mental problems. How can they possibly be having sex?

It simply cannot be.

Is it really possible that the tiny number of men who have actually managed to remain breathing at this age are actually doing all the rounds sexually fulfilling the 2%? You know - perhaps sneaking themselves into all the rooms at the nursing homes.

And how do we know that this 2% of ancient women were actually telling the truth in this telephone survey?

Maybe they were lying or misunderstood the questions.

"Have you had any recently?"

"Whaaat?"

"Have you had any recently?"

""Whaaat?"

"Sex!?"

"Yes."

"You've had sex!?"

"Whaaat?"

"Sex!?"

"Did you say, Sex?"

"Yes. I said Sex!"

"Whaaat?"

Well, you see the point!

Nevertheless, some of these old codgers clearly never give up trying! ...

From: "Brittany Spears"

Sexy teenage college girls get naked and do explicit hardcore scenes live on your screen! Sweet young babes ... the girl next door type ... ones you'd never expect to see swallow a huge load of goo. You are not going to believe what we have in store for you...

Best Of All Its Free For 3 Days

Even many Jews began to hate Jews in Nazi Germany so successful was their demonisation!

When people are continually portrayed in a manner designed to demonise them, they are also demonised in the eyes of their very own group! And this is why men can be made to have such little concern for other men.

Further, women are probably far more able to demonise men in the eyes of other men than they are able to demonise men in the eyes of women.

Women were biologically designed to manipulate men.

The feminists have managed to capitalise on this by a thirty year campaign of hatred, intimidation and deception via the government and the media in order to demonise men while mounting an enormous propaganda campaign designed to portray all women as victims - no matter what they do. Even when they kill, they are still regarded as the victims!

Reinforcing this attitude in young children is the notion that boys should not cry etc etc. They are not supposed to experience, nor to show the consequences of, pain. They are supposed to grin and bear it - which, actually, is pretty good advice - but it adds to the notion that no-one needs concern themselves about the welfare of men.

I am not actually convinced that women have a much more 'sympathising and caring nature' than men. I suspect that very much of this depends upon upbringing and culture. I used to believe it to be true, but I'm not so sure anymore. I rather suspect that the oft-propounded 'sympathising and caring nature' of women has far more to do with how women go about exerting their influence over people - and children - than most men would recognise. 

'Internally' I do not think that women are necessarily connecting as deeply to others - empathically - as men are led to believe by the ubiquitous propaganda. I think that it is mostly just makeup - a deception - like the stuff they put on their faces.

Furthermore, very much of the behaviour that is typically exhibited by women seems designed specifically to induce 'sympathising and caring' for themselves! 

Not only does one see this very often in real life, but there is a daily carpet-bombing of it right across the media throughout the western world!

Women are victims! Women are victims! Women are victims! 

This is the constant drumbeat of women demanding more 'sympathising and caring' for themselves.

This is today's daily headline. 

And this is why billions of dollars are continually pumped into all sorts of programmes to help women - even where the men are far more deserving of any aid (education, family, health, etc etc).

I'd say that today's western women - as a whole - are extremely selfish, self-centred and uncaring. I don't see them as being 'sympathising and caring' at all.

And I suspect that throughout much of western history the same has been true.

As a further point, I do not think that it is the ability of women to cooperate and collaborate with each other that has brought about this huge influence. The movement against men has very much to do with Marxist politics in academic circles, the influence of very dysfunctional women in the media, the ease with which women can be falsely portrayed as victims, the growing selfishness of women which is fairly well disguised, the huge influence of the abuse industry and the government which grow fat by stirring up the problems, and the corporate desire to please women because of their greater purchasing power when compared to men. And there are a host of other reasons which would take me ages to run through. But I do not think that cooperation and collaboration amongst women is a major component in all of this.

Finally, it is worth pointing out that most women are not actually benefiting from feminism and political correctness. They think that they are, but they are not. For example, men are far less likely to be very committed in their relationships with them. And women are often now having to do the cooking, the cleaning, the child-rearing while also having to go out to work. And the numerous serious ills brought about by feminism affect women badly; e.g. see The Benefits of Feminism

One day they will begin to wake up to this.

And when they do, they will probably become more 'sympathetising and caring' again.

But it will be too late! e.g. see AH's Tuesday - the perineum of the week.

Best wishes,

AH

The notion that rape is worse than many other things that happen to prisoners of war is politically correct feminist bullsh*t. Even the feminist Germaine Greer has claimed that she would rather be raped (which she claims she already has been) than have her little finger chopped off or be beaten up.

Indeed, a TV advertisement for British Telecom currently doing the rounds throughout the UK suggests that rape is actually something to have a good laugh about - the rape of a male, that is.

"Well, I would have reported it sooner Sergeant, but I didn't know I'd been raped until the cheque bounced."