Selected Emails

Hi Harry

I have been reading your articles for hours and basically I agree. However, you are blaming the radical women who could have done nothing on their own. It is like husbands blaming their wives when it is the attorneys that file all the papers and make all the decisions.

I cannot convince you in a brief email. However, why do the think the press and the laws are so much alike in UK, USA, Australia, and Canada. If they were truly independent countries, there would not be so much similarity on women's lib.

Nick Rockefeller told Russo that the elite families created and financed the women's lib movement so they could tax another half of the population and so that the children would be trained by them in government schools rather than in the context of the family unit. (See the video interview.)

It is the international bankers that own the federal reserve and the national banks that make all the decisions. They own the printing press, they can create hundreds of billions if necessary to finance whatever. With the printing press they have purchased control of the media and entertainment industry. If they didn't agree, the radical women would have no outlet. They certainly don't have the money to buy the media. These international bankers control most of the politicians, the judges, and most every aspect of government. Few politicians can get elected unless they are supported by the media.

Maybe there is a men's movement, but they don't have a hundred billion and cannot raises 1/10 of one percent of that. And neither could the women. You are limited to the internet and maybe at best a million in donations. The bankers, using the government, radical women, and the media will outspend you and men's movement by more than 10,000 to one.

I always have some degree of hope; however realistically, it may be hopeless. Look how bad it was for the slaves before that world revolt during the Roman times. Until it gets that bad, or almost that bad, it is unlikely that the men will revolt.

D

Hello D

Let me state quite categorically that I do not have any doubts at all that very powerful forces are behind the feminists and their aims. And I mentioned some of these in my piece entitled Fathers Groups Miss The Big Picture.

It is quite clear to me that bankers, corporations and governments are well aware that they have very much to gain for themselves if they can continually stir up gender disharmony and, further, that they are doing exactly this. 

To me, this is blatantly obvious. It is as clear as daylight!

And, as you say, this is why, for example, 'feminism' is rapidly taking hold across the world.

The forces that promote feminism and relationship breakdown are incredibly powerful. Unimaginably powerful.

But I tend to view them as arising from huge self-serving organisms that dwell amongst us rather than as the result of a few highfaluting social engineers (senior bankers, Bilderberg, etc) lording it over us. 

I do not doubt that such social engineers exist at the top of the tree - the 'Illuminati', in the view of some - but these people simply could not wield such huge power without the aid of the forces of the self-serving organisms of which they are merely a tiny part.

If you like, these social engineers might be the train drivers - but they are not the train!

My favourite way of demonstrating this is with reference to the senior Japanese car-manufacturing executive who admitted that the TV adverts for his cars (which showed women kicking men out of moving cars in a humorous way) were likely to make women feel more assertive and more aggressive towards men and, hence, as such, his company would likely sell more cars to women as they became increasingly independent of men.

In other words, this is just one example of how stirring up gender disharmony can result in the sale of more products - in this case, cars. But the same can be said of very many other products - or 'services'; such as those provided by governments.

However, the advertising department of this Japanese car company would be tiny in comparison to the tens of thousands of workers who actually build the cars, distribute them, sell them to the public etc etc. And it is also tiny in comparison to the number of people who actually buy the cars.

And so my point is this.

Yes; huge power is being wielded by a few people working in the advertising department of this Japanese car company (the 'illuminati' of the company) when it spends internationally millions upon millions of dollars in such a manner that stirs up gender disharmony, but this power is, nevertheless, dependent upon the millions of other people who are necessarily involved in the buying and selling of these cars - and, of course, this includes the customers who buy the cars.

And if some of these people - one or two million, say - decide that they are unhappy with what the advertising department is doing, then, in my view, the advertising department can quite easily be persuaded to change its tune.

Indeed, if just a few of those people in the 'powerful' advertising department can be persuaded (through fair means or foul) to change their point of view or, perhaps, if they become disenchanted with what feminism is doing to them, then, once again, the huge power that they wield can be diverted.

And, of course, if the general public can gradually be moved towards experiencing misandry as distasteful - rather than as humorous - then those in the advertising department will have to switch tactics in order to sell their cars.

Harry

Hi Harry, 

im aware i have mailed you several times with issues that concern me, but on BBC News today there is just something i can not ignore.

Apparently the Stock Markets are wanting to decrease the number of young male traders because they cant think clearly due to testosterone. They want to employ more women who are supposedly "more sensible and rational". Perhaps older men too, who have reduced levels of testosterone.

Harry i really dont know how much more i can take of this. Men are being treated like animals and now refered to like animals who have no control over primitive violent instincts. Somehow mailing you regarding these issues makes no difference to how this angers me. Nothing will change.

Harry, i have a degree in psychology and another in history. Psychological research has shown that men are on average slightly more intelligent that women. This is a scientific fact that even female psychologists have come to accept. Im beginning to think that all boys should have their balls cut off at birth so we can just get this emasculation of society over and done with as quick as possible. It is really driving me nuts now.

You predict a future where women will be able to select the gender of their unborn child, thus creating an unbalance in the male/female population. Isnt this what everyone wants?

I have ZERO respect for women now. A woman must earn my respect, untill then i will treat women as they treat men. I will reduce a woman to a victim of her hormones who is unable to think in a rational term, I will be outspoken about male IQ levels being higher. ... Every opportunity i have to degrade women and demoralise them, i shall take and enjoy.

Enough is enough

T

Hi T

You're in a good mood today!

LOL!

Harry

Angry Harry you are so cool. Take a look at this. It will put a smile upon your face.

http://tinyurl.com/2b5akf

What time will you get back tonight?

M

Stop pestering me with your emails Bi#ch, or I'll find a Russian woman who can cook.

About 8.

Yo!

H

Yo! again!

BTW; That devious ho's cholesterol level turned out to be 3.5. In other words, she is probably going to live to be 100. So, Yep; that's right Boys, Angry Harry, man o' the world, and slayer of all things foul and feminist, is probably going to be stuck with this scheming harlot for another four decades.

Oh cruel world. 

Cruel, cruel world.

Firstly, I must apologise if I have not replied to your emails, but I just do not have the time.

Anyway. Here are some short answers to questions that keep cropping up. They are in no special order, and I am now going to zap through some of my emails to refresh my memory.

1. Yes. The MM  is very definitely growing. I do not just say this to keep the troops motivated.

2. No. I have not visited a forum in ages. I know that some people post stuff on forums on my behalf - and it sometimes looks as if it comes from me - but me it is not.

3. Yes. I do nowadays post various comments on mainstream media sites - but not under the name Angry Harry. I have a fistful of aliases and email addresses. However, most of what I write goes on this website.

4. No. I am not a  police officer or a closet agent for MI5, MI6 or the FBI. I genuinely believe that our law enforcement agencies need to be able to access more information about potential terrorists or criminals. In particular, I want a national DNA database to be set up, and I can see no valid reason for being scared of one.

5. No. I am not a racist. I couldn't give two hoots about the colour of people's skins or their racial backgrounds.

6. No. I am not concerned that some of my articles might induce aggression against government officials such as judges or politicians. Why should I be concerned? These people seem to have no qualms at all about destroying completely the lives of others. Indeed, how many men commit suicide and even murder as a result of the policies of these self-serving corrupt officials? 

Hundreds every year - in the UK alone. 

And they do not give a damn.

7. No. I have never had any aggravation at all from sources allied to government.

8. I do not link to MND because MND does not link to me - but, yes, I do visit MND. Furthermore, I think that Mike LaSalle deserves far more support and credit than he ever gets. And if MND was to vanish, it would be a monumental loss to the MM.

9. Yes. I do like Glenn Sacks very much. Indeed, I think that Glenn Sacks is a truly top-notch activist - and, quite probably, the best all-round activist in the MM. 

10. Yes. I do receive emails from feminists but I do not post them up. I see no reason to give feminists a voice on this website and I can see no benefit that would arise from doing so. Besides which, they never really say anything of value. Their emails are usually completely devoid of anything but worn-out empty-headed unsubstantiated assertions - usually coupled with a strong sense of victimhood.

Women are victims. Women are victims. Women are victims. 

Women are just as good as men. Women are just as good as men.

... just about sums them all up.

11. I am 56 years old.

12. Heretical Sex is my favourite blogger - closely followed by CoolTools4Men.

13. Yes. I think that politicians like Harriet Harman should one day be prosecuted for purposely, knowingly and maliciously stirring up hatred towards an entire class of people - men - for persistently deceiving the public, and for corrupting the justice system to such an extent that hundreds of thousands of men every year are treated absolutely appallingly as a result.

Indeed, I think that it is important that people like her are strongly punished and publicly vilified so that never again will our politicians willfully stir up hatred towards their very own people and cause so much distress and hurt to so many of them.

It is one thing for politicians to make mistakes. It is quite another for them to persist in causing serious - and, often, lifelong - damage to people - particularly when they are fully aware of what they are doing.

Which she is.

14. In my view, the most important issue that the MM should currently be addressing concerns 'the government'.

I believe that most departments of western governments need to be reduced in terms of both size and power. Their ability to interfere in the work place and in the home needs to be diminished. The amount of red tape needs to be cut down dramatically, and all policies and procedures relating to political correctness need to be discarded; e.g. no more 'diversity' or 'gender equality' officers, no more corrupt family courts, no more prosecutions of men without strong evidence that a crime has actually been committed etc.

I also think that government officials should be prosecuted when they cover up wrongdoing, whereas government whistleblowers should be protected by law from any retribution.

And I could go on!

But I won't.

I will just say this.

Very few of you out there realise just how malicious, uncaring and self-serving are those who nowadays work in the higher echelons of government. You are bamboozled by their smiling, friendly faces and their tendency to speak in calm, measured tones.

But they are experts at doing this sort of thing.

It's their job!

But, behind the scenes, they are laughing at your stupidity.

They do not give a damn about you; certainly no more than you give a damn about people who are so far removed from you that you barely know they exist.

You - all of you - are just an irritating rabble as far as they are concerned -  a rabble to which they simply have to pay lip service.

But these people have one aim, and one aim alone - to serve themselves.

And we suckers have allowed them to take enormous powers away from us - especially through the tax system and the law - and so, through one avenue or another, they can serve themselves very handsomely indeed.

So, all in all, if you must vote at elections, my advice is that you vote only for a politician who promises unreservedly to reduce the tax burden - because this is one of the simplest ways to reduce the power of those in government.

15. My favourite books are to do with Science. My favourite 'films' are documentaries - though I quite like good thrillers such as the Bourne series.

16. Yes. Everything I write, I believe. And nowadays I really do try my best not to exaggerate - unless I am attempting to be humorous - but, sometimes, my anger gets the better of me - and so I sometimes find myself having to re-write bits that I posted earlier.

And now I am off to bed.

I am a bit worried at the moment, and I need to rest myself, because my missus is going off to have her cholesterol checked tomorrow morning - and if its level is but a micro-nano-milli-mol outside of the optimum, it's lettuce leaves, boiled cabbage, tofu and porridge for everybody for at least a month!

Hi Harry,

Tracy Brooks falsely accused 5 guys of rape, and avoided jail. The story shows up on a daily mail web page and a Sun web page, but the BBC has so far not covered it, on TV, radio or even the internet. I phoned their complaints department, and have had THEM write to ME, explaining why they chose not to cover the story. I ask you to implore your readers to do the same. I have emailed therightsofman , and will email mensactivism next. Let's make this as time-consuming an issue as possible for the BBC, so it remembers not to ignore these stories in the future.

Thanks for your great website, as always.

T

HI Harry, 

I was reading the article by the female Tory, which you were fairly condemning towards, but i think it had some merit. 

"Our approach will not be based on an unrealistic and undesirable equality of outcome. And we will not champion women's rights at the expense of men's rights, because gender equality is not a zero-sum game."

Off hand, i cant think of another time a politician has acknowledged the crucial difference between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity. This usual sophistry is such a common gambit on the part of the feminist. Women earn less, ie they are discriminated against. The outcome is different, hence they claim the opportunities are different, ie discrimination. The lack of women in politics, they claim, is through lack of opportunity, when it is clearly not. I think for politicians to actually acknowledge that equality of outcome is a very dangerous yardstick by which to measure equality is an important step and one that should be praised. The stats that are plastered over the media always tell us about outcome, never opportunity. Imbalances in the former is to be expected, imbalances in the latter is indeed unfair. The sooner the media and government recognise the difference the better. The strain for equality of outcome is appalling social engineering, like the 50% mandatory imposition of females on Scandinavian boards. Funnily enough, we are still waiting for feminism to plead for representation on the front lines in combat, engaging the enemy, representation on dustcarts, male representation in childcare.

O

Hi O

Yep, you are quite right - Theresa May does seem to have shifted the position in favour of greater fairness towards men - and it does seem as if I was little unfair towards her. (And I must confess that I do rather like the woman).

HOWEVER!

I have learned over the years that it is pure folly to back off just because a politician has uttered a few words that you approve of. Indeed, if the feminists were to start squealing about what she was currently saying, she would change her tack almost instantly.

MRAs need to wake up to the fact that high politics is a really dirty game. Those who are not involved in it have no idea just how dishonest, dishonourable and self-serving are those who engage in these things. 

And Theresa May is no different from any other politician who is desperately seeking more power.

As such, 'aggressive' MRAs continually need to put these politicians into positions wherein they can actually 'undermine' them and so deflect their criticisms. That is, the politicians need to find themselves being forced to 'agree' with the aggressive MRAs simply in order to deflect their aggression AND their followers.

Which is exactly what Theresa May is now doing!

And my belief is that she is now doing this because I and others have recently made it quite clear to the Tories that, as writers, we will use our most magnificent talents around the internet to spread about the very sensitive view that the Tories are racist if they continue to ignore men's rights.

Tactics!

And let me explain why some of us have resorted to such loathsome means.

If MRAs were to say, "Please Theresa May, subscribe to our point of view," Theresa May would do nothing - unless this point of view happened to enhance her position. 

On the other hand, if MRAs were to say - and I exaggerate, for effect! - "Theresa May is an uncaring racist bit#ch who hates men. She is always beating down on men," then Theresa May could deflect all this by shifting her position (in favour of men) and, thus, demonstrating just how wrong those MRAs were to say such nasty things.

And by shifting her position, she would be undermining the aggressive MRAs and deflating their supporters.

It would be her 'way out'.

Basically, it all boils down to the carrot and the stick, doesn't it?

In essence, your view is that Theresa May should be rewarded (by MRAs) with a small carrot for shifting her position so that it is (slightly) more in favour of men. I do not disagree with this, in principle.

In practice, however, the heavy stick is far more effective - particularly given that MRAs do not currently have much in the way of carrots in their political larder. Hardly any, in fact.

Furthermore, given that men have had to endure such appalling treatment at the hands of government and politicians for so long now, I no longer experience any guilt over resorting to such tactics.

Unfortunately, the ugly truth about our current 'democracy' is this.

Arguing for men's rights does not bring in the votes.

But being seen as racist (a very sensitive issue) loses loads of them.

I know it. And they know it.

And, in my view, MRAs should stop pussy-footing about with these people and use the biggest weapons that they can get hold of.

Three whole decades of almost nothing but man-hatred from these people is enough!

As far as the 'left' is concerned, forever publicising their propensity to wholesale corruption, self-servingness and downright dishonesty should do the trick.

And then, of course, there are all the lies over Iraq.

Indeed, you only have to look at the news over the past few months to see that left-wing MPs are nowadays continuously and hotly under attack on ALL these fronts. And they are also being attacked personally. 

(Even some of our police officers seem to be involved in this!)

And my message to politicians in all parties would be this.

80% of political activists are men.

And, thanks to the internet, these men are waking up. 

Now, male journalists - and other men who appear in the media - might not yet be able to publicise directly their complaints about "men's rights" in the mainstream media - because these media are still too scared of 'offending women' - but they can damn well vent their anger in the mainstream towards politicians and corrupt government officials by tackling them very aggressively indeed via other issues. 

And this is exactly what is happening to an increasing degree.

Indeed, politicians and government officials are nowadays forever complaining about the outright hostility that they are experiencing from the mainstream media and, hence, from the public in general.

Well, this is going to get much worse unless they wake up to the fact that they can no longer get away with generating, or supporting, all the misandry that bathes us all - because, quite simply, men are increasingly going to react by stirring up hatred towards them on many fronts.

And what I am suggesting is nothing revolutionary - or anything like it. It is a common occurrence for people to raise their heckles over A, B and C when, in fact, it was D that wound them up.

Your children have spent the last half an hour shouting and hooting and driving you nuts? When you go upstairs, you also end up giving them hell over their untidy bedrooms!

And this is what men who are angry at the way in which men are being treated by our politicians need to do. They need to attack those politicians on all fronts and - just as important - they need to let those politicians know what they are doing and why they are doing it - so that they get the message.

Notwithstanding all the above, however, I think that you are right in what you say about Theresa May becoming more sensitive to men's issues. And it seems to me that David Cameron is also being slightly more careful with regard to the way in which he deals with 'men'.

But it is nowhere near enough!

Not by a very long way.

Maybe when we finally get a Minister and a department that is seriously devoted to the well-being of men - as there is for Women - it will be time to back off. But until such time, I will not believe a word they say when it comes to any rhetoric supporting men's rights.

Best wishes

Harry

Harry

your piece pointing out that the Home Office
likes to equate rape allegations with actual rapes.

Only a couple of days ago, on 'The Wright
Stuff', Matthew Wright referred to men being
allowed to rape their wives prior to 1992.
Obviously this is not true because a man could
not *rape* his wife before 1992.

B

Hi B

This is a typical distortion of the truth by those with a feminist-dominated mindset.

In the olden days, if it was thought - e.g. by the police or other men - that you had raped your wife - or any other woman - the chances are very high that you would have been beaten up by them.

Does anyone really think that men who opened doors for women, gave up their chairs to them, etc etc, simply sat by while men happily raped their wives? - wives who would also be sisters, daughters, mothers, friends?

My belief is that a lack of the law in this area arose for at least the following reasons.

1. It was known that it would be virtually impossible to prove rape in marital cases - as is the situation today. And, as with most other prospective laws that cannot be enforced easily, such laws tend not to be enacted.

2. The government did not have the power to interfere with families in those days because, quite simply, the government was not very powerful then. Indeed, officials who interfered with family life were likely to get the whole community raging after them, and this would then lead to the government losing power in many other areas - such as happens today in various crime-ridden communities.

3. Until the huge distortions of the feminists arrived on the scene - buttressed by a mighty force via the media - it was probably well-recognised by most people that many women are prone to lying about being 'abused' in some way - usually in order to get other men to aggress on their behalf. Indeed, one of the main reasons that 'no-fault' divorce was introduced was because government officials - judges - recognised that it was virtually impossible to sort out the ins and outs of people with a long intimate history together who were now fighting each other in the divorce courts.

In other words, the people and the government accepted the fact that when intimates are at each others throats, you cannot get to the truth behind their problems.

Clearly, they still believe this to be the case when it comes to divorce.

(But, perversely, they do not believe this to be the case when it comes to domestic violence and marital rape!)

4. The attitude of both government and the people in the past was very much in line with the view that people were actually responsible for their own personal decisions. (What an amazing idea!) And so, for example, if two people stayed together then that was their choice. If they did not like each other's behaviour then they could always part company. Furthermore, the attitude was that marriage was a very serous affair and that if people embarked upon it then it was up to them to make sure that they had made the right choice, and they also had to realise that they were, in effect, becoming one person.

5. A common female attitude towards sex with their husbands was that they should just "lie back and think of England" whenever their husbands wanted sex when they did not. This is now called 'rape'. The reality, however, was that most wives recognised that their husbands were labouring for many hours every day on their behalf and it was their husbands who brought back the goodies for the family. And submitting to him sexually was part of the deal - something which both parties understood.

And one of the reasons for this understanding was that it was well-recognised that men were mostly attracted to women because of their personal attractiveness, whereas women were more influenced by a man's wealth - or prospective wealth.  

Now, a woman's attractiveness fades over time, but a man's wealth tends to accumulate. And so one good way of keeping the balance was to advise the wives to keep up their sexiness levels regardless of their feelings - hence, "lie back and think of England".

This was not 'rape'. This was part of the deal.

And it was quite a good deal from a woman's point of view.

After all, when the children are older and do not need much care, and the wife has grown older and become less attractive, what is left when it comes to marriage for the man?

Why should he spend his increasing wealth on her?

(Remember: We are talking about 'rape' situations, not about those married couples who got along well.)

Well, part of the deal was that she submitted to him sexually. And if she did not keep to this part of the deal then both men and women would have said that she was unworthy of being his 'wife'.

After all, he continues doing all the work and providing all the goodies - and she is doing virtually nothing. 

(Indeed, this was one of the main complaints of 'feminists' around the 1860s. They were not complaining about rape or domestic violence or discrimination in the workplace. They were complaining about women having nothing of value to do once the children were older.)

Furthermore, the notion that females can get males to do almost anything in return for sex was figured out even before the arrival of chimpanzees.

And you will see women all over the world using sex to get what they want. 

(Indeed, men were actually designed to fall for this kind of manipulation; e.g. see Women and Chimps. Those who failed to fall, failed to reproduce!)

In other words, submitting sexually to your husband was never in the past considered to be a big deal. 

It is only because we are nowadays dominated by the views of dysfunctional feminist women - most of who hate men - that having sex with your husband when you are not in the mood is considered to be an act of 'rape'.

All in all, therefore, it was not the case that it was all right for a husband to 'rape' his wife. The situation was that, in practice, it was not possible to enforce a law which prohibited such an event. It was impossible to determine if such an event had taken place. It was known that women lie about such things. It was believed by both men and women that women had some kind of duty to recompense the men who laboured on their behalf and, of course, it was recognised that bringing the law into 'the home' would likely cause huge disruption to the whole of society - which is exactly what has now happened.

But the claim that it was considered 'acceptable' for a husband to 'rape' his wife is utter nonsense. A husband who did such a thing might have got away with it, but there is no way that such a thing was considered to be 'acceptable'.

And by 1908 ...

The wife has but to scream and appeal to the nearest policeman, and prison, separation, custody of children, and maintenance, are decreed as matters of course. Belfort Bax (1908)

Best wishes

Harry

Dear Harry

Firslty let me congratulate you on a truly wonderful site.

I am a 66 yr old male accountant who has been happily married for over 30 years. I find myself outraged by feminism.

Like you, I remember very well the days of my youth and in no way that I recall were women treated badly by men. On the contrary, women were supported, encouraged, sheltered, protected, flattered both within the home and outside it, with the mother always considered to be the boss at home.

Men opened doors for women, raised their hats when they passed them in the street, and put great efforts into ensuring that women were as comfortable as possible. Millions of men also died in order to protect their values and their way of life.

Yet these obnoxious man-hating feminists have now told lies for many years about the past and about the men of this country with their claims that these men treated women badly They have betrayed outright those very men who brought about the realtively good times that now exist.

It is men that they can thank for what they have, but all they do is pour venom and scorn on them.

I never knew my father because he died in 1944 (in World War 2). For the first half of my life I honoured him with the thought that his death had not been in vain but now I believe that it was in vain and that his life was, in fact, wasted.

Young men today should be rising up against feminism in the same way that my father's generation of men rose up against Hitler. Hatefulness and evil need to be fought, or they will gradually take over and take control.

I salute you for your efforts in trying to rally them.

Best,

GP

Dear Harry

I was alerted to your site recently by a work colleague and am glad to see that you link to the Manifesto Club.

Last week the club received the following email from a Mr Parker.

'Last week I was watching some building work on an empty old school building near me being renovated when two police officers came and demanded my details and photo ID. They said it was because in their judgement I had displayed "an unhealthy interest in children", which was amazing because there was not a single child to be seen, anywhere. The children were all at a brand new building which can't even be seen from where I was standing."

K

Dear Harry.

I have just read your latest article on trafficking entitled “Where Are All The Sex Slaves?” I agree with your comment regarding the substantial incentives for these women to lie, claiming to have been forced into this particulair industry against their will. What a crazy situation indeed where incentives are given to people to lie rather than tell the truth. 

I live in Sweden where prostitution is illegal. This means of course 'illegal to buy' but not 'illegal to sell', as of course all women who sell sex are total victims who are forced into it by evil men or cruel life circumstances beyond their control..... You get my point. 

The concept of free will does`nt seem to apply to females anymore (Did it ever??). Anyway - the feminist brigade in Sweden (almost the entire population btw.) are thus faced with the problem of how to explain why so many young middle class Swedish women still sell their bodies for money, both in Sweden as well as in even richer countries like Saudi Arabia or Japan and, more importantly, why so many eastern european women come to Sweden to “ply their trade”.

Feminists have no real explanation for why young middle class western women still continue to sell their bodies both at home, other than that all these girls are probably addicted to hard drugs. On the other hand these same feminists choose generally to keep very quiet about middle class swedish girls who sell sex in Japan and other rich countries . When it comes to eastern block women though, feminists just repeat the same old mantra - that these women are forced through violence or decieved by manipulative svengali type males who get them here on the pretext of working as nannies or waitresses!

If you are a criminal in Russia or Estonia working in the sex trade, with the job of recruiting, say, 20 women to work in Sweden in an underground brothel then it obviously makes sense to get 20 women who will co-operate and who will work voluntarily rather than instead try to trick or threaten 20 “normal women” who would probably be horrified at the prospect of working as a prostitute. These women would not be “good workers”, neither could they be trusted not to escape and blow the whistle to the authorities at the first available opportunity, ending the whole lucrative enterprise and putting the organisers in prison.

An operation of this scale takes a hell of a lot of organising I would imagine. People need to be employed as couriers to bring the girls over. False work permits and other credentials would also presumably be needed, premises and apartments would need to be rented where the girls can live and work. Maybe most important of all clients/customers for the girls would also need to be made available. All this takes manpower, time, effort and money in order to get the enterprise up and running – it does`nt just happen. There is also a huge risk involved to the organisers too, as the whole enterprise is illegal.

But such an organisation does stand to make alot of money - for everyone involved. If these girls have sex with 5 customers per day at £60 a time then just 1 girl can earn £300 per day!!! That is over £2000 per week or over £8000 per month - taxfree!!! It beggars belief how much 20 girls could earn in a month, but it would be plenty enough to go around I would imagine. Everone wins! – JUST AS LONG AS THE ENTERPRISE RUNS SMOOTHLY and the authorities don`t catch a whiff of whats going on - which is why it would be madness to trick and coerce these women when there would be so many hardened “professional girls” presumably, in these eastern european countries, who would gladly do the work without having to be manipulated or threatened!!!

Even if these women only kept 20% of their earnings then they would still earn £1600 per month each – taxfree!!! How many Russians or Estonians earn that much a month after tax??? I bet that even doctors over there don`t earn that much!

The bottom line is that Russian women come to richer contries like Sweden and sell sex, for the same reason that Swedish women go to richer countries to sell sex – because it is an easy way for them to make a lot of money – much more than they would otherwise be able to make working in a clothes shop or behind a perfume counter somewhere. The majority of these women are not starving and destitute and they are not forced in any way to do what they do. They are exercizing their free will as adults and they do it presumably because they want a better standard of living (materialistically speaking).

My guess is that if these girls are addicted to anything then it is, more often than not, their own consumer spending – rather than hard drugs like heroin.

Regards

L

PS. It happens in Sweden just the same as you described in the article. When these prostitution rings get busted and the women admit to coming here of their own free will, they get penalized and sent straight back. But - if they roll over and play victim, blaming the nearest man, then they are given all the benefits you described.

Dear Harry,

You seem to have an interesting angle on most things so what about doing a piece on peak oil?

See, like most people I was distracted by global warming when the real problem is peak oil.

The reason they want us to stick solar panels and windmills on our roofs has got nothing to do with global warming. Were running out of the black stuff and our slimy leaders are keeping it quiet. In fact we don’t have to actually run out to cause chaos. Just a little less supply than demand and were all stuffed. The oil wars start for real

So don’t let me down harry. Give it the angry harry treatment like only you know how!!

B

Hi Harry,

I just read that 'victims' of rape will be allowed to sue their 'attackers' for compensation ...

... I barely need to imprint on you the significance of this ruling. From now on, women will regularly seek to make false allegations - particularly against wealthy men - since they can do so with full anonymity and are VERY unlikely to be punished if caught-out. Women who make false allegations stand to make MILLIONS of pounds. Due to this ruling, innocent men will lose their lives, liberty and property.

Wealthy men are rendered particularly vulnerable by this ruling. There isn't a woman alive who wouldn't consider making a false allegation if she stood to gain a considerable sum of money.

If I were Peter Stringfellow [a wealthy nightclub owner] I'd be VERY afraid.

I wonder if men will be allowed to seek similar complaints against women who make false allegations? I wonder if PIGS MIGHT FLY!!!

And this doesn't just apply to rich men; ANY man who has more than a few grand in the bank or who owns a house or who has ANY future earning capacity is a potential target.

Regards,

C

Hi C

I would merely add that this ruling is completely consistent with the very essence of feminism - the desire to make it virtually impossible for men and women to have close relationships - in this case, by further encouraging women to make false accusations and by making men more fearful of having close relationships with women. 

As I am forever saying, the major driving force behind the feminists is a hatred of men - nothing else explains what they say and do - and their left-wing friends in power support them because they profit very handsomely indeed - to the tune of billions of dollars - from promoting inter-gender disharmony and relationship breakdown.

With regard to any wealthy men who get taken to the cleaners, I can only say that they should have given more support to websites such as this one!

Best wishes,

Harry

Dear Harry,

I thought you may find this news story of interest, since it is yet another example of the state agenda's attempts to oppress men in the name of 'justice'. Whilst an individual of your experience will doubtless realise this for yourself, the practice described is flawed in both its premise and execution:

In premise, it assumes that the low conviction rate is due to some 'miscarriage of justice' rather than an excess of false accusations. This is nothing new to the Rape illusion.

In practice, the example described to elicit a confession is exceptionally vague ...

Police are considering employing controversial text message tactics to trick rape suspects into incriminating themselves, it is reported.

As an aside, I would like to thank you for all the work you have put in to your site. Having been a male 'victim' for so long, I say without a modicum of insincerity that some of your work has helped my emotional recovery from a mindset that threatened my career. As a male Oxford student, this has rescued my degree and should see me continue my studies in the US in medical nanotechnology. 

Fortunately I no longer feel obliged to earn lots of money in a job that saps my soul in order that I might attempt to please a materialistic Western woman.

Thanks again for your hard work,

P

Hi Harry

I sympathize with your campaigns against the knife block but I am a great believer in free speech. I know from your work that you also believe in free speech so how can you reconcile this contradiction?

J

Hi J

There is no real contradiction between my views on this cursed knife block and a belief in free speech in the sense that, when it comes to 'social' issues, there is no black and white. There is no 'truth'. It is always a question of balance.

And so when I say I believe in free speech I do not really mean that all speech should be totally legal. And my guess is that you feel the same way.

For example, do you think that it should be legal for a woman to go around accusing an innocent man of being a child abuser or a wife beater? - perhaps simply because she wants a better deal in a divorce court. Should it be legal for a woman to make a false accusation of rape? Should it be legal for an influential person to lie and lie about others and, for example, encourage others to kill them? 

I suspect that you would agree that such speech should be illegal - or at least punished in some way.

My concern about free speech is mostly to do with the censorship typically associated with political correctness; i.e. that one should not say certain things - **even when true** - simply because others might be offended in some way; or - just as likely these days - **pretend** to be offended in order to stop others from putting forward a perfectly legitimate, but opposing, point of view. 

This nonsense has gone way too far - with 'men' being just about the only group about which people can say anything - no matter how offensive or untrue.

My concern about free speech has also had much to do with the way in which lofty individuals such as politicians, judges, academics etc seem to have been protected in the past from strong direct criticism about their various nefarious activities; such as downright dishonesty, corruption and lying.

For example, it was not so long ago that the mainstream media never dared to accuse such people of such things.

And, indeed, one of the main purposes of Angry Harry in its early days was to help to break down the unwillingness of people to come out in open verbal hostility toward those who well deserved to be on the receiving end of it. I wanted to encourage MRAs to be forceful and, quite frankly, to be rude toward those who were walking all over men with impunity and treating them as if they were completely worthless.

And the only way to encourage MRAs to do such things was to do them myself and to show them that I 'survived'; i.e. I was not bundled off into oblivion somewhere. In other words, I could get away with it, and, hence, so could they!

True, I did have problems with my webhosters and also with Google and Amazon in those days as a result of my outspokenness, but I am still here!

LOL!

But I think that your email reveals an issue that I have wanted to address for some time, and it is the notion that there is some kind of 'absolute' that one can adhere to when determining what one's viewpoint should be over any given matter.

For example, the idea that, "I believe in free speech," and that, therefore, all speech must be legal (no matter how unfair, how dangerous etc etc) does not seem to be a good idea. 

Similarly, "I believe in the death penalty," would probably have so many qualifiers associated with it that the statement on its own would be meaningless.

My point is that such grandiose statements do not usually remain valid under more careful scrutiny. There are always boundaries, exceptions and complications that curtail them in some way.

And the issue of 'free speech' is no exception.

And as you search and search for 'solutions' to the various problems that we commonly address round here, you will find that there are no simple solutions. They just do not exist.

And so when you find yourself boldly saying, "I believe in A, B or C," as being a 'solution' to a given social problem, the chances are very high that you have not thought deeply enough about the problem, because such problems are usually so inordinately complex that they are much too difficult to grasp.

And one of the reasons that MRAs need to take this on board is that, in my view, too much time is spent on trying to figure out relatively **simplistic**  'societal solutions' to the problems that they face when, in fact, it would be far better if they became 'activists' (rather than 'academics') e.g. see my pieces The Truth About The Truth and Generating Heat. 

So, Yes, I, too, "believe in free speech," But only up to a point!

LOL!

Best wishes

Harry

Dear Harry,

Women love to talk about how they no longer need men to protect them, provide for them or even to be fathers to their children. In reality, women will soon be redundant.

All great works of art, music, literature, inventions, discoveries, etc came from men. Historically, women's only worthwhile contribution has been to bear men children. Men built this safe, comfortable world in which women can be sufficiently independent to treat us with contempt.

But once we have artificial wombs and realistic sexbots, we will no longer need women for sex or reproduction. The consequences will be immense:

And we are closer than you might think. Here is a great article about the progress of sexbots etc:

P

Dear Harry

I come from a family of police officers, my uncle, cousin and brother were all police men in various parts of Britain. One issue which they knew alot about was rape and the difference in the way men and women are treated by the law. My own brother told me a true story about a 15 year old boy in London accused and convicted of a rape he did not commit. This is a factual story known by the metropolitan police in London so i hope you take this as a fact and not just another story about men being punished for rapes they didnt commit. 

What happened was that this 15 year old boy was having sex with another 15 year old girl, during intercourse the girl tried to push the boy off her as she decided she had had enough, but she only decided this as the boy was about to orgasm. Because the boy was entering an orgasm he was physicaly unable to stop himself and pull back when she requested. After it was finished the young girl pushed the boy off her and accused him of rape, this boy was then taken to court and charged with sexual offenses. He was then sent to a young offenders prison, put on the sex offenders register and given therapy for a crime he did NOT commit. By the time of his release he had been through so much therapy that he was convinced himself that he was a rapist.

This story sickens me to my very stomach and makes me realise there is no justice in the world. Women are treated and protected like children and have little obligation to take responsibility for their own actions, which is something they learn since childhood. They are raised and taught by society that they are more important and will recieve more leniency when they do something wrong. When i was talking to my uncle about womens prisons he said to me there was no such thing as a womans prison as womens prisons are 5 star hotels with sky television, fridges and mini-bars in every room. My uncle knows this because as i said he was in the police officer too for over 20 years.

Men are nothing more than pawns now, we are used to pay for the luxurious life that women now lead. We are treated like dirt, monsters and are clearly expendible to a certain degree when it suits women and those in the position of power who want to keep that power.

I studied psychology at university and i can also tell you that rape is a rare crime because so few men are in fact capable of rape. 

In Scottish law there are now plans to broaden the definition of rape so that men can still be convicted for having sex with drunk women who consent and they regret their actions when they sober up. Even being falsely accused of rape is something few men will ever recover from, they can lose their jobs, remain suspects in the eyes of the public and lose their families. Women caught making false allegations are only either fined, given community service or sent to prison for a very short time, which after they have been released have been totally forgotten about.

Men have to fight back in all aspects of society where we are treated unfairly, from education to the law we must fight.

G

Harry,

your view on this appreciated. 

Peter Hitchens expressed a proposal that in order to get more convictions he would like to see rape laws devolved into 2nd degree and probably even 3rd degree. 

I am totally against this,

I say if a man is convicted of any degree of rape his life is virtually over. It is not necessarily the length of term which is important. 

However ,although all my arguments were cogent and totally non abusive using your and other sites conclusions I was flamed for "spam comment". Free speech--huh.

M

Hi M

I must confess that this "degrees of rape" issue is not something that I have really thought about.

And one reason for my lack of thought about the matter is that I do not really see it as being very important.

Why? - because the public's attitude towards women who allege rape is going to continue changing in a direction that is less favourable toward them - thanks to the activities of the MM and, of course, thanks to the appallingly high number of false accusations that are made by lying women.

Furthermore, it is already the case that juries in the UK are mostly unconvinced about the veracity of most current rape claims and, in my view, the more that the justice system is corrupted simply in order to gain more convictions, the more will the public and the juries refuse to co-operate; e.g. see Futile Changes by James Cox - in the Guardian!

Indeed, thanks to the growing MM, and thanks to the internet, the more that men are mistreated, the bigger will be the backlash and the more powerful will the MM grow.

And, of course, with regard to the rape issue, it will not just be 'women' who will bear the brunt of the backlash that arises from this, it will be the justice system and the politicians as well.

But I do agree very strongly with your view that, currently, a man's life is ruined whatever 'degree' of rape he is convicted of.

However, in the long term, I suspect that if there are increasing numbers of men who are convicted of minor degrees of rape - or accused of such, but not convicted - then 'rape' will become something of a joke - a bit like what has happened with regard to shoplifting - and, for example, comedians will start fooling around with humorous scenarios that, allegedly, constitute 'rapes'.

And so, all in all, I am not too worried about the dividing of 'rape' into different degrees because this will help to energise the MM quite significantly while the collateral damage (the number of falsely accused men) will be relatively small.

Indeed, thanks to the internet, the same sort of logic is clearly going to apply in many areas of concern to men. 

In the past, 'men' were unable to protest effectively. And so whenever 'men' were being mistreated or disadvantaged they just had to sit back and take it. But those days are over. And, henceforth, every injustice will play right into our hands.

Ah yes.

Activism!

LOL!

Best wishes

Harry

Dear Angry Harry

I just saw your reference [Homosexual Sadism] to a commercial featuring Mark "Chopper " Read on the Swartz Foundation web site. I absolutely agree with your comments about this. I find the use of threats to men who go to gaol for wife beating rather stupid. What about the women who bash and even kill their husbands but never get gaol time?

What an imbalance! As for Mark Read, he has been on TV over here on a number of occasions notably on the Elle Mcfeast program where he was discussing how he killed other criminals. Disgusting stuff really. He is the author of several books on his life in gaol etc.

I wonder what the publics reaction would be to a TV commercial where women who bash their husbands are threatened with violence if they go to gaol.

It seems that its quite OK to inflict violence on men and we are supposed to just take it . This has got to change, and I think its people doing what you do that will bring this change about. 

Take care

Kind Regards

P

Hi Harry

Are you pro-Zionist? Apparently you are, amongst many other things, according to somebody called AWS.

"One can not be pro-homosexuality and anti-feminist at the same time which the Angry Harry zealots are. Homosexual males are not part of the anti-feminist men's movement. This was the reason Angry Harry lost the first time and will lose again. Angry Harry supporters are website also pro-Zionist which again is not part of the real men's movement. Too bad you folks do not push the real and only hardcore anti-feminist website on the planet which is ... We get many more visits then Angry Harry."

J

Hi J

LOL! x 5

I am neither pro-Zionist nor anti-Zionist because - to put it bluntly - I am an ignoramus when it comes to such things. In fact, the only worthwhile view that I do have about this issue is that I feel very sorry for all those people who are involved in the mess in the Middle East.

And any other view that I might have about such a matter would be decidedly uninformed.

Goodness knows from where AWS got his impression - by failing to read properly would be my guess. LOL!

And by failing to think properly too - judging by this curious statement of his, ...

" One can not be pro-homosexuality and anti-feminist at the same time"

I know many anti-feminist MRAs who are "pro-homosexuality" - at least in the sense that they believe that what goes on in people's bedrooms is no concern of theirs - which is my view. And I am also fairly sure that many anti-feminist heterosexual MRAs will most happily fantasise scenarios involving lesbians!

Further evidence for AWS' lack of thought can be gleaned from the following statement, ...

"Angry Harry supporters are website also pro-Zionist which again is not part of the real men's movement."

... because the Men's Movement cannot be circumscribed in such a ludicrously simplistic black and white fashion. Furthermore, of course, AWS cannot possibly know who my supporters are. He might be aware of some small subset of them, but that's all.

In other words, he is talking out of his backside - which, I think, is fairly obvious.

Perhaps you can inform him, therefore, that among my supporters are many Jews and many Muslims - and quite a few Christians too!

Finally, as a general rule, if you see anyone trying to mark out what ideas and/or who is, or is not, 'part of the MM', then the chances are very high that they have failed woefully to grasp the enormity of what is happening.

Indeed, I have even seen some MRAs talk about "throwing people out of the MM"!

LOL!

How on Earth do you do that?

Thanks J

Harry

Hi Harry, 

You've probably heard David Cameron talking about men "thinking they can get away with rape" and voicing his concern at the number on unsuccesful rape convictions.

I am sure any politician who suggested to Mr Cameron that the reason there arn't "enough" rape convictions is that there arn't enough rapists out there and that many cases that come to court are false would have his or her career destroyed by the feminist lobby.

Cameron also has been droning on about the sexulisation of society? Where is the evidence of a sexulisation of society?

When middle england talks of sexulisation of society what they really mean is that we have too much sexual freedom and we need to go back to being sexually repressed.

Calls from right-wing Daily Mail reading pressure groups to jail porn viewers are evidence of this.

D

Hi D

Here is a copy of my recent email to conservatives.com ...

...................

Dear Sir/Madam

If David Cameron persists in attempting to stir up hatred towards men by perpetuating the lie that men accused of rape in the UK are mostly getting away with their crime then I and my various cronies (and I have a lot of them) will attempt to stir up hatred towards the Tory Party by persistently and publicly accusing the Tories of being racist.

The *overwhelming* evidence is that the *majority* of women who go to the police to accuse men of rape in the UK are, in fact, lying.

Best wishes

Harry

PS I recommend my piece, Rape Baloney

..............................

I trust that you are impressed!

Harry

G'day Mr. Harry,

I must say there aren't many sites that I regularly visit but yours certainly will be one of them, especially after the boiling fury that built up inside of me after reading the article about Steve Jones. [Steve Jones - A Parasite?] It really did make me quiver in anger. He certainly is no man, when he can actively degrade us as a sex for his own financial gains. Sickening.

I am however very interested in this Men's Movement. I will no doubt make an effort to be on the front line, once I finish my degree (and that comment Jones made about more girls going to uni is a crock of bull, because they study useless subjects in comparison to the boys). 

Us men need to put an end to the feminist propaganda that is being spread like a wildfire among the young girls of our communities. I can't walk down the street without seeing men on leashes, depressed and angry.

Thanks for your time.

S

Hi Harry

It is terrific to happen upon your website. Please allow me to air some of my concerns. I am quite moved by discovering your website. 

I am concerned with all aspects of Men's issues, but was actually moved when I read your comments about Bobbitt and how people interpret this level of female violence and violence in cinema and on TV. I totally deplore how mainstream TV in the UK will happily portray violence towards men. I feel so passionate about this subject that I discuss it with colleagues and friends. Seemingly there is much lethargy towards this matter which infuriates me.

I have just watched an episode of Hollyoaks and was amazed that a male character was badly beaten by another male character. No warning before this programme which airs at 6:30 pm on channel 4.  

Hollyoaks has many feisty female characters and it drives me crazy as to how these wimmin can hit men and kick them in the balls as if it were normal acceptable behaviour. So in this programme men are victims of all round violence constantly. Yet channel 4 does not warn us about the violence.

Yet, many years ago, Jim MacDonald hit his wife in Coronation Street and there was a whole media frenzy surrounding this episode. I am totally against violence of any description but felt the media circus was a joke. And yet, this character, Liz MacDonald hits men frequently. Why is this different?

The hypocrisy surrounding acceptable levels of nudity in TV infuriates me too. I saw a trail for a TV programme on ITV about 18 months ago. This was aired at around 5pm. The programme was an adult drama starring David Jason amongst others. In the programme there are flash backs to the character's youth. He had been sleeping with another mans wife and therefore had to sneak out of the house naked holding his clothes in front of his privates. We saw his backside as he waddled off down the street. I was annoyed that male nudity could be shown in children's hour without any warning. And yet, in the same week, ITV warned viewers of nudity before Tarrant on TV at 10:30pm. The programme started and went to ad breaks. Before the programme re-started, another warning came up about nudity. I was intrigued as to what we were going to see. A female bottom! 

That was just one of several examples I have complained to Ofcom about. TV adverts, the seemingly acceptability of violence towards men to advertise, for example, a pie for heavens sake. There is an epidemic in UK TV mainstream media and it is caused, I believe, by gay male writers. I strongly believe they act out their own fantasies when writing soaps and the like. 

Dr Who, superbly resurrected by Russel T Davis. As a child fan I was excited at the prospect of the programme returning to our screens, Whilst there was a much needed modern approach to the programme I was furious at how 'camp' some of the episodes he wrote were. indeed, in an interview, on BBC3 the man himself, reffering to a specific episode admitted that he wanted Cpt Jack's backside to be aired. He said he see's women's backsides all the time on TV!! Erm when? 

I strongly feel that gay writers (more specifically male) are living out their fantasies in their writings and getting revenge on ex partners. I am convinced that they feel obliged to push the boundaries further than the last one. This can be seen in the appalling Clapham Junction that was show earlier this year. I was totally incensed at the level of nudity in this programme. We even saw a partial errect penis. I complained to Ofcom but once again received back the usual drivel about levels of warnings before the programme. 

What concerned me with this programme, was not only the negative way in which gay men were portrayed - as if there was nothing to their lifestyle other than sex, anonymous sex and violent sex - it was the expectations of the actors themselves. Whilst I am no prude by any means, i would congratulate any writer who could get his point across in a way without violating an actor's privacy.

I am at exploding point on such matters. I considered setting up a blog but I am so 'brainwashed' in to the sensitivities of wimmin that I decided against it. Anyway, i could never compete with the master.

You are a real hero to people like me. the real problem with men is their lethargic careless attitude to such subjects. I believe its in-bred into them.

Thanks for your time mate.

S

Leeds (UK)

Hi Harry.

Just had to comment on your link to the "Lonely Oldies" article in the Telegraph, pointing out that so many old people have lonely lives; with the inevitable slant towards how much women are suffering:

"The situation is worse for elderly women, who are twice as likely to feel trapped in their homes than men."

Yes indeed. I have tried making this point to government, the medical industry and anybody else with ears and the ability to do something about it, that the shameful life expectancy gap between men and women, a national disgrace in itself, is also simply unhealthy for everyone and creates terrible problems throughout society. But nobody wants to listen. They still think it is wonderful that women live way longer than men, and seem determined to maintain or widen the gap. For example, still no national screening programme for male-specific cancers - one of my regular hobby-horses that runs and runs because nobody is interested in addressing the issue.

But here is another example of the result. Hundreds of thousands of lonely old women, living alone, unable to fend for themselves and living in fear of what may be on the other side of their front doors. And huge numbers of them dependent on others - particularly of course the state, aka the taxpayer - to look after them. Their numbers are increasing and they represent an increasing percentage of the population. A demographic and social time bomb indeed.

Yet all so unnecessary, if only we had learned to value men's lives as highly as those of women. Just imagine how this problem would shrink and be contained if there was, on average, one man of equal age for every old woman. The loneliness problem would largely disappear. The dependency problem would be substantially reduced (men, even old ones, are far more practical than women at solving problems and fending for themselves) and so would the fear problem (a man around the house, even an old one, is a deterrent to troublemakers and a reassurance for women). And if one partner falls ill or has a nasty accident, the other can summon help.

But we have chosen to turn away from such common sense, and insisted on creating a gross imbalance in life expectancy; so that the hundreds of thousands of men who could have been supporting and comforting these legions of old women, are all dead before their time.

And I have to say I find it difficult to muster much sympathy for these women who find themselves alone and vulnerable. A harsh judgement? Maybe. But just think.They have all had a lifetime, indeed a privileged longer lifetime than men, to have done something to help men to share the same life expectancy they have enjoyed. They could, at any and every time of their lives, have insisted on equal funding for men's health care. But they didn't. They could, at any and every time of their lives, have campaigned to improve safety for men at work, to reduce the risks that men face in their dangerous jobs. But they didn't. They could, at any and every time of their lives, have told politicians that they would not vote for them unless they paid as much attention to the lives and health of males as they did to females. But they didn't.

They could even have done something at a personal level to help men live longer, such as taken up a career in andrology. But who ever heard of a female andrologist? Do any exist? We have male gynaecologists by the bucket-load; men who have devoted their careers to improving women's health; but no reciprocal courtesy or concern from women towards men (which is, incidentally, another reason why it would be disastrous to allow women to monopolise the medical profession - it would become just a gigantic gynaecological empire, with men's health issues neglected to the point of extinction. If women specialise, it is only ever in their own health needs).

But instead, these women have just sat back and watched as men died needlessly through lack of proper care and provision, only shifting themselves to complain about how widows are so hard done by. Some of them actively campaigned for the exact opposite of fair treatment between the sexes, and insisted on special protections and additional funding for women's health. Many, many more did not actively join the campaigns for INequality, but quietly approved of them, dipping into their purses to help pay for them and wearing the pink ribbons, while doing nothing to help men towards the same level of support.

Now they have to pay back a little bit of the price for their bias, selfishness and narrow-mindedness; they have killed off the very people who could have been beside them in their hour of need. So they can enjoy their longer life expectancy with its loneliness, dependency and fear. Will it ever occur to them that it could all have been a lot better?

T

Hi Harry!

I am a young woman (from the east) and I am currently preparing an introductory lecture on gender awareness (which is why I stumbled upon your website). Though I don't plan to curse you or anything like that, I just wanted to make a few points. For one, I was enlightened by the first part of your article. It provided a different perspective and I believe in seeing the bigger picture of things. This is precisely why I talk about gender awareness rather than feminism, because like you said, each gender has their own shit to put up with really, and we just have to learn to understand each other.

However, and I don't know if this is just part of that mischievous humor of yours, you do make some pretty outrageous statements. I mean, I am also turned off by angry feminists who go to the extreme (burning their bras and hating all men) but you seem equally extreme in suggesting that things should go back to how they were with women at home and raising children. It may have worked in the past (and in the west) but times are different now. Of course, women can still opt to do that and why not? It would be a pleasure not to have to work, and personally I would like to have children and raise them well, but I feel I have more potential and more talents to explore. Besides, it's not like there's a shortage of employment now. (And here in the Philippines, some wives have to work to help make ends meet.)

I would also like to point out that while you may be tired of being accused of so many crimes as a man, it would be unfair to disregard all the suffering that billions of women have gone through (if not in the west then in the east). For example, in China, female infants are killed or neglected because of son preference. In some countries, when a man offends someone else, that other person takes it out on his sister or wife (throwing acid in her face, etc.). There are actually so many other issues which I won't get into now though. I don't think we have to dwell on them and feel sorry for ourselves as women, but we have to at least acknowledge them so that we can do something about them.

Anyway, maybe it is too much to ask you to consider the state of the whole world when you write. And maybe being too balanced in your writing would cause you to lose your edge (then you would be just Harry instead of Angry Harry, I guess). But you do seem like an intelligent person and you did say you didn't want to be wrong or unfair. So that's my penny's worth.

C

Hi C

Just two points.

1. You are the second woman to claim recently that I am urging women to get out of the workplace and to go back to working at home and raising the children.

But where have I said this?

I have no problems AT ALL with women going out to work.

Au contraire!

I WANT women to go out to work - if they want to.

It is women who, mostly, seem not to want to work - and this is why, statistically speaking, they do not climb as high as men in the workplace.

My only gripe about women in the workplace is when they expect to be handed out preferential treatment.

In comparison to men (and boys), women (and girls) already get enough preferential treatment by the bucketload.

Please tell me where I have suggested that women should not go out to work.

2. Yes, I take your point about the maltreatment of women in the East, but my guess is that men are treated worse - mostly by other men.

Best wishes - and thank you for writing to me,

Harry

Hi Harry

At least three times I have seen you complaining about the publicity about the slave trade. As a black man, this is an important part of history for me. It makes me shudder a bit when you complain about the publicity about it.

G

Hi G

My problem is not really with the publicity about the slave trade, it is more about the manner in which this publicity is dished out and also about those people who are doing it - i.e. the usual politically-corrected culprits when it comes to stirring up hatred towards white men.

And it also mostly seems to me that any talk about the slave trade usually involves some fairly invidious, sometimes sneaky, attempt to blame white men for what was, in fact, a truly international trade; one which has been going on throughout the whole of history - with whites being just as badly treated as blacks.

Furthermore, given that it was mostly whites who first got up in arms over the whole sorry business, whites certainly should not be walking around with their heads bowed any lower than anyone else when it comes to slavery.

I also believe that *much* of the politically-corrected focus on the slave trade has more to do with certain groups wishing to stir up racial disharmony rather than anything else. Indeed, many large groups profit from racial disharmony - including the feminists.

And it also seems to me that if people keep going on and on and on about how various other groups have mistreated others in the past, then there is precious little hope that harmony between those groups will ever prevail.

Furthermore, and for example, we in the UK are aware that blacks are disproportionately responsible for the violence that takes place in our streets, but the media do not keep going on about this.

If they did, you would feel pretty bad, would be my guess.

Well, that's a bit like how I feel about the slave trade hoohah.

I had nothing to do with it, and neither did most people in this country at the time.

By all means, talk about the slave trade. Teach the children about it. But let us not allow people to believe that it was just a white-on-black phenomenon that simply occurred 'in the west' over a few hundred years.

However, having said all this, as an avid reader of this most fabulous website, you must surely be aware that I am - how shall I put it? - rather touchy about the constant criticising - directly or indirectly - of white heterosexual men - because I have had enough of it.

We have numerous faults, for sure. Some of them truly horrible. But, as a whole, we are also, surely, some of the most tolerant people on the planet.

And when it comes to feminism, too tolerant - by far!

LOL!

Best wishes

Harry

Dearest Harry

I just wanted to say thank you for making your brilliant website. It has helped me to feel like I am not the only one with the same views. Especially with the smacking children articles. I find even writing to say that I agree with the smacking children articles hard ,for want of not wanting to appear as though I might abuse my children. If this is the case how will it ever change?

I find that not only do I feel repressed in handling my children but in owning my dog (fear of him doing anything to upset anyone else) dropping my cigarette butt on the floor and attracting a big fine (I do want to put my fags in the bin but its still not nice having the fear there) and numerous other things where I feel I have to tiptoe around everyone else for fear of them making a complaint. I find that people/government/laws want to control everything so as not to experience anything horrible, but where is the freedom if you do not have the freedom to make mistakes? Control is repression. I live in a Council flat and so I see a great deal of the "raw workings of society" and I am fed up. My quality of life is pants. Rest assured I DO try my best to be an excellent member of society!

Anyway, I am not feminist so no "oppressed" comments from me just thanks and gratitude and a little moan although I shant let it get me down (in a non feminist way lol)!

H

Dear H

Thank you for that.

My own view is that it is a serious abuse of children not to discipline them well enough to deal with what society will eventually demand of them. And this involves trying to ensure that their behaviours and their attitudes are conducive to them obtaining at least a reasonable academic and social education and some decent moral standards.

And the occasional smack for some children, in some circumstances, seems to me to be warranted; not only because a whack on the backside at age 6 is better than a prison sentence at age 20 but also because badly behaved children affect negatively the well-being of all the other children and adults who have to dwell amongst them.

Unfortunately for us, however, the abuse industry is an organism that wants to grow. And in order to do this it tries to increase both the amount of 'abuse' that appears to take place, as well as the amount of 'abuse' that actually takes place.

And the smacking issue is an area which allows the abuse industry to benefit from both of these things.

Thus, by suggesting that a smack is an act of 'abuse', it extends the definition of abuse and so brings another area into its remit. And by reducing the amount of control that parents can exercise over their own children, the abuse industry can then benefit from all the various types of abuse that arise as a result of the children in our society being less controllable.

End of pontification!

LOL!

Thanks H

Harry

Hi Harry

I watched a shocking Channel 4 documentary the other night about the murders of "street children" in Honduras. The reporter was Jenny Kleeman. The programme exposed how homeless children, often not even in their teens, are being targeted for beatings and executions apparently by the Honduras police force, or by businessmen acting with the complicity of the police. The reason is that these children form themselves into lawless gangs that terrorise their neighbourhoods, and often commit murders, rapes and robberies themselves. In effect there is a state of undeclared war between the gangs and the state, and the state appears to want to take the quickest and easiest route to winning - by picking out gang members and using the police to gun them down on the streets.

That is the situation in a nutshell. You can read a report summary here and here.

But here is the rub. I watched the programme, and after a short while a truth became apparent: all of these street children and gang members are male. And so, of course, are all the execution victims. But Jenny Kleeman never once drew attention to that fact. She repeatedly, over and over throughout the programme, referred to the boys as "children". It was as if the words "boy", "boys" or "males" were simply not in her vocabulary (I have deliberately repeated her approach at the beginning of this email - shows how easy it is to mislead).

Time and again Kleeman emphasised that this was a war between "adults and children" - in fact that was very much the theme of the programme. You can see the same heavy slant in the above links, one of them written by Kleeman. She refers only to children, children, children. Occasionally youths. But never boys. Their sex has been carefully and deliberately effaced. Could you tell from either of these links that the victims are in fact 100% male? You would have had to see the programme to find out the truth. And I mean see - Kleeman's commentary alone would have misled you into thinking that there must have been girls among the victims. There weren't. 

Of course it is possible that a girl or two might be in these gangs; but I doubt it. Besides, Kleeman did not mention any girl victims, and don't you just know that if there had been any, or even just one, that would have been the focal point of the programme? 

The reality is of course that this is not a "generational" war by adults on children at all: it is a war by the state on boys - a very different kettle of fish. But that truth obviously does not suit Kleeman's political agenda, so she twists it. In fact this is a classic example of how the choice of misleading language can divert you down the wrong path. Because she refuses to acknowledge that the war is against boys alone, and instead keeps substituting the gender-neutral word "children", Kleeman has brainwashed herself, deliberately or otherwise, into thinking that the enemies of "children" must therefore be "adults". Hence her insistence on this being a "generational war" rather than a war on boys - or, more accurately still, a war on those boys who have no home or parental guidance and end up fending for themselves in the savage world of the streets - "abandoned boys". And she is trying to brainwash us in the same way.

I am sure you are aware of this excellent piece by Adam Jones :

Effacing the Male [a long detailed read, but Adam Jones looks closely at how the male victims in the recent Kosovo War were marginalised and ignored by the media.]

Written in 2001. Nothing changes, huh?

All in all, I found the Kleeman programme one of the most grotesquely dishonest pieces of reporting I have ever encountered. Kleeman obviously likes to think of herself as a campaigner for truth and justice; I see her as a dangerously deceptive toad whose misandric credentials mean more to her than any concept of fairness.

Sadly, I cannot find any way of getting this message across to her directly. I could post on the C4 forum or write a letter of complaint to the Telegraph, but will that do any good?

Sorry to burden you with this, but maybe if you stick it up it will get across to a bigger audience. We really must expose this poison and fight it.

Regards

J

Harry-

greetings. I hope all is well with you. I have included a link that you may find of interest. It is an article concerning homegrown terrorists in Germany. Some excerpts:

"What fascinates and deeply disturbs Germans is that two of the three suspects detained in the alleged plot to bomb U.S. installations are pretty much like them - ordinary Germans, not immigrants from another continent or people of foreign heritage. The third man arrested is a Turkish resident of Germany."

and...

"Described as a good and inconspicuous student, Schneider abruptly left high school two years before graduating and enrolled in a technical college, because, according to the daily Süddeutsche Zeitung, he wanted to go to a school "where only men teach." "

It seems that the feminist state in Germany has alienated its own males just as the feminist state here in the U.S..

I'm not surprised.

Best regards, 

K

Hi K

Yep, not long now before the homegrown backlash takes on more devastating proportions.

What I cannot understand is why these terrorists - foreign or homegrown - do not target the politicians and/or their various acolytes with their violence rather than the ordinary people. I am sure that they would much more quickly achieve their aims if they did this. 

As it is, those who are the main cause of their woes and disaffection remain largely untouched.

Harry

PS I love your email address ...

(kevinhatesfeminists@yahoo.com)

LOL!

Let's hope that some more like it are created. 

.............

Which reminds me of an old piece of mine; which I repost here for any newcomers who might be amused by it ...

Some time last year I was having horrendous and persistent problems trying to get my sites uploaded on to the Yahoo server. Despite numerous emails to and from Yahoo's useless customer support team, none of the problems was resolved. So, finally, after much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the ludicrous costs of phoning someone in America, I capitulated and telephoned Yahoo's fraudulently named Customer Service Department to see if anything could be done. 

It was about 4 o'clock in the morning over here and my mood was, well, 'black' would be a good description!

After what seemed like a week, a woman with a Texan accent answered the phone. And the conversation went something like this.

"Hello. This is Mi??chin'> . How can I help you?"

"I HAVE BEEN HAVING A PROBLEM WITH UPLOADING MY SITES TO YAHOO FOR THE PAST TWO MONTHS! AND NOBODY AT YAHOO SEEMS TO BE DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT!"

"I'm sorry to hear that, Sir. Can I have your User ID please?"

"I hate feminism."

"Sorry Sir. Can I have your User ID please?"

"I HATE FEMINISM!"

"Is that your ID?"

"Yes."

Silence.

"And which sites are you having trouble with?"

"Ihatefeminism.com [one of my old sites] and Harrysnews.com."

"And what seems to be the trouble?"

"I'm very sorry but I just can't bear to explain it all over again. Have you got access to the internet while we speak?"

"Yes, Sir."

"Then please go to http:www.whatever - and read what I have written. It is all explained on that webpage."

"OK. Please hold, Sir."

And off she went to visit a webpage on which I had briefly outlined the problems and, would you believe it, on which I had also railed most vehemently at the entire staff at Yahoo's Customer Support.

"Yahoooooooseless" is what I had called them - in big, bold letters.

LOL!

Needless to say, things did not look as if they were likely to go very well when this woman finally returned to me on the phone.

And so while I was left 'on hold' I drummed my nails furiously into my desk - with my mood being considerably worsened as a result of having to listen to a woman with a high-pitched voice singing through my earpiece something about the blue mountains and the green valleys of her youth. And when she got to the bit about the flowing rivers and the handsome man that he once was - before he died, I think - I nearly had a heart attack.

Anyway. About 5 minutes later, Mi??chin'> popped back on the phone and, basically, there then followed a half-hour conversation  - at my expense -