Saturday, 11 May 2013

Torture, Misandry and Our Antiquated Feminist Fixation

Nicola Tedder

Something that has long troubled me about the Men's Movement is its fixation on 'feminism'. Of course, it would be churlish to argue that feminists like Greer or McKinnon don't represent a serious obstacle in our path. For all that, this fixation often blinds us to the fact that many who do not overtly self-identify as feminists still hate men, or discriminate against them. Further, misandry is embedded in Anglo-American laws, customs and institutions, and inflects every facet of the male experience.

Many MRAs seem to assume that, if only these evil 'feminists' were swept away, misandry would also wither. And that women would instantly transform into sweet-natured angels, brimming over with love and kindness. I consider this a very unlikely outcome, given the all-pervasive nature of misandry in the Anglosphere. Most Anglo-American women - feminists or not - harbour a deep loathing of males, as the following article attests:

Woman, 32, jumped on child’s stomach wearing flip-flops and perforated his bowel in shocking campaign of violence

  • Rubbed his excrement in his face if he soiled himself
  • Held his feet against a piping hot radiator until he burnt
  • Jailed for seven years for causing injuries described as being like 'something from a horror film'
  • Nicola Tedder denied charges and claimed child was 'clumsy' and had injured himself

A sadistic woman who jumped on a little boy's stomach after losing her patience with him has been jailed for seven years. The savage assault led to the child being rushed to hospital with a perforated bowel, Guildford Crown Court heard.

Nicola Tedder, 32, inflicted a catalogue of cruelties on the child, including plunging her fingers into his eyes, holding his feet against a piping hot radiator until they burnt and clasping her hands around his throat and pushing him under water. She hit him on the head with kitchen utensils and even rubbed his face in his own excrement if he soiled himself. Tedder, from Haslemere, Surrey, was found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. She was also convicted of four offences of assault causing actual bodily harm and one of child cruelty after a five-week trial at Guildford Crown Court.Alexia Durran, prosecuting, said: 'On one occasion she held his feet against a radiator which was hot enough to cause burning to his feet.

'On another occasion, she poked her fingers into his eyes, causing him ulcers and abrasions to his eyes. It looked like something out of a horror film.'

The court was told that the defendant would put her hands around the boy’s throat and shove his head under bath water as well as hitting him over the head with kitchen utensils and rubbing his nose in his own excrement if he soiled himself. But the most serious assault was when Tedder jumped up and down on the youngster last year. Ms Durran said the injured boy was rushed to the Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, suffering from excruciating abdominal pain.

'It was as a result of his stomach being stamped upon. A doctor said he had only seen an injury like this from a karate kick - which will give some idea of the force used,' she said.

Ms Durran said: 'The victim said that the defendant had jumped on his stomach with both feet. She was wearing flip-flops at the time.'

She said that a tear was discovered in the boy’s colon and he had to be transferred to St. George’s Hospital, Tooting, for specialist treatment. The incident led to Tedder being arrested and prosecuted. The defendant denied all the charges against her. Tedder claimed that the boy was clumsy and injured himself.

Jailing the defendant, Judge Michael Addison said: 'You deliberately jumped on his stomach. This caused very serious injuries.'

He said it would probably never be clear why Tedder had inflicted such violence on the child.

'You may have a short temper or a cruel disposition,' added Judge Addison. He said the innocent child might well suffer from long-term psychological damage as a result of his suffering at her hands. The court was told that staff at the victim’s school had already noticed that the boy seemed to suffer cuts and bruising with a greater regularity than was considered normal for a child of his age.

'One of the staff remarked last year that the boy was walking like an old man,' said Ms Durran.

Andrew Turton, defending, said his client had never been in trouble with the law before.

'She continues to deny committing these offences which makes mitigation very difficult,' he said.

SOURCE: Daily Mail, September 2012
There is no evidence of this woman being a feminist, or identifying with 'feminism'. Still, however, she hated males to such an extent that she almost killed one. My own special contribution to the Men's Movement is the insight that, having a puritanical undercurrent, Anglo-American culture's 'default setting' is pro-female misandry. That is, misandry is not the result of feminism - instead, pan-Anglosphere feminism and misandry both spring from the same source - a puritanical meme embedded at the deepest level of Anglo-Saxon culture.

Monday, 6 May 2013

Politics, Cosmo and Psychiatry – and other tales from 1958

The Media Idyll

In essence, the Men’s Movement represents a ‘revolt of reality’ against the fantastical narratives of ‘mainstream’ society. Men in the west – and especially the Anglosphere – are endlessly told that their country is overflowing with nubile, sophisticated girls brimming over with longing for scientists, philosophers and aesthetes. Then, of course, reality strikes: intelligent men soon learn that any sexualized nubiles (and there aren’t many of these, to be honest) prefer morons and thugs to educated, intelligent males.

What are the main bastions of these ‘mainstream’ delusions?

Firstly, the legacy media: radio, television and the print press. These Jurassic beasts endlessly aver that ‘everyone’ – or nearly ‘everyone’ – is happily married with 2.4 children, white, educated and living in a salubrious suburb. Perhaps these delusions are more prevalent in Britain than the other Anglosphere countries, but – with various modulations – the Anglo-American media remain hopelessly out-of-touch with mass opinion and experience. Consider how American television omits the working class, ugly people and the elderly as a matter of semi-official policy.

What the Media likes to show us...
... and what it likes to hide.

Another institution firmly cocooned from consensus reality is ‘mainstream’ politics. Anglo-American politicians of all stripes assume that ‘everyone’ – again, that ‘everyone’ - attends church three times a day, has never tried drugs, is happily-married from cradle to grave and generally believes everything authority tells them. Yet, when we study contemporary American life, this picture does not fit. Twenty percent of Americans claim no religious affiliations and their number is growing. Ever more Americans are single and, as we all know, half of all American marriages end in divorce. Among the white working class, the institution of marriage has broken down completely. At least one in three young Americans has tried an illegal drug. Moreover, many drug users are functional members of society, not the hapless junkies paraded across the legacy media.  And as for the ‘hook, line and sinker’ assumptions of ‘mainstream’ politicians, most Americans now think their government lies to them ‘most, or nearly all of the time’, according to Francis Fukuyama.  In short, ‘mainstream’ politicians are completely detached from mainstream American life at every level.

Apart from the legacy media and party politics, one other feature of Anglo-American life remains firmly embedded in the 1950s: psychiatry. Of course, anyone with a three-digit IQ detests this racist, harmful pseudo-science. For all that, its detachment from social reality is truly worthy of comment. Scan a psychiatric text-book and gasp at the archaic assumptions: everyone is married, women should be pedestalized, culture does not matter and everyone should believe everything they are told by the federal government. Amazingly, anyone whose opinions deviate from this eccentric template is labelled either ‘anti-social’ or ‘paranoid’. Clearly, what we have here is another ‘brick in the wall’ of institutional Anglo-American misandry.

The Upper Middle Class 'Fantasy Norm'

But why do so many aspects of Anglo –American culture remain embedded in the 1950s? Why do so many institutions refuse to acknowledge the reality of mainstream experience?

Firstly, the social elites who dominate politics and the media tend to have unrepresentative patterns of social experience – that is, they are cocooned from social reality by virtue of private education and inherited wealth. Because of the Anglosphere’s distinctive class system, they seldom interact with ‘ordinary’ people. Given these circumstances, their reflexive adherence to archaic values becomes perfectly understandable (if not forgivable).

Second, the political establishment is a gerontocracy. Many people in the social elite grew up in the fifties and have never interacted with the social mainstream. Little wonder they still think 'everyone' goes to Church, marries for life and trusts the government.

A third explanation is simple propaganda.  The pan-Anglosphere elites need to keep the masses believing that Britain or America are ‘Shangri la’ societies, infinitely better than anywhere else on earth. The stringently-maintained fiction that Anglo women are slim, hot and personable forms a central plank in this agenda – consider how feminist magazines like Cosmopolitan invariably portray Anglo women as burnished, sexualized beauties, in the face of overwhelming evidence. In this view, VAWA is just the legal wing of Anglo-American nationalism. And far from being revolutionaries and outcasts, feminists and White Knights are reactionary tyrants.

Attainable for Everyone? Only in your dreams...

The last explanation is cultural – and embraces all the others. It says: Anglo culture, being puritanical, does not like reality very much. Especially sexual reality. Rather than acknowledge this reality, it prefers to hide it under fairy tales from the 1950s. The social elites remain committed to such delusions because they are the culture-bearing class and Puritanism remains a core feature of Anglo culture.

This explanation also has much to offer Anglo-American MRAs. Interestingly, it locates Anglo feminism firmly within the Establishment, with its oppressive Puritanism and comprehensive denial of biological reality. It also explains the extensive patronage feminism enjoys in all Anglo-American countries.

The Anglo-American Men’s Movement is presently divided into two camps. The conservative wing wish to remove women’s rights while letting them retain their privileges. The progressive wing, on the other hand, want women to keep their rights while removing their privileges. What is universally accepted is the need to limit one or the other.  However, the foregoing discussion suggests that conservatives are making a grave mistake in representing Anglo-American feminism as ‘revolutionary’ or iconoclastic. To the contrary, it occupies a central position in the oligarchy’s ailing pseudo-consensus.