Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Example Of Ruthless Media Bias In Sexual Assault Cases

Case in point. Recently the sexual assault charges against three McGill football players have been dropped due to a witness coming forward who stated that the accuser told her in confidence that the sex had been consensual. This fact is somewhat hard to find since it is buried in news articles (as given below).

As quoted from http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/sexual-assault-charges-dropped-against-mcgill-redmen

"According to the complainant, the Crown prosecutor in the case, Miguel Boisvert, had been trying since December 2013 to reach a witness — a fellow Concordia University student and resident adviser in whom the complainant confided the morning after the alleged assault.

But that woman didn’t want to get involved. When she discovered she would be subpoenaed to testify Monday, she sent a four-line email to the Crown last Friday, saying the alleged victim agreed to have sex with the men, the complainant’s mother said in an interview."


As quoted from http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/System+still+failing+victims+sexual+assault/10427103/story.html

"The allegations shook McGill’s administration — which was accused of trying to cover up the matter — and eventually led to the young men being charged in April 2012, and, when the case went public months later, being kicked off the football team.

Then, in mid-November, new evidence came to light — allegedly in the form of a statement from a witness who affirmed that the sex was consensual — and Crown prosecutors dropped the charges."


You will notice that, upon looking at the mainstream news coverage of this case, that the victim narrative is forced to continue. It is easy to find mainstream news articles focusing on how the alleged victim was "wronged" and how the system is flawed because of that.

Even when charges against accused rapists are dropped in a court of law, the media, instead of covering the issue fairly, only explores the side of the story from the point of view of the alleged victim (the woman) offering a sympathetic tone to her experience. Of course no coverage AT ALL is given to the point of view of the accused rapists who have endured the stigma and will likely continue to endure the stigma brought on by the charges.

Some of the common headlines surrounding this case following the non-guilty verdict are:

"System still failing victims of sexual assault in Canada" (source: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/System+still+failing+victims+sexual+assault/10427103/story.html)

"Women face trial by ordeal" (source: http://www.leaderpost.com/sports/Women+face+trial+ordeal/10425426/story.html)

"It's hard to move on: Alleged victim in McGill sex scandal speaks out" (source: http://globalnews.ca/news/1679223/its-hard-to-move-on-alleged-victim-in-mcgill-sex-scandal-speaks-out/)

"Ex-McGill Redmen should have been charged: alleged sex assault victim" (source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ex-mcgill-redmen-should-have-been-charged-alleged-sex-assault-victim-1.2841462)

So, according to these articles, even if charges are dropped there is still a problem that needs to be fixed (from the accuser's point of view, the only one that matters). And never mind the problem that exists from the accused' point of view where they are treated by the public (including their schools) as guilty until proven innocent, and even then only innocent in the eyes of the law, not the public at large.

There seems to be a push in the mainstream media that due process is a bad thing when it comes to sexual assault cases given what it puts the (alleged) victims through. It seems that asking the accusers hard questions (to get to the truth) is too harsh and they must be spared that ordeal. Following this form of logic through to completion will mean that all accusations must result in a conviction, no questions asked. And anything more is just too traumatic for the (female) accusers. This is justice à la witch burning.

The notion is being put forward that all female accusers must be believed in a manner equivalent to religious belief, and if you don't automatically believe them you will be accused of victim-blaming, victim-shaming, and being a rape apologist. In the mind of the fanatic, we must do something about the "rape culture" even if time-honored, constitutionally tested, notions of fairness and due process must be torn down, and even if innocents are punished. The cause is just too important to let matters such as these get in the way. Yes, the hysteria is at a tipping point but it seems to be mostly confined to the media and the halls of government and academia where feminist influence is the strongest.

The media is becoming a monster in gender based issues, preferring to cast aside fairness and respect of due process (innocent until proven guilty) in favor of a political ideology of male-demonization and female pedestalization above all else. The media, especially the liberal media, is a cabal of feminist propaganda machinery.

This media bias is glaringly obvious and very disturbing to say the least. And they must be sensing the push back given how they typically disable commenting on their articles. They do not want critical feedback as that would threaten the narrative they want to advance. What arrogance and a flagrant abuse of their position of responsibility as a news reporting agency, using their dominant position as a news agency to disseminate one-sided feminist ideology. It's a form of news but minus the journalistic integrity. In other words, it's propaganda.

Bottom line, you cannot trust anything the media says (especially the liberal media) when it comes to gender issues.

Friday, October 31, 2014

Violence Against Women, And Men Too

Is it me or is the media campaign against men particularly strong these days. For starters there is the rape culture on campus talk, which is ongoing. And then there is the scandal involving explicit pictures of naked women in some pilot's cockpits at Air Canada. Then there is the Cat Calling video of a woman from New York. And lastly there is the Jian Ghomeshi scandal, which actually does seem to suggest that his bedroom activities walk a fine line between abuse and BDSM. This last one is really being covered a lot. The main issue I have with it is the relentless media campaign, in the proportionality sense, where it congests the airways instead of other more important, or equally important, news. Okay, we get it, violence against women is bad, but as usual it becomes overly emotional and politicized and the facts get muddied over as a result. And it becomes a case where the punishments (even where punishment is deserved) far exceeds the crime.

Yes, violence is a problem. Violence against women is a problem. And violence against men is also a problem. But violence against men is never talked about, even though there is actually a lot more of it. The feminists as usual cherry pick the issue and leave out half the story. Violence against men is prevalent and quite often viewed as comical too. How many times do men get beaten up in movies and television shows as compared to women? How many times have you seen a man kicked in the crotch?

I think one of the main fuels for all this bullshit is the gender wage gap myth. It seems to be used as a sort of balancing device, where the wrongs against men are OKAY because, well, men get paid more (among other perks), which by the way is due to the patriarchy, which by the way is proof that women have it worse and men have it better. In reality though, it's a nebulous theory at best. But as it turns out it's a very useful lever to pull to help achieve the feminist goal of advancing women's interests by exaggerating the ground that needs to be closed in order for women to catch up to men. In truth though, the ground is already closed. Further advances by women will only mean supremacy, which is what feminists want. Rest assured, they will play the victim card all the way to the top, if they are allowed.

The gender wage gap myth needs to be destroyed, and the only way to do that is by presenting real data collected by reputable data collection agencies. A subject such as this cannot be accurately and credibly dissected otherwise. Here's a report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Labor: http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

And here is an excerpt from the foreword:

There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent. These variables include:

A greater percentage of women than men tend to work part-time. Part-time work tends to pay less than full-time work.

A greater percentage of women than men tend to leave the labor force for child birth, child care and elder care. Some of the wage gap is explained by the percentage of women who were not in the labor force during previous years, the age of women, and the number of children in the home.

Women, especially working mothers, tend to value "family friendly" workplace policies more than men. Some of the wage gap is explained by industry and occupation, particularly, the percentage of women who work in the industry and occupation.

Research also suggests that differences not incorporated into the model due to data limitations may account for part of the remaining gap. Specifically, CONSAD’s model and much of the literature, including the Bureau of Labor Statistics Highlights of Women’s Earnings, focus on wages rather than total compensation. Research indicates that women may value non-wage benefits more than men do, and as a result prefer to take a greater portion of their compensation in the form of health insurance and other fringe benefits.



The results of this report aligns itself very well with what Warren Farrell frequently talks about. But a report like this really solidifies things. It's like the global warming debate. You have to get reputable scientifically minded people to speak out on this stuff, not ideologues.

All this gender wage gap discussion in the media also points to another problem. It suggests that "gaps" are only a problem when it's the women who are lagging behind the men in those areas that would stand to benefit them. It's conveniently one-sided and completely ignores certain other gaps in society which don't get nearly as much attention. These other gaps include:

• The degree gap. There are roughly twice as many women getting degrees as men.

• The workplace injury and death gap. There are many, many more men who suffer injury and death in the workplace than women.

• The front-line soldier gap. Virtually all front-line soldiers are men.

• The suicide gap. Men kill themselves at a rate 3-4 times higher than women.

• The life-expectancy gap. Women live 5-6 years longer, on average, than men.

• The homicide gap. Men are more likely to be murdered than women.


These are just to name a few. There are others as well.

Now the media will scarcely mention these things. The underlying reason for this is the overarching feminist influence. It is the main reason or perhaps the only reason for this. It is the powerful forces of feminism at work which steers the type of information you get to hear with regards to gender issues. It's powerful arm pushes the focus on only those things which are perceived to be at a disadvantage for women. But it's an elitist cause. It only bothers feminists that there aren't more female CEOs, or more female politicians. But it doesn't bother them that there aren't, say, more female garbage collectors, or more female front-line soldiers. They only care about closing the ivory tower gaps but not the gaps at the bottom, which are also dominated by men (but in much greater numbers than the gaps at the top). So one must conclude that the current feminist movement only wants selective equality, or more accurately, female supremacy. And they will pursue this objective by playing the victim card all the way through. They will cherry-pick statistics, tell half-truths, and they will insist that there's achievement gaps even where there aren't any. And by creating policies to "close the gap" they will move towards supremacy.

I get angry thinking about this. But my anger is non-violent, as it should be. It is best and much more useful to channel the anger in peaceful and productive ways. We must take the high road at all costs even when the feminists and their sympathizers take the low road to try to shut us up.

I'm not saying everyone should start picketing and protesting in public, although that's good too in some cases. But rather, adopt a mindset where you will not stay silent the next time someone says something to bash men, or goes on about how only women are victims, or how women make less than men in the workplace. Speak out, but be prepared. You may be called a woman-hater for it, but that will be irrelevant to you. You are only interested in the facts. And you can share the facts with them. And the best way to do this is with links to credible sources which refute, say, the gender pay gap. There's also links to Statistics Canada, such as the following:

1. Spousal violence in Canada.

Self-reported spousal violence, as given by the General Social Survey, is about the same for men and women. Source: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/2010000/t002-eng.htm

2. Homicide rates in Canada.

The total homicide count from 2000 to 2009 for males was 4254, and for females it was 1684. 70% of all homicide victims are male, and 30% are female. For homicide victims outside the home, 80% are male and 20% are female. For homicide victims inside the home, 40% are male and 60% are female. Source: Table 4.1 on page 38 in: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2010000-eng.pdf

These numbers can be worked out from the table.

3. Suicide rate in Canada.

The total female suicide rate is about 5.4 per 100,000 (Source: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/hlth66f-eng.htm), and the total male suicide rate is about 17 per 100,000 (Source: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/hlth66e-eng.htm)

4. Gender wage gap report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Labor: http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

5. In a recent report by the U.S. Department of Justice, for the period 1995–2013, females aged 18 to 24 had the highest rate of rape and sexual assault victimizations compared to females in all other age groups. In this time period the incidence of rape and sexual assault for female college students (age 18 to 24) was 6.1 per 1000, and for female non students (age 18 to 24) it was 7.6 per 1000. The findings are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which collects information on nonfatal crimes reported and not reported to police against persons age 12 or older. Source: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf

Important Note: Contrast these numbers to the often mentioned "1 in 5" rate of sexual assault for college women (as opposed to the much lower 6.1 per 1000 which translates into 1 in 160 — as indicated in this government report).


Share these links freely. Don't be afraid to speak out on behalf of men, whether it's to your girlfriend, boyfriend, best friend, relative, or whoever. Of course I'm not saying you should speak up in every single instance. But certainly do speak up at least sometimes.

Monday, October 6, 2014

Campus Rape Hysteria: A Modern Day Witch Hunt

This is an emotionally charged subject, and like all emotionally charged subjects the truth tends to get muddled behind the strong feelings of individuals.

There was a recent CBC documentary talking about the pressures that universities face when dealing with allegations of rape on campus. To its credit it did give some balanced contrary points of view, such as from the lawyer who said that young men should not be "reprogrammed" just because they're men. But the slant of the documentary was to cast a negative light on males. The documentary painted a grim picture of the "rape scene" on campus. It was automatically assumed that women are victims and are telling the truth when they come forward with a rape charge. Unfortunately the documentary never raised any skepticism about rape accusations in order to steer clear of being called pro-rape or a rape apologist. This documentary, in keeping with the standard narrative, approached this issue with a certain hypersensitivity, both to the women in question and to those who would dare to detract from the narrative that women are always victims -- such people would quickly be accused of being part of the rape culture problem, and as active agents in perpetuating rape tolerance in the culture.

It has become par for the course that being skeptical to any of the rape claims is bad and it is preferable to blindly accept the notion that rape culture is real rather than seek out critical inquiry. It always comes down to the false dichotomy that you either agree with the claims or you are pro-rape. Associating criticism of the views with being pro-rape is an ideological weapon the same way criticism of some of Israel's actions against the Palestinian people is met with accusations of being anti-semitic. This is a horrible label and as such it is a very effective strategy, but it should be pretty clear that playing along doesn't mean you agree, it just means that you want to avoid the bad stigma with disagreeing.

In the CBC documentary, one of the interviewees referred to "the victim" rather than "the alleged victim", and in one case it was stated that if a woman comes forward with a rape accusation they will believe her. My response: No they should not automatically believe her, although she should still be able to receive help just like other people who come forward to report crimes against themselves. The documentary seems to be more of an appeal to emotion rather than an appeal to reason. It's a way to drum up hysteria the same way an evangelist will drum up religious fervor and get that serotonin flowing. In the face of such drama and hyperbole it can be difficult to maintain your sense of critical thinking.

The Duke Lacrosse case was never mentioned of course. It would break the emotional build up the documentary set out to create. And it would do this because the rape charge made by the woman turned out to be completely fabricated. If this was not the case you can bet that the Duke Lacrosse case would have been eagerly mentioned in the documentary.

The documentary got me thinking about some of the circumstances which can surround sexually active young women. A young woman, after having hook up sex, can be faced with a choice: Either admit to willingly having sex with a guy the first night, and risk being labelled a slut, or save face by saying you were raped. I'm sure there are women that would rather admit to the latter than risk their reputation. This would certainly constitute a false rape accusation, and given the fact that it does happen why is it not talked about in the media? And furthermore, why are the names of the accusers not made public? The answer to both is because it would discourage real rape victims from coming forward. A fair statement, but it is terribly one-sided. However it is also true that releasing the names of the accused should not be done either (but it is) given that the rape charge could be false and such a charge is a horrible stigma to carry which exists even after the charges are cleared. So why the double standard?

It is because it helps women and making the face of the accused public could get more victims to come forward, and it doesn't matter if innocent men get hurt in the process. Looking at this more closely, the potential added benefit that women (the accusers) would get, however slim, outweighs the definite harm that would come to some innocent men as a result. In other words it is okay to do something that will hurt innocent men as long as a few women can potentially benefit from it. This is not justice. This is the radical feminist hijacking of due process.

Contrary to feminist claims there is no rape culture. I talk about rape statistics in my post on victim statistics in Canada.

The CBC documentary made a big deal about locker room talk as being a potential precursor to rape behaviour. Now I will admit, locker room talk is very real, and I have at times participated in it in the past. It can certainly get pretty derogatory towards women but it is hardly an indication that men engaging in it will rape. It's more of a way to look cool among the guys than it is a way to degrade women. And why not talk about women's locker room talk as well. I doubt women are angels in the locker room. They likely talk about the size of guys dicks more often than you'd think. I have anecdotal stories of these types of discussions and I have overheard some of them too. Locker room talk is not a precursor to rape. There's just far too much locker room talk and far too little rape (proportionally speaking) for there to be a causation effect.

To anyone caught up in rape hysteria, don't let your outrage about rape blind your willingness to accept that false rape charges also happen. You have to treat the two as separate and as resolvable only under due process. Justice can only be served by doing this. Let the rapists be brought to justice but also let the false rape accusers be brought to justice.

Rape is a horrible crime but like other horrible crimes the standard of getting to the truth MUST be upheld, which is due process by law enforcement and legal experts, not the campus kangaroo courts who will willingly throw male students under the bus to save face in the public eye.

Not acknowledging the possibility of false rape accusations goes against the fact that sociopaths exists in society, men and women, which admittedly represent a very small percentage of the population, but exist nonetheless. Given this indisputable fact it must also be accepted that a female sociopath concerned with preserving her reputation will unflinchingly choose to falsely convict a man of rape if the alternative is being labelled a slut by her peers. Some might argue that this represents a very small percentage of women anyway and therefore labeling any women at all as potential liars hurts the women who do get raped and want to come forward, and furthermore, making a false rape accusation a crime is bad for the same reason. This is a phony argument since all laws exist to prevent a small number of people who would commit crimes from committing them. But we don't say that these laws shouldn't exist because it unfairly labels people as potential thiefs or murderers or whatever. Anti-crime laws exist to help prevent those, who are in the minority, from committing a crime, and due process exists to protect the innocent, who are in the majority, from being unfairly punished. Why are these tried and true principles being tampered with on the alter of rape hysteria aka political correctness? Is it because rape is such a horrible crime? Can a crime be so serious that due process should be thrown out the window? Can a crime be so horrible so as to justifiably reduce us to a 16th century witch burning mindset? I can think of things like soldier PTSD which is at least as traumatic on the psyche as being raped, but there is no hysteria surrounding that.

Unfortunately this hysteria shows no sign of slowing down. A new "yes means yes" law was recently passed in the state of California. It changes how colleges and universities define sexual assault. Instead of requiring that one person say no if they’re not interested, the law will require that both people say yes, or give "affirmative consent," before a sexual encounter is considered consensual.

This law seems reasonable on the surface except that sex is usually non-verbal, and women, especially young ones, don't initiate sex at all. It's usually all up to the guy. Any guy who has slept with more than a few women will note that women don't directly say yes to sex. Women are typically like frogs in the grass when it comes to sex, especially the first time. But the law states that you got to get that verbal yes, otherwise you risk being charged with rape. How the feminists must be rejoicing over this! The only good thing that can come out of this is that women might be forced to initiate sex more, assuming guys are going to do less initiating given the risks. Some guys will unavoidably realize that women being passive is just too risky for them.

The assault on men's rights in the form of new draconian legislation doesn't end there though. The Canadian federal government wants to make the buying of sex illegal while still allowing the selling of sex to be legal. This is clearly an unfair legal double standard, and in addition it will lead to other laws being broken inadvertently, such as entrapment laws in which one party has the state-sponsored legal leeway to sell a service but another party is prohibited, by the same state, from buying that service.

There is actually a national prostitution study (http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/first-national-prostitution-study-sheds-new-light-on-sex-work-in-canada) that just came out. It discusses johns and prostitutes in a way that is much more illuminating and balanced than the way we usually hear it talked about, where johns (the men) are exploitive perverts and prostitutes (the women) are victims. This study paints a very different picture. Apparently, the johns and prostitutes are a lot like the rest of us, no better or worse.

The proposed new prostitution law is just another form of political correctness and white knight sympathizing. It pedestalizes female sexuality while demonizing male sexuality. All par for the course. It assumes that all women who sell sex are victims and all men who buy sex are exploitive perverts. How very simple! Fortunately the supreme court will eventually strike this new law down as being the unconstitutional piece of crap that it is, just like it did the previous prostitution laws. Even conservatives are opposed to this proposed law. Just read the comments on National Post or Globe and Mail, or any other conservative news channel. Fortunately not all police departments will enforce this new law as they know that there are plenty of willing buyers and sellers in the world of adults and will instead focus on real crimes, not petty moral crusades at the taxpayer's expense.

It has been frequently said that criminalizing the johns hurts women as well by putting them in risky situations where the johns are more likely to buy sex in dark corners, hidden from the authorities, where it just so happens that genuinely dangerous men will also lurk, waiting to ambush women. It's like putting the food source for an animal in a place where there are more predators. In light of this it would seem that the hatred towards men, exhibited in the proposed law, outweighs the feelings of favor towards the women, because it willfully punishes the men even if it means that more women can get hurt in the process. It shows that the hatred for men outweighs the love for women. Now that's hate.

During the hearings for this new law you hear from all sorts of advocacy groups who have at best indirect information about how women are victims in prostitution, but then you hear from prostitutes themselves who say that they are not victims and just want equal protection just like any other worker under the labor laws. But of course the government prefers to believe the advocacy groups rather than the prostitutes themselves. Yes, don't believe what the prostitutes say on their behalf, believe what someone else says on their behalf, especially when their talking points are a better fit with the government's ideology.

Laws that treat women as helpless children are only good for those underachieving women who want the "daddy state" and don't like being held accountable for their actions. The freeloaders in other words. But it will hurt those women who want to be treated as adults and earn what they get out of life.

If this law passes, and it likely will, then it's just one more reason to get out of Toronto. In fact it might just be the final straw for some of you who have found that the way to cope with Toronto's hostile female factions is by visiting your friendly neighbourhood escort. But with such a law in place that option may no longer be viable. Therefore I recommend, at the very least, frequent trips to more female friendly places that are far removed from Toronto and the anglosphere. And since distance is a limiting factor then I recommend Quebec, with the closest city there being Montreal. There's plenty of ways to get there. You can fly there with Porter Airlines, which takes a little over an hour from Toronto, but it's kind of expensive (about $300 round trip), although not as expensive as the typical flight. You can also do this much more cheaply by driving, or taking the train (Via Rail), or taking the bus (Greyhound or Megabus). These can range in travel time from 5 hours to 8 hours one way. This is the down side obviously. But even given the long travel time this is still doable for the occasional weekend getaway.

Thursday, July 31, 2014

Reader Submission: Observing Toronto Feminism in 2014

This note is directed at all feminist women of Toronto and at all men concerned or affected by feminism in Toronto. I am trying to address 3 major problems with feminism today.

1. The choice of the Toronto woman.

What strikes me the most about Toronto feminism is the unenlightened and pathetic approach to the kind of men that Toronto women choose to go after: rich guys.

If feminism had brought a new era of wise women choosing to go after good men, I would have been the first to defend it. Men who have been victims of powerful men, men who have a great but non lucrative talent, men who know how to listen to a woman's needs, men who respect a woman's opinion and don't objectify them, orphan men who chose to pursue an education over drugs and alcohol, men who have been victims of women (e.g. abandoned by their mothers at an early age), immigrant men who have most likely been through hell to get to this first world country, men who have learning disabilities but who try hard to still get a job and make a living, men who study human sciences and who have a genuine interest in social justice, etc. My list could go on and on and on.

Is this the kind of men all the enlightened women of Toronto are choosing to date? Not at all. NOT. AT. ALL.

Instead, another nature is revealed: greed. That's what this is really all about my friends. Money and social status.

Let's review the kind of men Toronto women go after like pigs going at the trough: rich kids from rich families who have never known real adversity and do not know how to value the things they have, men from any social background who are ferociously ambitious and who only care about money and who will have sex with as many women as possible and do not really care about any of them, criminals and thugs alpha males who embody misogyny from every single pore, any form of rich man regardless of how he made his wealth (the guy could be the CEO of a corporation in charge of third world child labor but the Toronto woman only wants to know whether he's rich or not).

No wonder these women complain about men being assholes. Have you looked in the mirror first and seen how ugly you are on the inside? Have you evaluated your true nature and what you really seek in a partner? Do not pretend with me to be someone you're not, I can see through all your bullshit, just do not lie to yourself.

2. Women's liberation as corporate slavery.

Not only do the Toronto feminists seek rich men as a more valuable partner, they also associate liberation and success with corporate slavery. The jobs they seek are the exact same jobs contributing to the exploitation of other women and cultures of the third world. I guess this little detail was conveniently excluded from their Western feminist literature. I guess Toronto feminism is only about the interests of middle class and upper class white girls.

It is well documented that feminism was first subsidized in the United States by the Rockefeller family with the sole intention of taxing women. The real question was "How do we get women to enter the labor force by will?" Anybody with an academic background in political science will know the oldest trick in the book for leaders to get the masses to behave in a certain way is to sell them a false reality that will lead them to behave the way that you really want without them being aware of it. This is typically known in our every day life as manipulation. The task was to convince women that they were an oppressed group and that their "liberation" would come from entering the workforce. The real goal was to collect taxes from them, and they bit the bait.

3. The end of the era of victimization.

We live in a Canadian society that has reached a never before seen level of equality. It is true that it remains unequal but it is more equal than it has ever been before. Not only for women, who were in the past real victims of some men, but for minorities as well. Native people and black people especially, have been extremely discriminated against in North America.

Today this is no longer the case. Not at the same extent it was done in the past. I for one as a young white Canadian male am not responsible for what was done before I was even born into this world. Neither are you. And a woman being born today is not a victim of any kind. Do not let yourself be fooled by this brainwashing scheme. Neither is she a victim nor are you an oppressor. Anyone that calls you one is only trying to control or subordinate you for their own agenda. In my lifetime I have not oppressed any woman, I have not lynched any minority. Neither have you. I do not feel guilty for stuff I have never done personally. And you should also stop feeling guilty for stuff you never did.

Yes we do have to study our past to understand our present and avoid making the same mistakes, but it is very well researched academically that any oppressed group historically after having revolted and overthrown its oppressor, it establishes laws of hatred and a culture of revenge. The list of historical examples is endless.

Today, we experience it with women in Toronto who are living their wet dreams of vengeance towards as many men as they can retaliate against.

Toronto women get bombarded in universities by poor literature which is nothing more than heavy misandry disguised as women's studies. The family structure has been beat to shit and young Canadian women do not realize they are their own enemies. But if they are not smart enough to realize they are being subject to hate mongering then they deserve the fate they get.

History will repeat itself and in about 20-50 years this generation of women will be the ones living through all the shame of the misandrist society they led when they had the chance. Their own sons will be their judges for all the lives they ruined.

I therefore think the era of victimization in Canada must end. In this country, everyone will more or less get a fair shot at life. I know it is not perfectly equal. But it is a lot easier here for a woman to succeed than in Russia or for an Arab man to make a decent and peaceful living than in France.

Once equality is achieved. Every previously oppressed group ought to take responsibility for its own destiny and stop shaming new generations for a fate they are only inheriting.

If white privileged feminists do not like this, then I encourage black people, Hispanics, Asians and First Nations to start shaming, playing the victim role, and hating on white women because you have also been a huge victim of their historic greed. White women have historically also been oppressors of minorities and of other women of non Caucasian descent. So they should think twice before perpetuating this victimization tool. I have met plenty of immigrant women who hated white girls because they believed Toronto feminists only care about white women's problems.

-----------------------

Conclusion: feminism in Toronto is probably the most hypocritical movement I have ever seen. It is a hate mongering manipulative group whose main goal is profit through the control and subordination of men. I hope this message also reaches MRAs, even though I am not one of you, I understand that you have quite a difficult road ahead.

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Men Not Dating?

Yesterday I listened to this video:



My first reaction was, great, men in Toronto are finally wising up. But then I had to wonder how prevalent this really is. If it's true then it must be a relatively new phenomenon, and men have finally had enough. It's similar to how unemployed people will look and look and look for work. They keep at it and eventually, if they don't succeed, they just take themselves out of the market completely, and stop looking. Even the most persistent people eventually give up if they are getting nothing for their efforts. Maybe the same is starting to happen with western men as a whole, and Toronto with its particularly strong contingent of nasty females is just one of the first to adopt this trend.

But how can we see how widespread this trend really is? Short of doing a large social science survey I decided to just look at the Alexa information for some dating sites, since they can serve as useful yardsticks. I looked at lavalife.com and it shows that, compared to the general internet population, a lot more women are using lavalife than men. In the past I've always known it to be the reverse, where many more men were on the dating site than women. I compared this to pof.com, okcupid.com, and match.com, which all show the same trend as lavalife, where more women are using the sites than men, although the difference is less than with lavalife, which is more Canadian based, and in particular, strongly Toronto based.

This apparent trend makes me think back to something I wrote once, where I said that even if some men begin to drop out of the running, other men will see the male-vacancy as an opportunity to better their chances with the women, so they'll just swoop in, and the number of men chasing will remain at a steady high number. But if what I heard in the video is true, then this is not happening. And I think the reason for this is because the women, in the presence of fewer men, do not become more receptive and easier to meet. And even if they do, it's only a surface phenomenon and at their core they are still the same. I personally have seen this to be true. Whether there are a hundred men in the room or just three, they will act pretty much the same, with that toxic air of superiority that they are untouchable and even something like market forces working against them won't bring out a change in their character.

So the men know that the adversarial conditions won't change even if there are fewer men pining for the women. Result: the number of men in the running continues to decline. But I think there might be something additional at work, having experienced this tendency myself. After experiencing so much rejection in so many ways over so many years you become conditioned to actually derive more satisfaction from rejecting women than getting laid. So during those few times that women show interest in you, you prefer to take the opportunity to teach a lesson and put the shoe on the other foot, rather than hook up. It seems that the opportunity to do THAT is more important, and the fact that it is a rare opportunity makes it that much more appealing.

I have gone into clubs and practically wanted women to show interest in me, not because I wanted to get laid, but to teach them a lesson by way of snubbing them. Sounds petty, perhaps, but it is a tendency I strongly feel nonetheless. Maybe I feel this tendency because I know that by reciprocating interest I am just giving her what she wants, which is what she is overly accustomed to. So by ignoring/snubbing her I am not giving her what she wants, and that is more satisfying to me than getting the sex.

This is a disturbing tendency I will admit, and I think it's best to focus this tendency on the women you sense are the stuck up kind. Such women almost always tip their hand early on. So if a woman comes across as even a bit arrogant, then she is the perfect candidate to reject flat out. But a truly sweet girl who comes across as humble, she isn't a good candidate for rejection, unless of course she just isn't your type.

If men are just now starting to reject dating and marriage in droves then you can bet that it's a culmination of years of rejection, being jaded, and horror stories that they have heard and/or experienced over the years. It can't be fixed overnight, and it's a situation that can't be fixed even if more women start throwing more sex at men. The problems go much deeper than that.

Saturday, March 1, 2014

Victim Statistics In Canada

I took the time to dig up some victim statistics with gender breakdown. I wanted to bring to light actual numbers regarding some of the more contentious claims that are often made.

The source of my numbers is the Statistics Canada website (http://www.statcan.gc.ca).

Before I get into it, I first want to explain the General Social Survey (GSS), which is a major source of the data I'm going to mention. The GSS is a voluntary survey in which households are randomly selected across Canada. One person is randomly selected from each household and then interviewed by phone. They must be aged 15 or older. They are asked a series of questions related to the scope of a questionnaire and the results are then recorded. The identity of these people is protected by law.

A more detailed description of the most recent GSS (2009) is available here: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010002/article/11340-eng.htm

Here's a few paragraphs taken directly from this webpage:

"While both the GSS and the UCR (Uniform Crime Reporting - which is police-reported crime) survey collect information on crime in Canada, there are several differences between these surveys including survey type, scope, coverage, and source of information.

The GSS is a sample survey, which in 2009, collected information from approximately 19,500 respondents, aged 15 years and older, living in the ten provinces. The survey is designed to ensure that these data represent the non-institutionalized Canadian population aged 15 years or over.

One of the major benefits of the GSS is that it captures information on criminal incidents that do not come to the attention of police. Research has shown that for various reasons victims may choose not to report their victimizations to the police. For example, according to the 2009 GSS 69% of violent victimizations, 62% of household victimizations and 71% of personal property thefts were not reported to police. Despite the benefits of self-reported victimization surveys they do have limitations. Of note is that the GSS relies upon respondents to recall and report events accurately (see Methodology for further information on the GSS).

In comparison, the UCR is an annual census of all Criminal Code incidents that come to the attention of the police. One of the main advantages of the UCR survey is that it allows changes in police-reported crime to be tracked over time. There are many factors that can influence police-reported crime statistics, including the willingness of the public to report crimes to the police as well as changes in legislation, policies and enforcement practices."




And now for the first statistic, which involves sexual assault in Canada:

According to the most recent 2009 GSS, there were 34 sexual assaults for every 1000 women. And out of these, 81% involved unwanted sexual touching, and the remaining 19% involved more violent sexual attacks. Extrapolating from this, you can see that roughly 1 in 30 women experienced some form of sexual assault (which ranged from unwanted touching to the more violent assaults, which includes rape). Doing the math, the more violent forms of assault amount to 1 in 150 women. Hence, the highest possible incidence of rape is 1 in 150 women.

Here's the source for this: Page 31 in http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11766-eng.pdf

Here's a few paragraphs taken directly from this webpage, which gives the numbers on sexual assault:

"According to the 2009 GSS, 7 in 10 incidents of self-reported sexual assault were committed against women. In total, there were 472,000 sexual assaults reported by women in the previous 12 months, representing a rate of 34 sexual assault incidents for every 1,000 women (Table 1.5). This compares to a rate of 15 sexual assault incidents reported per 1,000 men.

Most incidents of self-reported sexual assaults against non-spousal victims involved the least severe forms. In 2009, 81% of sexual assault incidents against women involved unwanted sexual touching, including touching, grabbing, kissing or fondling. The remaining 19% of incidents involved sexual attacks, where the accused sexually attacked the woman by threatening her, holding her down or hurting her in some other way. These patterns in the nature of sexual victimization against women have remained constant over the last ten years."


Note that police reported crimes are a fraction of the total crimes, especially sexual assault, which is around 12%. I base this from the following sentence: "The majority of sexual assaults were not reported to the police (88%)". This is taken from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010002/article/11340-eng.htm#a18

Now look at some of the more common factoids you hear or read about, such as from doing online searches:

"1 of every 17 Canadian women is raped at some point in her life."

"1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted."

These are dubious numbers, and it is difficult to get truly reliable numbers on this based on the GSS since these are lifetime numbers. But consider the following from the GSS data: 3 in 10 incidents of self-reported sexual assault were committed against men. Now, this is not nearly as high as assaults on women, but it is significant nonetheless. It means that men experience 43% of the sexual assault women do.

Using this 43%, and applying some math, we can reasonably state the following, based on the two factoids above:

"1 of every 40 Canadian men is raped at some point in his life."

"1 in 9 men will be sexually assaulted."

Sounds pretty serious to me. So given these numbers, why aren't men also showing up on the public radar when it comes to sexual assault victimization? Is it because the commonly accepted statistics are actually bogus and it's just propaganda to inflate female victim statistics for purely political gain? Or is it because the statistics are actually correct but society just doesn't give a shit about male victims of sexual assault even though they exist in significant numbers? Or could it be both reasons?

Now to be fair, the vast majority of sexual assaults are committed by men, either against women or against other men. But this should not be used as an excuse to minimize the victim status of men just because the perpetrators are mostly men. To the victim, it does not matter who the perpetrator is. A victim is a victim.



Now, let's look at spousal violence in Canada.

Self-reported spousal violence, as given by the GSS, is about the same for men and women. You can easily see this here: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/2010000/t002-eng.htm

This tells us that inside the home, women are about as violent as men.



Now for the homicide rates in Canada.

The total homicide count from 2000 to 2009 for males was 4254, and for females it was 1684. 70% of all homicide victims are male, and 30% are female.

For homicide victims outside the home, 80% are male and 20% are female. For homicide victims inside the home, 40% are male and 60% are female.

Here's the source for this: Table 4.1 on page 38 in: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2010000-eng.pdf

These numbers can be worked out from the table.

Inside the family, males kill (either females or males) at a rate that is four times higher than vice-versa. But the point to make here is that females can kill too in significant numbers. They can stab, kick, use guns, use blunt objects, etc.

Males are much more likely to kill overall, and males are also much more likely to be the victims overall. But that does not make the male victims less tragic, or more deserving of their fate just because the perpetrators are mostly male; hence they're getting their just desserts, what goes around comes around, yadda yadda, or some twisted logic like that. Remember, a victim is a victim.

And keep in mind that in a relative sense, very very few males kill.



Lastly, let's look at the suicide rate in Canada.

From the data, the total female suicide rate is about 5.4 per 100,000 (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/hlth66f-eng.htm), and the total male suicide rate is about 17 per 100,000 (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/hlth66e-eng.htm), which is about three times higher. Notice how the male suicide rate tends to increase as males get older, but the female suicide rate tends to decrease as females get older.



These are all the numbers I wanted to mention. I think they are among the most important out there in gender based discourse, and they can easily be accessed by anyone who knows where to look.

I had a really difficult time getting this data, which unfortunately is buried in the Statistics Canada website. This data is much more credible than what you often see on the typical propaganda pieces on these issues, which are rife with highly exaggerated statistics.

Remember, these are raw numbers I have here. They are not extrapolated. They come straight from a credible data collection agency, and they can't easily be spun to satisfy an agenda.

It is sad that there is so much misinformation surrounding these issues, information which is very widespread. So hopefully the information I provide here can help some people combat the lies.

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

The Importance Of Gender Equality

It is easy to say that women are more important than men because they are the "fairer" sex, and then give a variety of reasons for it in the form of lies and half-truths.

But using rational logic, what is the best possible reason for putting women first? Let's explore this.

If you are at war and the survival of the species is at risk then it makes sense to put women first. In this case women must be protected more than men, given that one man can father many babies simultaneously but one women can only have one baby at a time. Hence, you need as many women as possible, while making men as disposable as possible since their numbers don't matter nearly as much. The main job of the men then, is to protect the women and defend society, for the sake of survival. This sort of thing has happened throughout history. The early societies that survived are the ones that protected women and made men disposable.

However, a society of boys and men who are taught to be disposable is an unhealthy society. At best it will only survive, but it will be dysfunctional on many levels.

So if we want to address the needs of survival AND create a healthy society then we must value men and women equally. Among the most important positive benefits of this is that it greatly contributes towards healthy family relationships.

The problem we have right now is that our society still largely behaves like a survival-based society, that treats men as more disposable and less important than women, while overlooking that we don't need to behave this way since our survival is not at stake, not by a long shot. A technological society such as ours which is living in peaceful times, is rich in resources, and has healthy population numbers, has no good reason for putting women above men. A society such as ours, which strives to be civilized, MUST treat men and women equally. If we don't then our claims of equality and civility become nothing more than a facade, and we become as animals, willfully engaging in antiquated behaviours for the sole purpose of indulging our outdated sense of chivalry and white knight instincts.