Thursday, March 21, 2013

Just A Few Thoughts About How Women Think of Nice Guys . . .

stonerwithaboner had snatched a quote from Feminist Critics that he liked, so I'll repeat it here with some commentary:

The problem is that the Nice Guy is the target of a modern witch hunt. The Nice Guy is considered a target, a wounded man because he dares speak out about his loneliness. Women don’t like that, and men who are too obsessed with sexual competition, see him as a target. All the nasty things said about nice guys are nothing but rationalizations for women having no compassion for emotionally distressed men, and men following their animal competitive instinct.
Before we can address the attack on nice guys, first we need to know what it is based on. It is not based on what women say it is. It is based on the feeding frenzy instinct, the desire for women to cull men from the herd to reduce unwanted attention, and for men it is to reduce competition.

I think this pretty valid thinking.  

Personally, I'm pretty much done with the nice guy/bad boy terms, but Jacalope is on to something here.  A man that values his sense of self and being on more than one level, and has been marginalized wrongly is often stigmatized---or even demonized---for openly lamenting his condition as unfair.  Men who are viewed and treated as suspect or not as prized as other men by women are often seen as weak or undesirable despite their attributes.  He's someone either to exploit or pass up.  The frustrating truth is that this actually compounds the problem; regardless of what people believe, there is a hegemony, a hierarchy of sorts in the dating and mating world, and women who want strict choices who they favor, and they alongside with men who don't want rivals are keen to dump on anyone not considered suitable no matter how good the man really is at heart.

If women clearly perceived the NG as a full-fledged human being, it would mean they would have to act accordingly---his pleasure and pain, joy and suffering, dreams and nightmares, and happiness and sorrow would be something not to dismiss, and reducing him to second class citizen status or lower would be difficult.  Since so many Ameriskanks want to be the ones desired and sit in the driver's seat---even passive aggressively---having to deal with a man normally considered not as up to par as an equal would be a struggle for them.  It would mean that their personal power would be on a level playing field with those same men.  And it would not be so easy to explain why they throw themselves at "alphas" and yet demand a NG to kow tow to ludicrous demands and moods while still remaining the one with the hands on the proverbial reins.  

Deep down, it seems that Ameriskanks have little respect, understanding, real passion, or sympathy towards men they want as front men, walking ATMs, workhorses, and whipping boys.  The "All the nasty things said about nice guys are nothing but rationalizations for women having no compassion for emotionally distressed men . . . " is one the main motivations beyond the febrile rants about "nice guys."  Simply put, it's a glib and smug excuse to treat men like shit sans accountability.  But don't you dare criticize women for their feelings, wants, expectations, or react to them as a spoiled, would-be princess without a throne and a broken crown.  You're just a misogynist if you have the gall. 

Saturday, March 16, 2013

The Rights of Man On Sites Deemed "Hateful"

Symantec has tagged certain MGTOW/MRA sites, and I wish to spread the word about it.  I do openly state that this company will never get my business and I will continue to let others know why.  I believe this is defamation and do want to inform as much as possible about it.  I also will let anyone MGTOW/MRA oriented who wishes to contact me about this issue, they can write me at at any time.  Please keep in touch.  SR

From The Rights of Man site: 

Thursday, 14 March 2013

By now most people are aware of the issue of men's rights website being wrongly blocked by Symantec and various mobile phone companies due to them somehow being flagged as "hate sites". I've done further investigations and can exclusively reveal the official response from these companies on this matter. There tends to be a bit of confusion about this issue and so firstly I'll attempt to explain what's going on and tackle some misconceptions.
Which sites are blocked?

I initially identified 48 sites blocked by Symantec/O2 and flagged as "hate sites". The list then grew to 58 as even more were identified. It's fair to say that a majority of key sites critical of feminism and supportive of men's rights are blocked. You can see the full list here.

What exactly does this mean for the sites concerned?
The "hate site" classification means a number of users are denied any access, particularly people accessing the internet in some restaurants, workplaces and via mobile phone networks such as Telefonica/O2. In total Symantec claims 250 million users of the filter worldwide, so it could easily mean a 10% reduction in traffic for mens' rights sites.

How long has this being going on?
It is uncertain as to exactly how long this has been an issue. I became aware of the problem in May 2012 though it appears to have been going on in some cases for at least two years. It must have been happening for a considerable length of time as some of the blocked sites no longer exist.

Hold on, I thought had been unblocked and Symantec had backed down?
Sadly this is not the case and such a suggestion is based on a false report in the media. was never unblocked at any stage.

I find this all a bit hard to believe, how can I check a site's classification for myself?
There are currently two ways to check whether or not a site has been branded as a "hate site". Users have previously checked a site's status by enabling Norton's DNS service, but a much easier method is O2's url checker.

Other mens' rights activists and even member of the media have had difficulty getting any sort of meaningful response from Symantec so I've taken a different approach and been in touch with O2/Telefonica management. I asked them to classify the blocked websites more appropriately and to stop censoring such content.  Eventually I was put in contact with O2's head of complaints, Antony Gibson, and he confirmed that O2 use the same filter service from Symantec, called Rulespace, thus explaining why the two block lists of the two companies are identical.

Mr Gibson liaised with Symantec and informed me they had reviewed the list and decided to reclassify just 2 out of the 47 sites I presented them with. This therefore means the "hate" classification/block officially stands for the bulk of this content (including and is no accident. Mr Gibson explained that O2/Symantec regarded the sites to be at the "low end" of the spectrum in terms of hate and further explained that they were blocked and classed as "hate sites" due to reasons such as showing "aggression" and/or use of the term "anti-feminism"!

Mr Gibson did express some concern about people seeing men's rights sites listed as hate sites and smeared in this way, but O2's solution to our concerns is that they will disable their url checker so no one can see the reason why a site has been blocked. In other words O2 is fairly happy for the issue of human rights for men to be classed as hateful, their only concern is people finding out that they're taking this stance. So, now we have no just a case of censorship and defamation, but a cover up too!

To compound matters yet further, many of these sites classified as hateful really are incredibly innocuous and deal with very important issues, many don't even use the term "anti-feminist" either nor contain "aggression". Such a term is so vague and ambiguous as to be completely meaningless, and proves absolutely how the filter is arbitrary and a nonsense and completely open to abuse. More importantly, if O2/Symantec have an issue with the term "anti-feminist", then they are quite blatantly taking an extreme political stance in favour of an ideology. Afterall, there's barely any more "aggressive" way of supporting feminist doctrine than to censor and defame anyone who dares critique or correct it.

I think this issue really sums up how important the men's' movement is today, not to mention the scale of the challenge facing us. We see countless feminist activists all over the media campaigning against free speech and equality and seeking privileges for women such as subsidised  insurance premiums. Feminists make endless sexist comments telling men not to rape and even the host of the world's leading feminist radio programme openly laughs at male victims of domestic abuse. Whilst all this has been going on, and despite spending countless hours on the matter,  I've failed with a simple request for companies to stop denying help to male victims of rape and domestic violence. In fact I can't even get these sick companies to remove their "hate site" smear from their classification of these vitally important resources. Perhaps I haven't yet been "aggressive" enough?

Here's a selection of sites O2/Symantec's insist on keeping in their "hate site" category:  - A site in Colorado helping male victims of domestic violence. - A blog highlighting the plight of male victims of rape and abuse.  -Website of the longest running men's human rights organisation in the US (founded in 1977).  - A site seeking for fathers to have a greater role in their children's lives.  - A webpage scientifically debunking the most common feminist myths. - blog by a fahter who doesnt' get to see his son.

For those who are curious, apparently the only two non-"hateful" men's sites out of the 47 are: and and both are now unblocked.
by John Kimble

The following may or may not be the email addresses of the O2 board members:, Pilar.Ló,,, Kate,,, René,,,,,