Friday, April 25, 2014

Right-wing feminism is equally odious in Norway

Last year in Norway, the ruling leftist coalition lost the election and their government was replaced by a coalition of so-called right-wing parties. I didn't vote for them, or at all, because I knew they would merely replace socialism with fascism. In past elections I always voted for the Progress Party (Frp) in the belief that they would be a lesser evil, but now I understand there is no such thing. Their authoritarian, police-loving, man-hating views simply cannot be excused even if their economic policy is slightly less oppressive, and now the results of their hateful ideology are starting to manifest themselves. While the new government did decrease the income tax by one percentage point and repealed the death tax, on men's rights they are in fact worse than the old socialists.

The scumbags in the Norwegian legislature, fully supported by the new government, have abolished the statute of limitations on sex crimes, even victimless sex crimes like consensual sex with young teenagers, setting the stage for witch-hunts on old men just like the Savile hysteria in Britain. They didn't yet make it retroactive, so it will take a while for this to bear fruit, but it certainly proves that the Progress Party consists of even more odious feminist scumbags than the Labor Party, and I hate their guts equally profoundly. If anything, minister of justice Anders Anundsen from the Progress Party is a more despicable person than any of his predecessors.

And they are working on expanding the definition of rape once more, inheriting the proposed changes I blogged about earlier from the previous administration.

Thus the march of misandry continues, regardless of which party is voted into power. All political parties in Norway, without exception, represent hatred against men. None of them deserve our vote, and all of them deserve our utmost contempt.

So much for partisan politics, but there is one voice of reason amid all the misandry. Synnøve Brattlie is a psychiatrist making surprisingly lucid statements about rape law. She points out that women are not served well by a dishonestly expansive definition of rape with escalating punishments. She believes that when every woman who has her regrets after sex is defined as a rape victim and the hateful machinery of the state is maximally supportive in having the man convicted and locked up for many years even though the woman shares equal blame for the sexual encounter, then this may do more harm than good to women. Or to honest women, at any rate. In her clinical experience, the dishonest and hateful nature of rape investigations and trials on the part of the feminist state also messes with women's psychology, because the entire point of the proceedings is to perpetuate a lie. In the current system, there is no such thing as bad or regretted sex, or men simply acting like jerks -- everything is rape if the woman has any negative feelings about it whatsoever, so women are not allowed to be honest about their sexual experiences. This realization is progress and very similar to what I have been saying for ten years now, except as usual in public discourse, only the woman's point of view is taken into account. We have now reached the point where in the opinion of at least one psychiatrist, rape law is hurting women because it is too expansive and draconian, so feminist rape law reforms should be reversed to help women. I doubt our hateful legislators will listen to this point of view either, however.


Anonymous said...

Oppi det naive løkhodet mitt har jeg alltid trodd at folk/politikere/journalister er oppriktig opptatt av å finne sannheten og kjempe for rettferdighet. Jeg har i voksen alder skjønt at jeg er den største løken i verden. Jeg har ikke skjønt noe så enkelt som at folk er opptatt av makt, jeg har avfeiet det som gammeldagse spekulasjoner - jeg har selv alltid bare vært opptatt av å leve livet i fred og har trodd at alle andre er slik også. Men alt det du kaller mannshat handler om deilig maktfølelse og ingenting annet. Det er ikke viktig å rettferdiggjøre noe, det er viktig å beholde og konsolidere grepet om ballene. Når stadig flere løkhoder som meg virkelig forstår dette blir dette landet et enda tristere land å leve i. Makt vil aldri være bærekraftig, etter 10.000 år har verden enda ikke skjønt det.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, truth and justice have very little to do with anything, and least of all with regard to politicians. Just about everything they say and do is contrived in order to gain more power for themselves and their interest groups. We might just call it that, but misandry is a particularly pernicious sort of justification for power that is worth identifying and fighting on its own, in my opinion. Accusing rape is one of the most effective ways imaginable to gain power, so it is no wonder feminists and politicians and the rest of the abuse industry are always trying to expand the definition.

Angry Harry wrote a good article on the ubiquitous quest for power:

"Whether it is the weeping of victims, an article in a newspaper or the machinations of a government department, perceiving what you see as a quest for power seems to be the best key for unlocking the truth behind what is really going on."

But he also has a solution:

"The Big Solution, therefore, is to arrange matters so that people can only acquire power by doing good. And then it doesn't matter so much if power is their aim."

Not sure how realistic this is in practice though, but it is worth aiming for.

Anonymous said...

Om du har en aldri så god sak, om du er aldri så rimelig, så er det uinteressant. Kvinnene og mennene som kjemper mot deg og latterliggjør deg er en del av det store historiske underet; the rise of the woman. De har forlengst forlatt petty "kraften i det beste argument". Dette er mye større. Dette er historisk, og i det store bildet er det for menneskehetens beste. De kvinnelige verdiene er the future. Og det er kun rå makt som kan sikre det. De er blitt krigere, og vi andre går fremdeles rundt i vår naivitet og vrøvler om rettferdighet.

Anonymous said...

It sounds like Norway's political parties are about what they are here in the US. Basically here, the Left enacts radical programs and policies while in power. The Right comes to power, complains a lot but doesn't change anything. Then the cycle repeats.

Things don't change in the US because the partisans of both factions are fanatics who hate each other---even though they're working for the same ends. Anyone who tries to come up with actually workable solutions is either derided as a 'moderate' or denounced as an 'extremist' depending on how much the idea deviates from institutional Political Correctness.

Eivind Berge said...

It looks like a good thing about US politics that your parties hate each other so much that it is very difficult to get anything done. Norwegian politics is too congenial, with almost no disagreement about fundamental issues, so insidious policies such as feminism are easily implemented. I wish our politicians would hate each other more and sabotage each other's agendas instead of embracing them and embellishing on them whenever they get the chance.

Anonymous said...

True, but the downside to it is that, once bad laws and policies like feminism get established, they're almost impossible to repeal or revoke because of the same antagonism. Sometimes, the issues get deferred to Courts, which are just as partisan.

jack said...

Indeed, nothing is to be expected from the Right. France's Marine Le Pen, though still labelled "extreme right" by political opponents, has in fact embraced all the prejudices of the mainstream. What is left in her platform is some kind of anti-immigration, anti EU stance. What good is that? I think the reason political parties end up being misandric is because men overwhelmingly support misandry. They see misandry as directed first and foremost against other men. Their minds are locked in anti-male mode. They welcome any anti-male legislation because they think in terms of eliminating other men, not in terms of maximizing opportunities for all men. The modus operandi of human Societies is men fighting men while women comfortably watch on the side-lines. Men either face death on the battle fields or, in peacetime, arrest and jail. As a man, you die at the hands of the enemy if there's a war on, or at the hands of the police or fellow inmates if there's no war on. Brute force is the only thing that pays in the end. Men's motto is "glad it ain't me, serves the other bloke right!"

Eivind Berge said...

Sadly, that is all very true.

Anonymous said...

Eivind, have you read the novel Facial Justice by LP Hartley?

Eivind Berge said...

No, I have never read that one. Maybe I should?

Anonymous said...


Somewhat OT, but you might find this story interesting:

Obama also recently repealed the Anti-Propaganda Act of 1948 and included provisions in the Defense Authorization Act of 2013 that allows the government almost unprecedented powers to disseminate propaganda and disinformation on the Internet. This FCC ruling abilities to counteract any of that.

jack said...

"The Big Solution, therefore, is to arrange matters so that people can only acquire power by doing good. And then it doesn't matter so much if power is their aim." (Angy Harry)

This can't work because the definition of "good" is itself widely open to abuse. Some author coined the apt phrase "The Empire of Good" ("l'Empire du Bien). Another Frenchman (Houellebecq) wrote to the effect that "humanitarian work" was often code word for the worst shit imaginable.

Anonymous said...

Hei Eivind.

Angående erstatningssaken din; Jeg tror det er slik at du kan kreve at den går for Oslo tingrett i stedet for den rettskrets(Bergen)som behandlet varetektsfengslingen.

Har du snakket med advokaten din om dette?

Eivind Berge said...

Saken er allerede berammet for Nordhordland tingrett 24. november. Har ikke tenkt på å kreve at den heller skulle behandles i Oslo. Ville det vært lurt?

jack said...

"Are you sure its not because of the vagina vote Jack?"

Some days ago I commented on a newspaper article about rape. I wrote among other things that men were overwhelmingly the victims of rape considering rape in prison. I was voted down and mocked ... by men. It simply delights men to think other men are raped in jail. Or that any men are raped at all. Sad

Schopenbecq said...

"I wrote among other things that men were overwhelmingly the victims of rape considering rape in prison. I was voted down and mocked ... by men. It simply delights men to think other men are raped in jail. Or that any men are raped at all. Sad"

I agree Eivind, and man will be wolf to man, especially to fellow men who have broken the rules, or 'cheated', when it comes to sex.

Although the 'sex offenders deserve no mercy' attitude is likely a hard-wired male response to any man seen as 'cheating' and getting more pussy than he would if obeyed the common rules, partly its also to do with paedocrisy and the desire to publicly deflect any suspicion that they themselves are 'cheaters' or sex offenders or 'paedophiles'.

In other words, it's a survial mechanism that is almost required for any man in a society in which feminism, with the mass support of women, has created such a climate of fear and suspicion that any man could be accused of being a sex monster.

And regards Jack's specific point about political parties wanting to appeal to the misandry of men, that's no doubt true to an extent, but surely its more pertinant that male politicians are chasing the floating female vote that is commonly acknowledged to decide most democratic elections in the Western world these days, and are consciously appealing to female voters in particular when they announce new misandristic laws to 'protect women and children'?

Eivind Berge said...

I don't think chasing the female vote is so critically important for winning elections in Norway. Because there are so many parties, no party can get a clear majority anyway, so Norwegian politics is all about coalitions rather than winner-takes-all. It would be possible to gain quite a bit of power in Norwegian politics by catering to antifeminist voters, if such a niche existed. Nonetheless, all the parties are explicitly feminist and all try to outdo each other in passing the most hateful sex laws. This leads me to believe that the mangina vote is just as influential as the vagina vote, and there is no hope for a men's movement whatsoever. Our only bet is to wait and hope for the collapse of civilization instead, and meanwhile the misandry will only escalate. I also think the abuse industry and prosecutors will increasingly prey on women too, and this won't change a thing either. At this point we live in an age of so stunningly pervasive sex-hostility that it can only be made evident to most people in retrospect, I think. Pointing out misandry and sex-hostility feels like explaining to fish that they live in water. The sexual victim cult is so ingrained in the fabric of our society now that the whole putrid edifice needs to come undone before there is any hope. Try to explain to any person in our society that there is nothing wrong with having sex with a thirteen-year-old, say, or that rape isn't simply sex without consent, and 99% of the time they are so brainwashed that it is impossible to even engage them in rational conversation about it. And sadly yes, this even includes most men. I look forward to the day when people will be more concerned with keeping hunger at bay than locking up supposed sexual abusers, because nothing less than a shock to our basic needs can jolt us out of this mass-psychosis of feminist sex-hostility.

jack said...

I want to point out that blaming the vagina vote (instead of blaming men's support of misandry) only begs the question. Why the vagina vote and not the "dick vote"?

Like Eivind, I lean to utter pessimism regarding the men's movement. Men are simply and stupidly hard-wired to gang-up on any men seen as getting pussy. In fact the thought of any other man getting pussy is intolerable to most men, except strangely when they're wanking to porn. In traditional Societies people kept sex to themselves. It was a taboo and that's what it should have remained. In the information age sex is out of the bag, men are not equipped for this and they see red everywhere. Men can only spend their time in either one of two ways: chasing pussy or preventing other men from getting it. The take home point is that men are flawed creatures. Women are too of course, but men are so to a much more self-defeating extent.

Indeed once civilization crumbles, people will have to come back to basics (revert to survival mode). Women will come back to men humbled, and will have to trade sex for basic work only men can do. Until then the surpluses generated by technology will increasingly go towards orchestrating persecutions against men.

Eivind Berge said...

"In fact the thought of any other man getting pussy is intolerable to most men, except strangely when they're wanking to porn."

Because in that case the male porn star is merely seen as a stand-in for the male viewer and not considered as a person at all. Wanking to porn is a maladaptive behavior men are prone to because our brains haven't adapted to distinguishing pixels from real women, another detrimental effect of technology which separates men further from actually getting pussy and having healthy sexual relationships with women. Not only that, but men are also easily persuaded to persecute other men even just for watching porn if the content is deemed unacceptable by feminists.

Why did men invent all this technology to harm and oppress themselves? Something went horribly wrong somewhere, quite possibly as early as the invention of agriculture. That was the end of leisure and the start of enabling real oppression. The good news is that none of it is sustainable.

Anonymous said...

Highlight please! Dette er det sykeste.

Eivind Berge said...

Hvis voldtekt er den grusomme forbrytelsen man skal ha det til, så er det utenkelig at det går an å voldta et helt basketballag av voksne kvinner i årevis som om ingenting skjer. Altså kan det ikke være mer enn at han i høyden har oppført seg ufint mot kvinnene, som han sier. Det er helt absurd, men nå har det virkelig blitt slik at rettssystemet definerer ufin oppførsel som voldtekt og straffer det like hardt som drap. Forsettelig drap gir vel normalt rundt 14 år nå, mens ufin oppførsel kvalifiserer til 15.

Og misbruk av stilling? Å spille basketball er en frivillig aktivitet. Blir kvinner liksom tvunget til å være med i en basketballklubb? Hvis kvinnene ikke liker at treneren prøver seg på dem, så kan de komme seg vekk og finne seg en annen klubb. Men i stedet velger de altså å angre seg i etterkant og heller hevne seg gjennom feministlovene. Det var tydeligvis viktigere å være med på laget enn å komme seg unna den treneren, noe som forteller oss nøyaktig hvor lite alvorlig disse "voldtektene" virkelig var. Og dette mener drittsekkene i tingretten at han fortjener 15 år i fengsel for, for så dypt stikker mannshatet. Ulempen med å finne en annen basketballklubb for kvinner = 15 års fengsel for en mann. Jeg vil anta at mannen muligens blir frikjent av juryen for noen av disse "voldtektene" nå i ankesaken, men at de profesjonelle feministene i lagmannretten ellers legger seg på samme nivå, for det er dette som er blitt vår syke virkelighet.

Anonymous said...

Det er så sinnssykt dette her. Skriv en post på dette her, skaff domteksten fra tingretten og opplys oss. Jeg håper du kan gjøre det. For dette kan meget vel være det eksempelet som gjør at du vinner, og vekker folk. Finn dommen fra tingretten, publiser den, og kommenter den. Nå har du fått en spesifikk ønske forespørsel fra en som skjønner ditt hat, som er glad for at du ikke velger voldens vei, og som tror du vinner til slutt. Drit i dommedagsprofetiene. VINN! Du har sannheten på din side.

Eivind Berge said...

Jeg skal se om jeg finner domsteksten og godt mulig blogge om denne saken. Men jeg har sluttet å tro på at folk våkner opp selv om de ser hvor absurde dommene er, for jeg har jo påpekt det så mange ganger. Det går bare motsatt vei, mot et stadig mer utflytende voldtektsbegrep og stadig lengre dommer for mer og mer trivielle forhold. Nå er det antakelig politisk enighet om å gjøre fravær av samtykke til et selvstendig kriterium for voldtekt. Så da trenger kvinner bare si at de ikke samtykket, og så er det voldtekt da og ferdig med det, uavhengig av hvor trivielle grunner det var for at kvinnen likevel var med på sex. Kanskje hun bare ikke gadd å dra seg unna, eller det var viktigere å få spille på et basketballag, eller hva som helst. Altså er voldtekt blitt en ren formalitet som skal straffes som en alvorlig forbrytelse. Det er ingen i maktapparatet og ingen politikere som bryr seg om menn virkelig fortjener å sitte 15 år i fengsel for en formalitet, uansett hvor mange ganger vi forklarer hvor urettferdig det er. Og menn flest vil bare trekke på skuldrene og tenke at det skjer ikke med dem.

Anonymous said...

"Og menn flest vil bare trekke på skuldrene og tenke at det skjer ikke med dem."

DET er riktig. Men fortsett likevel. Demokratiet undertrykker folk på forskjellige måter, det får bli opp til hver enkelt å si ifra i sitt tilfelle. Demokratiet har undertrykket din happiness i dette livet, da driter du langt i at enkelte menn som ikke kan gangetabellen går rundt som dimlinger og trekker på skuldrene. DU vinner, du sier ifra, hele tiden!! Da kan du dø med stolthet som en gammel koselig mann :) De andre som er undertrykket på forskellige måter, som lukker munnen sin igjen og går rundt og sutrer, dør som slaver. Punktum!

Eivind Berge said...

Jeg er enig i at denne saken fortjener oppmerksomhet utover det som rapporteres i feministisk media, og jeg skulle gjerne fulgt saken selv. Jeg har dessverre ikke mulighet til å stille i Borgating lagmannsrett akkurat nå, men kanksje noen lesere fra Oslo kan det? Det hadde vært fint om noen mannsaktivister kunne gå og høre på nøyaktig hvordan disse "voldtektene" beskrives av anklagerne, og så skrive om det.

Anonymous said...

Den går over hauger av dager, så håper noen kan kommentere her hvis de får kommet seg avgårde til rettssalen noen dager. Håper også du Eivind får kommet deg på toget et par dager, bor ikke kjæresten din i Oslo? Dere kan jo gå sammen. For mediene kommer ikke til å belyse denne saken. De koser seg. For noen ekle menn de redaktørene er. 15 år i bur!!!!!!

Eivind Berge said...

Jo, planen er å reise til Oslo i begynnelsen av juni, så det er mulig når saken varer så lenge. Skal se om jeg får henne med. Håper andre går også!

Anonymous said...

Prosessen, eller skal jeg si Kafka-prosessen mot Tor Bertelsen bør bemerkes av dette forumet. Bertelsen var dommer i Bergen tingrett og har blitt avsatt med påstander om at han ikke var skikket til embedet.

Særlig interessant for mannsaktivister er å bemerke at han har vist seg å være en person som forsøkte å gå imot sedelighetshysteriet som preger norsk strafferett. I så måte er det særlig et menneske forumet bør bemerke seg som står for det stikk motsatte, nemlig Kari Johanne Bjørnøy.

Er det noen som kjenner noe til henne? Hun var blant annet en aktiv pådriver for at Bjugn-saken ble så skandaløs som den ble.

I Bertelsen prosessen har hun blant annet gått ut og stemplet nevnte dommer som sinnsyk. Sykeliggjøring av uønskede elementer i samfunnet blant myndigheter bør ikke være et ukjent fenomen for dere forumdeltakere. Det har også vært en dytteepisode som har blitt blåst totalt ut av alle proporsjoner.

Det er åpenbart at man kjenner igjen elementene. Ta noe vanvittig bagatellmessig og blåse det opp. Henvise til psykisk sykdom. Og med ekstrem nidkjærhet sette absolutt alt av maktapparat i sving for å bryte ned mennesker.

Bjørnøy bør studeres nærmere. Les blant annet dommeravhør hun har foretatt seg i Bjugn-saken. Damen må være psykopat (Psykopati er forøvrig ingen psykisk sykdom for de som trodde det)

Anonymous said...

Bertelsen er altså den første dommer etter krigen som måtte "ta sin hatt og gå"

Det sier altså noe om hvor farlig det er å gå imot den politisk korrekte statsfeminismen.

Han har blant annet blitt beskrevet som kvinnefiendtlig.

Det anbefales å lese dette debattinnlegget om Bertelsen:

"...Bertelsen går eit steg vidare og lar dei falske skuldingane slå attende mot mor: «Etter rettens vurdering synes det temmelig klart at mor helt bevisst har påvirket barnet for å få ham til å komme med utsagn om overgrep som så kan brukes for å hindre hans samvær med sin far."

Bertelsen begår med dette karrieremessig selvmord. Han avviser ikke bare grunnløse påstander men går også til motangrep mot det kvinnelige "offeret" som tradisjonelt har immunisert stilling i vårt samfunn.

Eksperter går imidlertid god for Bertelsens psykiske helse

Anonymous said...

Bare syv år mindre enn baskettreneren.

Eivind Berge said...

Enda en sak som viser mannens rettstilstand.

Helt tydelig at det er bare å dikte opp sex-anklager, og så er det ren bingo om menn blir dømt. Dommene blir bare reversert hvis kvinnene senere angrer på løgnen. I dette tilfellet etter at mannen hadde sonet hele dommen.

Anonymous said...

Hi Eivind, could you comment on this? What do you think? This scares the crap out of me...

Eivind Berge said...

Elliot Rodger looks kind of like an apolitical younger version of me. Although I don't feel that way anymore, I do of course fully understand how involuntary celibacy leads to homicidal rage.

He seems a bit entitled though, perhaps even narcissistic, and not politically aware. Political enlightenment tends to lead to violence against system enforcers rather than random people. It's a shame he seems unaware of MRA issues and doesn't articulate an antifeminist position.

He is basing his entire rampage on the fact that girls aren't attracted to him. He has realized girls don't like a "supreme gentleman" like him but instead "throw themselves at obnoxious men." Unfortunately, his first obnoxious act is a rampage. It would have been wiser to try to mimic the behavior of the obnoxious men who do get laid instead (learn game), but I understand it can be hard to break the belief that girls ought to like nice guys.

Omegas aren't as harmless as they look. There is a lot of rage and hatred seething under the surface. Male virgins past a certain age are the lowest of the low, and there is good reason to fear them. Virginity means literally everything they tried has failed, and then violence starts to look like a highly compelling option, probably for deep evolutionary reasons. After all, they face genetic extinction and have nothing left to lose. Violence is indeed a healthy way to react in that situation, although it is not the optimal one in the current environment.

Anonymous said...

Han oppgir politikk som interesse:

Eivind Berge said...

You are right, at least to some extent he was politically aware, and an antifeminist:

But now it is emerging that he was allegedly afflicted with Asperger's syndrome. In that case he had a major handicap beyond the incel issues. That makes it more complicated, but still his basic rage is understandable. As far as I know, being autistic is not a sufficient explanation for violence, so the politics still probably apply.

Anonymous said...

Hej Eivind!

Tak for dit interessante websted! Jeg har bare et lille spørgsmål.

Jeg har set et eller andet sted, at du kritiserer Red Barnet og Amnesty International i skarpe vendinger. Jeg kan udmærket godt forstå din kritik af Red Barnet, men kan du ikke lige forklare, hvorfor du også er utilfreds med Amnesty?

Ha' det godt.

Eivind Berge said...

Elliot Rodger's 137-page manifesto is available here:

My Twisted World - The Story of Elliot Rodger

Anonymous said...

Elliot Rodgers har utrolig mange likhetspunkter med deg Eivind. Du skrev jo mye om misunnelsen og hatet du følte mot alle menn som got laid. Hva tenker du når du leser manifestet hans?

Eivind Berge said...

Jeg skrev et nytt innlegg om det:

Kort sagt er manifestet en vanvittig bra beskrivelse av hatet som ufrivillig sølibat kan føre til.

Anonymous said...

Men hvorfor hatet du mennene? De kunne jo ikke hjelpe for at kvinnene ville ha dem?

Eivind Berge said...

Jeg kan ikke huske å hate mennene slik som han gjorde, og heller ikke kvinnene. Jeg fokuserte snarere alt hatet mot politiet, for å håndheve feministlovene som bidro til sølibatet og ikke engang tillot meg å kjøpe sex.

Anonymous said...

De satte frifinnelsen til side. For hver dag som går blir galskapen større og større. Bli aldri pappa! Det er livsfarlig i Norge.

Eivind Berge said...

Juryen er der bare for å skape en illusjon av rettssikkerhet. Det er de profesjonelle feministene som bestemmer til syvende og sist.

Det er risikosport å ha noe som helst å gjøre med barn. Å jobbe med dem er i alle fall ikke verdt det. Å ha egne barn har vært litt mindre farlig, men blir bare verre, det også. Og nå kan anklagene altså komme resten av livet også, så risikoen går aldri vekk. Best å holde seg langt unna barn og helst ta vare på bevisene for at man aldri har vært alene med dem.

Anonymous said...

Nå er det engang slik at det er påkrevd å være alene med barn når man er lærer foreksempel. Selvsagt har ikke en kommune økonomi til å fylle hver undervisningstime med assistenter, det burde si seg selv, når man eksempelvis ser hvordan skolebygninger har forfalt de siste årene.

Jeg tror det farligste er å gjøre seg til uvenn med foreldrene. Seksuelle anklager er et typisk våpen under alvorlig konflikt. Men det finnes også mentalt ustabile personer som har det som del av sin psykose å seksualisere sin verden og det som hører dem til, blant annet barna sine.

Det er enkelt å si at man bare bør holde seg unna barn, men det finnes faktisk de menn som ikke jobber med barn fordi de har seksuelle interesser for dem, men fordi som halvstuderte, eller helstuderte for den sakens skyld, røvere ikke får annen jobb enn i skoleverket. Barneskoler er så definitivt de arbeidsstedene som lyser ut flest stillinger.

Det er forøvrig også lett å si at man bare kan la være å jobbe, men for normale mennesker er inntekt en vesentlig del av livet, dessuten gir yrkesutøvelse en følelse av identitet.

Jeg skulle ønske det fantes pressgrupper som jobbet for å sikre rettsikkerheten til menn i høyrisikoyrker. Virkeligheten er at slik problematikk blir tiet ihjel helt til den dagen overgrepsanklagene er et faktum. I så måte er faktisk arbeidslivet i england mer redelig, der de har innført sikkerhetsprosedyrer i forhold til slik problematikk said...

Hi Eivind.

I wish the half dozen sex positive bloggers would unite and collaborate. I wish you stopped over and commented at, at the topics that relate to your interests.

Of course, also at theAntiFeminist, as long as you don't get blocked like I do, for making comments slightly critical of his party line.

You can register so you get emails whenever I have a new post. A lively discussion is very positive for a blog.

I also invite people like you to actually author articles, I can give you a login if you desire.

Look at AVoiceForMen. Full of very valuable contributors, like Warren Farrell and Erin Pizzey. They are getting almost as good as the feminists, and I believe they have a lot of good points. Except MHRA clueless about sex laws: AvoiceForMen victimizes boys which would deserve your comments. said...

It is shocking how Amnesty international and ACLU got corrupted. They used to stand up for the rights of everyone, including of Nazis to walk through Black or Jewish Neighborhoods.

Seems they really want White Europeans to stop procreating. Or do you think this is an unintended side effect?

It would be interesting if Black Ghetto culture cares much about these rape definitions. Of course, lots of Black will go to prison because they get ensnared in date rape laws.

But I would imagine that many simple people of all races don't even know about these absurd laws, don't believe they are true, and don't have the self discipline to refuse sex when offered by jail-bait or drunk women. Just watch the teenage pregnancy rate, in many states all these children are the product of "rape"

I wonder if this has much influence on Black or Muslim culture in Norway.

British judge frees child-rapist because he “didn’t know it was wrong”

Anonymous said...

Hi, what a great forum this is and I want to applaud the help that was rendered to my Husband. I send my love and prayers to all who have come here for help. I'd like to request a prayer for Rick Simpson and to Dr. David who have cured my Husband of his lung cancer. He was diagnosed about 3 year ago, beat it once and then a few months later it came back in his brain. We have been doing everything possibly, medication wise, and now the cancer seems to be immune to chemotherapy and radiation. The doctor talks about this being his last year of life, so I feel like he has lost hope but i didn't. after several online search, I found Cannabis oil so i decided to give it a try and i ordered for it, as soon my Husband started his treatment and to God be the glory I didn't lose my lovely husband to lungs cancer anymore. So i'm here to share this testimony to the world at large as my Husband has been saved by the Cannabis Oil, contact Dr David if you have problem relating to cancer and other diseases Email: , Tel: +16194786459