Radical feminists’ relentless war on white males
Breaking News:

Radical feminists’ relentless war on white males

Testicle cartoon

Decades of a virulent anti-male narrative by radical feminists has resulted in negative stereotypes of males being embedded in our culture. If you are a white, heterosexual male, who hasn’t succumbed to political correctness and therefore can still think for yourself, you are probably sick of the put-down of men in TV commercials, sitcoms and movies and the outright slandering of men by the domestic violence industry.

In a world where the cultural dialogue is dominated by feminists still complaining that men have all the power yet the truth in most Western countries, is that many of our laws, attitudes and social conventions make life tough for men, going so far at times to demonise men.

How many times have you watched TV commercials and sitcoms depicting males as dim-witted, bumbling oafs outwitted by smug, all-knowing females?

Or TV shows such as Criminal Minds that routinely depict males as violent, sadistic and depraved serial killers?

And SVU: Special Victims Unit, where the overwhelming majority of perpetrators are male (usually white).

Many men are incensed at their treatment in the courts and in police proceedings.

Feminism has achieved much for women but moderate feminists are concerned at the current direction of the movement.

Feminism started out as movement designed to redress the imbalance in opportunities and conditions for women, but was hijacked by radical socialists employing Marxist techniques of class warfare to create division between men and women where none had existed. The man-hating, spiky-haired warriors of Lesbos gleefully jumped on the bandwagon. 

Following years of highly-organised campaigning and lobbying, the feminist movement, now largely controlled by a group of Marxist zealots, is creating an increasingly anti-male world. The aim of this radical group appears to be to turn males into a despised group of second-class citizens. 

The feminist warriors are well on the way to achieving these aims. Women are being given priority treatment in government recruitment, in the courts, in education and in judicial appointments.

Sadly, many males have been badgered and brainwashed into joining their campaigns.

Government agencies just for women

Together these feminazis and their male lapdogs have lobbied governments to parachute their sisters into special government agencies designed to advance the cause of radical feminism at the expense of men. Male taxpayers are funding a plethora of government bureaucracies such as the Office for Women's Interests and the Sex Discrimination Commission. There are no agencies for men’s interests.

Below are some of the U.S. government agencies just for women, followed by their stated objectives, (note the repetitive use of terms such as “sex/gender”, “gender disparity” and “equity”):

White House Council on Women and Girls

On March 11, 2009, President Obama signed an Executive Order creating the White House Council on Women and Girls, with the objective:

To ensure that each of the agencies in which they're charged takes into account the needs of women and girls in the policies they draft, the programs they create, the legislation they support" and that the true purpose of our government is "to ensure that in America, all things are still possible for all people.[1]

The office of women’s Health (OWH) U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Serves as a champion for women's health both within and outside the agency. Works to correct gender disparities in drug, device, and biologics testing and regulation policy; monitors progress of priority women's health initiatives; and partners with government and consumer groups, health advocates, professional organizations, and industry to promote women's health.

Office of Research on Women’s Health, National Institute of Health (NIH)

Serves as a focal point for women's health research at the NIH; promotes, stimulates, and supports efforts to improve women's health through biomedical and behavioral research on the roles of sex and gender in health and disease; works in partnership with the NIH Institutes and Centers to ensure that women’s health research is part of the scientific framework at NIH and throughout the scientific community; advises the NIH Director and staff on matters relating to research on women’s health; strengthens and enhances research related to diseases, disorders, and conditions that affect women; ensures that research conducted and supported by NIH adequately addresses issues regarding women’s health; ensures that women are appropriately represented in biomedical and biobehavioral research studies supported by NIH; develops opportunities for and supports recruitment, retention, re-entry, and advancement of women in biomedical careers; and supports research on women’s health issues.

 Office on Women’s Health, U.S. Department of Health

Provides leadership to promote health equity for women and girls through sex/gender-specific approaches. The strategy OWH uses to achieve its mission and vision is through the development of innovative programs, by educating health professionals, and motivating behavior change in consumers through the dissemination of health information.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office on Violence Against Women

Provides federal leadership to reduce violence against women, and to administer justice for and strengthen services to all victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. This is accomplished by developing and supporting the capacity of state, local, tribal, and non-profit entities involved in responding to violence against women.

U.S. Department of Labor

Women’s Bureau

Serves as a public policy advocate for working women to improve their status, improve their working conditions, increase their efficiency, and advance their opportunities for profitable employment.

Googling the same agencies but substituting “men” for “women” reveals there are no such agencies. However, a private group, The Men’s Health Network, reports that efforts are being made to sponsor a bill that will establish an Office of Men’s Health under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Let’s see how the radical feminists react to that.

The Men’s Health Network website states:

There is an ongoing, increasing and predominantly silent crisis in the health and well-being of American men. Due to a lack of awareness, poor health education, and a paucity of male-specific health programs, men's health and well-being are deteriorating steadily. The deterioration of men's health is best illustrated by the life-expectancy gap. In 1920, the life expectancy difference between men and women was one year but by 1990 that had increased to seven years with men having a higher death rate for each of the top 10 leading causes of death.

Prostate Cancer makes up 37% of all cancer cases yet receives only 5% of research funding. (Source NPCC).


So powerful has been their campaign that many compliant men stupidly assist the radical feminists.  The largely male-dominated Family Court awards child custody to women in more than 80 per cent of cases.

The principle that everyone is equal before the law has become a travesty.

State-designated minorities are protected by discrimination and affirmative action laws. Such laws provide a permanent position of victimhood to justify bigotry against the PC hate target of choice: heterosexual men who lean Right.

The only group of citizens wholly ­excluded from the attri­butes list that comprises minority status under law are heterosexual, able-bodied men classified as “white”. The racial classification “white” is attributed generally to people of Celtic, ­English or European descent. In academe, it is common to find statements about the group that would be classified as hate speech if applied to any other.

BBC Radio performer sacked for being “white and male”

A BBC radio performer and writer, Jon Holmes, part of the team behind the Now Show, a hit BBC Radio 4 program says the reason he was axed from a show he has appeared on for 18 years is because it is being recast with “more women and diversity”.

In a tweet announcing his dismissal he said: “Sad to announce I’ve been axed from @BBCNowShow as ‘we want to recast with more women and diversity’ Tsk. And I didn’t even punch a producer.

He has been a writer and performer on the show since the first broadcast in 1997.

Later adding, some of those responsible for setting up the BBC’s diversity policies had got in touch to say political correctness had “got out of hand”.

In an article for the Mail on Sunday he wrote: “Should I, as a white man (through no fault of my own), be fired from my job because I am a white man?”

Adding: “But, after I tweeted the news, I was contacted privately (quietly and off the record, because people are terrified of saying the wrong thing) by many presenters, actors and even agents who are now being told, and I quote: ‘We love your client. He’s perfect for the role. But we’re not allowed to even invite him in for a meeting because we’ve been told to cast someone Asian’.”

The BBC recently announced new diversity targets to ensure women make up half of the staff numbers by 2020.

The corporation is also aiming to increase people with a black, Asian and minority ethnic background to 15 per cent, with lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people should make up eight per cent of the staff.[2]

Neo-Marxists use the minority politics of race and gender as communists used class, sowing envy and victimhood to create a revolutionary mass primed to attack a ­selected target.

Camille Paglia: A Feminist Defence of Masculine Virtues

“What you're seeing is how a civilization commits suicide," says Camille Paglia, a professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia in a 2013 interview with Bari Weiss of the Wall Street Journal. This self-described "notorious Amazon feminist" says the military is out of fashion, Americans undervalue manual labor, schools neuter male students, opinion makers deny the biological differences between men and women, and sexiness is dead.

When Ms. Paglia burst onto the national stage in 1990 with the publishing of "Sexual Personae," she immediately established herself as a feminist who was the scourge of the movement's establishment, a heretic to its orthodoxy.

"If civilization had been left in female hands," she wrote, "we would still be living in grass huts."

Ms. Paglia argues that the softening of modern American society begins as early as kindergarten. "Primary-school education is a crock, basically. It's oppressive to anyone with physical energy, especially guys," she says, pointing to the most obvious example: the way many schools have cut recess. "They're making a toxic environment for boys. Primary education does everything in its power to turn boys into neuters."

Things only get worse in higher education, she says. "This PC gender politics thing—the way gender is being taught in the universities—in a very anti-male way, it's all about neutralization of maleness." The result: Upper-middle-class men who are "intimidated" and "can't say anything. . . . They understand the agenda." In other words: They avoid goring certain sacred cows by "never telling the truth to women" about sex, and by keeping "raunchy" thoughts and sexual fantasies to themselves and their laptops.

"If we had to go to war," she says", it is the men that would save the nation."[3]

A word from another feminist

Nobel Laureate author and feminist moderate, Doris Lessing said in a 2001 interview she had become increasingly shocked at the "automatic rubbishing of men, which is now so part of our culture that it is hardly even noticed".

"Feminism has achieved much for women, but why did this have to be at the cost of men" she asked.

"We have many wonderful, clever, powerful women everywhere, but what is happening to men?"

"I was in a class of nine and 10-year-olds, girls and boys, and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men", she said.

"You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologising for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives".

She added: "This kind of thing is happening in schools all over the place and no one says a thing.”

"It has become a kind of religion that you can't criticise because then you become a traitor to the great cause, which I am not.

It is time we began to ask who are these women who continually rubbish men. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests.

Men seem to be so cowed that they can't fight back, and it is time they did" she said.

The domestic violence industry demonises men

It has been shocking to watch attempts to reduce domestic violence morph into a worldwide domestic violence industry determined to ignore evidence showing the complexities of violence in the home and avoid prevention strategies that would tackle the real risk factors underpinning this vital social issue.

The whole thing is based on the erroneous notion that domestic violence is caused entirely by men, out of disrespect for women.

Key organisations all sing from the same songbook, regularly distorting statistics to present only one part of this complex story.

This type of omission is everywhere today, with most of our bureaucracies downplaying statistics that demonstrate the role of women in family violence and beating up evidence of male aggression.

The fact remains that almost a quarter (23.1 per cent) of victims of intimate partner homicide are male — and we hardly ever hear about these deaths.

It is not serving our society well to downplay the fact female violence can also be lethal, towards men and towards children: women account for more than half of all murders of children (52 per cent).

“If a woman turns up to a police station claiming her man has yelled at her, the chances are that she’ll end up with a police report and well on her way to obtaining an apprehended violence order, which puts her in a very powerful position,” says Augusto Zimmermann, a commissioner with the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, who explains that AVOs can be used to force men to leave their homes and deny them contact with their children.

Often men are caught in police proceedings and evicted from their homes by orders that are issued without any evidence of legal wrongdoing. “It is a frightening reality that here in Australia a perfectly innocent citizen stands to lose his home, his family, his reputation, as a result of unfounded allegations. This is happening to men every day (as a consequence) of domestic violence laws which fail to require the normal standards of proof and presumptions of innocence,” Zimmermann says, adding that he’s not talking about genuine cases of violent men who seriously abuse their wives and children but “law-abiding people who have lost their parental and property rights without the most basic requirements of the rule of law”.

Given the shame and stigma associated with being a male victim of family violence it is not surprising that men downplay these experiences in victim surveys such as Australia’s Personal Safety Survey.

The evidence is there about the complexities of domestic violence, but on an official level no one is listening. The reason is simple. The deliberate distortion of this important social issue is all about feminists refusing to give up hard-won turf. .

The truth about domestic violence statistics

The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project

In the largest ever such research project, in an effort to bring together in a rigorously evidence-based, transparent methodical manner, existing knowledge about partner abuse with reliable up-to-date research, the Senior Editor of the peer-reviewed journal, Partner Abuse, in March 2010, recruited family violence scholars from the United States, Canada and the U.K. to conduct an extensive and thorough review of the empirical literature related to family violence.

In this unprecedented undertaking, a total of 42 scholars and 70 research assistants at 20 universities and research institutions spent two years researching their topics and writing the results. Approximately 12,000 studies were considered.

A brief summary of the findings:

Section One: Rates of Male and Female Victimization.

The group studying information in this area analyzed 249 publications comprising over 1 million subjects. They found that, over their lifetimes, about 23% of women reported physical victimization versus 19.3% of men.

As to public policy, the authors stated the obvious:

This comprehensive review… documents the need for gender-inclusive responsiveness to this wide-ranging public health problem. In particular, there are currently few services for male victims and the high rates of violence experienced by women and men suggests a need for treatment and intervention strategies for victims of both sexes.

In other words, the roughly half of all DV victims who are men have nowhere to turn for help, and they need it.

Section Two: Rates of Male and Female Perpetration.

The authors studying data in this area analyzed 111 separate data sets comprising about 250,000 subjects. They found that about 25% of those subjects reported perpetrating physical violence against a current partner or one in their last relationship. That represented 28.3% of women and 21.6% of men who perpetrated violence against an intimate partner. Subjects came from across the industrialized, English-speaking world.

The authors note that “gendered explanations of IPV do not adequately account for our findings.” Of course the DV establishment will hasten to say that rates of perpetration of domestic violence don’t deal with the severity of violence, only the incidence.

True, but the authors anticipate that argument.

Findings should be used to support the development and implementation of interventions that acknowledge the use of violence by women in intimate relationships but also recognized how participants’ treatment needs may differ.

That is, difference in the severity of domestic violence should no longer be used by the DV establishment as an excuse to deny services to male victims or female perpetrators. Those interventions should be tailored to the needs of those victims and perpetrators.

Section Three: Rates of Bi-Directional and Uni-Directional IPV.

In this area, 50 separate studies that recorded rates of bi-directional versus uni-directional violence were analyzed. Researchers found that, in the largest samples studied, among couples reporting domestic violence, 57.9% reported reciprocal or bi-directional violence with the remainder, 42.1% reporting uni-directional violence. In the uni-directional group, women were over twice as likely (28.3%) to perpetrate violence as were men (13.8%). [4]

Feminists firm grip on Prime Minister Turnbull's testicles

Considering the results of the above study were released in November 2012, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s Media release below, on 24th September 2015, makes him look a proper goose, and illustrates his captivity by the feminist-controlled domestic violence lobby.  

Women and children in Australia have the right to feel safe and live without fear of violence.

Yet, one in six Australian women has experienced violence from a current or former partner, and 63 women have been killed so far this year.

For Indigenous women the situation is even worse – they are 34 times more likely to be hospitalised as a result of family violence.

In recent weeks, we have seen yet again the devastating impact that domestic and family violence has on our community. The tragic and avoidable deaths of women and their children at the hands of current or former partners or family members highlight the need for urgent action.

We must elevate this issue to our national consciousness, and make it clear that domestic, family or sexual violence is unacceptable in any circumstances.

Today the Australian Government is announcing a $100 million package of measures to provide a safety net for women and children at high risk of experiencing violence.  The package will improve frontline support and services, leverage innovative technologies to keep women safe, and provide education resources to help change community attitudes to violence and abuse.

Announcing the policy, Turnbull said that domestic violence was a “cultural problem” that started with disrespect for women.

“Disrespecting women does not always result in violence against women, but all violence against women begins with disrespecting women,” Turnbull said.

“We as leaders of government must make it, and we will make it, a clear national objective of ours to ensure Australia is more respecting of women, women must be respected.

“Disrespecting women is unacceptable, it is unacceptable at every level – at home, at the workplace, wherever.”

Out of the $100 million of taxpayer funding for women, an amount of $2 million was set aside for men. However, even that miniscule amount was just to fund MensLine so that men can “get help” if they feel like disrespecting women.

Taxpayer-funded indoctrination of children

Accompanying the Prime Minister at the media conference, Minister for Women, Michaela Cash, announced that a new program, the Respectful Relationships programs will be embedded in the Australian education curriculum and will be rolled out in Schools across Australia starting from kindergarten to Year 10.

Such a program is straight out of the Marxist-inspired Social Justice Warriors handbook as evidenced by the imminent rollout of the program in schools throughout the state of Victoria. Children from kindergarten level upwards will be taught about “male privilege” and how “masculinity” encourages “control and dominance” over women.[5]

While the program refers to “gender-based violence”, the overriding emphasis is on men being the perpetrators of violent acts. Proposed lessons will introduce students to the concept of “privilege”, which is described as “automatic, unearned benefits bestowed upon dominant groups” based on “gender, ­sexuality, race or socio-economic class”. “An awareness of the existence of male privilege is critical in understanding why there is a need for feminist perspectives, and education on gender at all,” the curriculum guide points out.

It also introduces students to the term “hegemonic masculinity”, which is defined as the dominant form of masculinity in society that “requires boys and men to be heterosexual, tough, athletic and emotionless, and ­encourages the control and dominance of men over women”.

The affliction of Marxist terminology such as “male privilege” and “hegemonic masculinity”, once confined to American campuses, has now inveigled its way into Australian kindergartens. What next? Will the tots start demanding “safe spaces” where they can be free from the “hegemonic masculinity” of the five-year-old boys?

Surrounded by feminist advisers and advocates, Turnbull has fallen for the feminist line that all domestic violence is perpetrated by men. If he had taken the trouble to do his own research, Turnbull would find that the $100 million of taxpayer funds will only enrich the feminist-dominated domestic violence industry.

Following such a massive misuse of taxpayer funds to demonise men, no self-respecting Australian male should ever again vote for Turnbull or his party.

Bombarded with negative images, feminist attacks on “male privilege”, and statistics about male prison rates and rape rates, boys are growing up feeling alienated, frustrated and even suicidal.

Before they succumb to the feminist-inspired propaganda, boys should consider the following:

  • All of the great inventions and discoveries in history including mathematics, the printing press, electricity, the steam engine and the aeroplane were made by men.

  • All of the important inventions of the 20th Century that transformed the Western world into the comfortable, orderly, civilised and affluent society that it is today were made by men. Think how life would be without electricity, running water, refrigeration, the automobile, the aeroplane, the jet engine and the transistor (forerunner to the amazing array of 21st century electronic entertainment and labour-saving products).

  • More than 95 per cent of the houses we live in are built by men who do the back-breaking work of pouring concrete and laying bricks. Men sweat in foundries, pit muscle and sinew against rock in mines and risk death on 100-storey building sites so that their wives and children can live in comfort. Men comprise 95 per cent of all workplace fatalities and the vast majority of work-related injuries.

  • The legal system that protects women's safety and women's rights was created by men.

  • Men have won 95 per cent of all Nobel Prizes ever awarded.

  • Boys should ask their tormentors, why is it that that women have created only a tiny fraction of world's great music, great literature and great works of art?

  • And in what are considered female domains, why is it that mostly men make the best chefs, the best dress designers and the best hairdressers?

As Camille Paglia says: "If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts."

And: "If we had to go to war, it is the men that would save the nation."

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cwg

[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3817609/BBC-sacked-white-man-Radio-4-comic-told-need-women-minorities.html


[3] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303997604579240022857012920


[4] http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org/pdf/Overviewof%20Findings.Dec.7.pdf

[5] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/victorian-male-dominance-program-for-kindy/news-story/ca83b9ee2b6131b74a85ad2c509dafd6

Article ends



Further reading:

Feminists have re-defined domestic violence to mean 'intimate partner violence' with the implication that all domestic violence is perpetrated by men. This does away with the pesky statistics relating to child murder (women 52%) and women murdering their partners (33%).

Below are just a few of the dozens of records on our files of female-perpetrated domestic violence.

Domestic violence: How to legally murder your husband

Susan Falls laced her husband's curried prawns with sleeping tablets and when he fell asleep she placed a pistol, bought on the blackmarket, against his temple and fired. At her trial the judge told the jury she was acting in self-defence (notwithstanding that her husband was asleep). The judge seemd to be setting a precedent for future husband killers, saying that it was not necessary for the defence to prove self-defence, but rather the prosecution must prove she wasn't acting in self-defence at the time. Consequently Falls was found not guilty of murder and manslaughter, and walked free from the court

Domestic violence: Four women conspire to execute boyfriend

Domestic violence: Woman walks free from court after killing her son
In what must be Australia's most gruesome case of domestic violence, Kathering Mary Knight had sex with her husband and when he fell asleep, stabbed him to death. Using skills acquired as an abattoir worker, Knight carefully skinned her husband before hanging his hide on a meat hook in their lounge room. WARNING: even more graphic details in full story.


To add a comment register here