What is going on with the medical establishment? Is HIV the cause of AIDS, a more or less significant co-factor, or related to any disease at all? Why is HIV/AIDS diagnosed differently in different countries? This documentary by Gary Null blows the lid off the idea AIDS is settled science. Where is the cure? The latest vaccine trial backfired. The dissenters have their say, though censored in professional journals for their heresy, challenging all the hocus pocus, intolerance of questions, money changing hands. AIDS has become a big business, with all the attendant shady dealing.

HIV is the elusive immunity destroying retrovirus nowhere to be found in blood or tissue, except in viral fragments reconstructed by PCR, the polymerase chain reaction technique invented by Kary Mullis, winning him the Nobel Prize. He has plenty to say in this movie, about questions the AIDS community won’t, or can’t answer, like a reference paper proving HIV the cause of AIDS. There’s evidence HIV isn’t sexually transmitted. AIDS pioneer Robert Gallo never proved or discovered anything. He stole the credit for this virus from Luc Montaigner, who loaned him a sample for research. Virus expert Peter Duesberg also raises disturbing issues about AIDS, and how his opinions cost him, the heretic whistleblower virtually ostracized by his academic peers.

Is everything we are told about AIDS wrong? Why is that so hard to believe? Nothing new for the medical orthodoxy, and as usual, the drug companies are cleaning up while people die. Is AIDS another medical Vietnam? The scale of this scam may be comparable. These days, what’s real in science, true to life, uncorrupted by conflict of interest? Is there no respect left for reality, or theory that stands up under all critical scrutiny?

The theory that HIV is the cause of AIDS leaves out too many factors. Immune deficiency has so many possible causes in this toxic poverty-ridden world, same with low white blood cell counts. It can be short or long term, or due to collapse under stress overload. Especially in poor nations, it doesn’t take much to overwhelm the immune system, but it used to be that AIDS was blamed for rare opportunistic diseases, not common ones like tuberculosis and malaria in Africa! What could possibly be the point of reassigning deaths due to those diseases to AIDS? Money! Money flows for AIDS, not much else, so real diseases and causes are overlooked, as funding dries up. When people are treated for their diseases, they get better. When they get AIDS drugs, they might get better, for awhile, but chemotherapy drugs are not meant for continuous use. If the dose is low enough, they may not be fatal for quite awhile. The dose of AZT when it was the only or primary treatment was a quicker death sentence.

This is a bad science fiction horror story about medical science run amok! Somebody wake me up from this nightmare! You can try, tell me Gary Null, and other experts in this movie, are all wet. The movie is available on Google video as well as his earlier documentary, Deconstructing The Myth Of AIDS. From this nightmare, there is no awakening, though as I noted in my previous blog entry about the curious study finding no link between viral load and how sick the study participant was, JAMA suggested looking for contributing factors was exciting.

The study challenges the current belief that the degree to which the virus replicates itself is the trigger for the loss of CD4 cells, white blood cells that are a key component of the body’s immune system.

An accompanying editorial in the journal said the findings were exciting because they suggested that researchers should look for and target non-viral factors that set off the eventual decline in the immune system.

What’s really going down with immune system collapse? If HIV is not the problem, what’s the point of taking these cocktails? They might, as a side effect, kill the opportunistic disease, so people might feel better for awhile, but it’s no cure for what ails them, whether poverty or other causing immune overload. The movie shows a center in Africa treating sick children by feeding them properly and treating their diseases. Those kids get better. AIDS in Africa is a distraction, a fearsome name to cover for old problems, like the local infestations, civil wars, malnutrition, drought, industrial and agricultural pollution, climate change, outsider meddling. none of that is important because AIDS is The Problem! Unaids just last Nov. had to defend its overestimation of HIV in Africa against charges of deliberate alarmist inflation.

HIV is not the problem. The so-called AIDS test is protected by a curious disclaimer in its package insert that it’s not meant to establish a diagnosis of HIV infection. It’s a non-specific antibody test that can cross react with all sorts of unrelated things, so the common tests are riddled with false positives. When Dr. Gallo originally submitted that test, it showed too many people positive, so it was rejected. He got it to pass muster by reducing the sensitivity. The drug treatment is more deadly than HIV, quite capable of causing AIDS or liver failure, now a primary cause of death from AIDS, and treating people for what is making them sick is their best chance to recover.

I invite debate on this subject. I am not a doctor, but I am a scientist and logic expert, and this stinks of bad science. If you think HIV causes immune system collapse, explain that study I cite. The AIDS establishment has plenty to answer for. I think this film should be shown as evidence in a trial. What is happening to people diagnosed with HIV is criminal, if not murder. The average doctor may not realize how the science of HIV doesn’t hold up, but anyone who watches this film, if your faith in conventional wisdom is unshaken, you are no scientist. I challenge anyone with that faith to defend this way of hastening people to death who could have lived.

This past Tuesday night Roy of Hollywood asked Gary Null for his opinions about the trouble KPFK, and Pacifica in general, is having raising funds. Gary has lots of opinions about that, having been kicked off the New York Pacifica station WBAI, despite being their top fund-raiser. One fact Gary revealed that I didn’t know, one of the network’s biggest expenses is paying off sexual harassment judgments and the associated legal fees! He said Pacifica has been trying to sweep this under the carpet, denying everything, promoting instead of firing the perpetrators! I did a little research and found this press release published at Indymedia from July this year. If you think Pacifica deserves its billing as free speech radio, you might want to read the whole thing, and weep.

Pacifica Radio Network - Rocked by Discrimination
by Its about time for change
Friday Jul 13th, 2007 5:00 PM

Progressive Radio Network Rocked
By Violence, Discrimination, and Sexual Harassment

Five women in legal actions against radio stations in the progressive Pacifica Radio Network have encountered stunningly “un-progressive” practices in the network’s handling of women’s complaints of sexual harassment and discrimination.

Women at all five of Pacifica’s major market stations have fought to compel Pacifica Radio Foundation and its member stations, including Berkeley’s KPFA, to immediately end physical threats, harassment, discrimination, and sexual assaults against women, as well as their retaliation against the women who report the misconduct.

Recurring allegations are that Pacifica refused to investigate the women’s complaints, refused to discipline the perpetrators, fostered an environment of impunity, refused to prevent further harassment, hampered the women’s ability to perform their jobs, and subjected them to retaliation and, in some cases, termination.

Among those who claim they have been victimized are senior managers, investigative reporters, hosts, a station news director, and administrative employees. And these women all claim that they have found the disconnect between the network’s progressive rhetoric and its handling of discrimination within its own ranks to be startling.

For shame, Pacifica. For shame. No wonder many feminists are so suspicious of the male left.

An unholy alliance of California Child Protective Services (CPS) with a hostile doctor and judge is attempting to railroad Laurie Jessop, framed as a threat to her son and the establishment for finding a way to cure him of malignant melanoma. She is now on trial, under a gag order, since she had gone to the press. When she was arrested, she was put in maximum security, solitary confinement, in the Orange County, CA jail. They claim that everything about. her says anti-Establishment, so she was told, as she was considered a threat in starting a riot.

On the morning of Sept. 12, Gary Null read on KPFK, a Pacifica station in Los Angeles, an e-mail from Ron Miller, who had met Ms. Jessop at the Cancer Control Society annual convention during the Labor Day weekend. They had discussed this persecution by Big Brother in the guise of saving her son from this evil mother who has failed to protect him! She disobeyed doctor’s orders and found a natural way to cure her son. These forces arrayed against her and insisted he must have the cancer removed surgically and attacked with the standard chemical fare. The cancer is gone, but nobody in authority will accept that because her doctor doesn’t believe that’s possible.

The initial biopsy of the mole was done in February. Their regular doctor was on leave when test results came in. A nurse informed them of the bad news. On May 8, Chad Jessop had a follow up appointment with a medical group doctor, by the name of Dr. Masciana, who insisted he needed surgery to excise the site within a week, or he could die any day now! This doctor is a general practitioner, not an oncologist or qualified to do cancer diagnosis or surgery. Chad and his mom decided to pursue holistic treatment for him. Incensed, the doctor reported her to Child Protective Services on the grounds of gross negligent child endangerment. She yelled at Laurie “all of you Jehovah’s Witnesses are all the same,” never mind Laurie and Chad are not Jehovah’s witnesses. Dr. Masciana also told Laurie, with her son present, that his death was imminent. At the close of the appointment, Dr. Masciana informed Laurie that she was referring the case to Social Services. In further investigation, Child Protective Social Services is a misnamed government agency whose employees get paid bonuses every time they take children away from their parents.

That evening Laurie called an attorney who advised her that she had 48 hours or less before Social Services showed up. If she could not prove she was following doctor’s orders, they’d take her son. Since Dr. Masciana had created such a traumatic experience for Chad, he feared the doctors and threatened to run away. In honoring Chad’s wishes for continued holistic care, Laurie took her son to San Diego to continue holistic care using a number of various alternative treatments such as: ozone, hyperbaric oxygen chamber, hydrogen peroxide, energy work, Rife, nutritional supplements, and deep emotional work. Laurie also used “black salve” that she purchased from Canada to remove the mole tissue. Black salve was developed by Native American Indians more than 200 years ago, and used in the treatment of skin lesions, cancers, warts, and moles. Figures our FDA banned it, because it works.

When Chad insisted on hitting the road to continue alternative therapies and getting further diagnostics, that left a question as to where Laurie’s daughter Crystal would go. A close friend of the family and Crystal’s best friend agreed, and this felt like a perfect fit under the circumstances, so Laurie legally signed Crystal over to the family and gave them all the necessary medical insurance information. On May 22, the local sheriff and CPS had taken her daughter out of class, interrogating her mercilessly, telling her lies about her mother, trying to force her to reveal where Laurie and Chad had gone, and then forced her to go on a police joy ride and show them where they reside. All of this was done against her will and carried on for six hours!

They applied “Black Salve” directly to the area in question, thus giving Chad a holistic version of a large border excision. It took about two and a half weeks for the wound to heal. When it was healed Laurie took Chad to a Del Mar dermatologist for a biopsy. The test results were negative of any signs of melanoma! The next two weeks were concentrated on once again healing the tissue to get another biopsy. Upon the wound site being healed, a melanoma specialist did a punch biopsy and a complete lab analysis on Friday, June 15. Again, no sign of cancer could be found in the biopsy and the blood work was in healthy ranges with no distinguishing markers that would otherwise be present in a patient that would have advanced stage four melanoma, as had been previously reported! Was it a miracle, or an activated immune system in a healthy young man, with some useful help, that healed the melanoma?

The following Monday, June 18th, Laurie and Chad turned themselves in to the San Diego Social Services office, with all of their documentation. They were detained for 4 hours, then told that arrest warrants for Laurie and Chad were issued from Orange County. Chad was locked up at the Palenskie Center in San Diego for one night. He had 2 guards watching him around the clock, since he was considered a flight risk. When Laurie went to visit Chad they could not have any privacy, as both guards listened to every word that was said. Laurie spent over nine thousand bucks in San Diego for the treatments done over the five week period of time, and has all the receipts as proof. A new social worker, David Harper, was put on the case. He picked Chad up in San Diego transporting him to Orangewood Children’s Home in Orange County for the next two weeks, where he got fed spaghetti and meat balls, food not fitting one healing from cancer. One aspect of Chad’s treatment was a healthy diet of living foods, but Ms. Jessop’s requests of this social worker that Chad get proper food fell on deaf ears. He did tell her she was allowed to see her daughter graduate from Junior High School. She told him nobody could keep her away without a court order, and that she would be there! The social worker informed Laurie that he completed the paper work to lift the warrant order on her.

After her daughter’s graduation, on June 21st Laurie went to make academic arrangements for her son, having missed five weeks of school. Laurie showed the documentation to the principal and vice principal. The Vice Principal knew Chad well, as Chad did his Eagle Scout project for him at the high school. Chad is now an advanced Eagle Scout. No matter, the VP called police to arrest Laurie at the school and haul her off to the county jail. The arresting deputy harassed her. When Laurie protested, the officer told her she didn’t have to like her or be nice to her. After arriving at the county jail, her first telephone call had been to the social worker, David Harper, although he did nothing to get her out of jail, nor was he willing to help correct the record. Laurie was physically abused, they spread her legs twisting her knee, when she complained they called out “Resisting…Resisting” then they pushed her violently to a cell wall (behind the cameras) causing her to twist her neck, shoulder and arm. After being worked over, they took away her jacket, shoes, socks, and toilet paper, and locked her up. Her holding cell was extremely cold and she was deliberately denied toilet paper. She asked for toilet paper, only to be answered it must have been taken for good reason and she was not getting any. She was denied toilet paper from approximately 3:30pm until 11:00pm. One has to wonder, what was she going to do with the toilet paper, hang herself? By 11:00 pm Laurie got taken to be assessed. She asked “is this a madhouse run by animals, who is running this place?” Laurie told this officer her story for half an hour. He let her talk, then said he sees all kinds of characters, his job is to ascertain threats. He told her she has the fire, the spirit and the power to overturn the system and create a riot. He informed her she’d be put in solitary confinement, but she might get a roommate, probably a drug offender. She was forced to take a chest X-ray against her will, without any explanation and ridicule from the officers. Laurie and her two children have never been in any type of trouble with the law, but were treated like hardened criminals. She was shocked to learn women taking showers have no privacy, that male guards are watching. The next night she got a 58-year old roommate charged with kidnapping her children from her husband 20 years ago, after being extradited from Tennessee on outdated bogus charges tagged with 200 thousand bail. It would appear that Orange County is desperately trying to maintain job security at the expense of the innocent!

Laurie was released on the streets of Santa Ana after midnight, in an unsafe area of Southern California for a woman, after five days of incarceration. Upon Laurie’s arrest, officers impounded her van and turned it upside down looking for drugs. She had to pay over 300 dollars in impound fees to get the van back.

As Laurie was seeking legal counsel, she was told that Paul Wallin Attorney at Law was one of California’s leading attorneys for litigating against Child Protective Social Services. Laurie eagerly faxed over documentation on the case, and they spoke for more than forty-five minutes. In the course of the conversation, Paul Wallin claimed to be reasonably supportive to alternative therapies, as his mother had been cured of cancer and wrote a book “I Beat Cancer.” The attorney jokingly mentioned that he had spent the entire day in court with the very Judge Carolyn Kirkwood who will be ruling on the case, and the very same senior social worker David Harper, that has been re-assigned to the Jessop case. The attorney went on to explain that he is also a Judge Pro Tem, and his position was both of a Judge and an attorney.

Paul Wallin began to verbally shred Laurie, and the course that she took! Paul indicated that Laurie did it all wrong, citing that she did not respond quick enough, and that she was negligent in not forcing her son to see an oncologist at that time. Paul Wallin said that he would be willing to take the case at the tune of $14,000 and double that if it would go to trial. There was a condition however, and that was that Laurie Jessop throw herself on the mercies of the court and tell the court that she suffered from “temporary insanity,” and lost her mind when she was informed of Chad’s diagnosis of melanoma. Paul Wallin indicated that Laurie Jessop would probably be placed in parenting classes and community service and that she MIGHT get her kids back. Paul Wallin again reminded Laurie that he would only take the case if she’d follow his advice, and tell the court that “she did it all wrong!” This is a classic example of the kind of money motivated characters out there. Laurie was paying attention to what this attorney told her! In the very opening dialogue he informed Laurie that he had been in court with the very same social worker and Judge that would be deciding the case. Based on his response, it seems that he was more interested in protecting the back side of his courtroom comrades, than in the interest of justice!

Social Services approved the foster families that Laurie had arranged for Chad and Crystal. Now Laurie is on trial, forbidden to speak under a gag order, by the very judge that had issued the bench warrant for her arrest, because she refused to go along with orthodox medicine. The dermatologist, appointed by Social Services, testified in court that the melanoma is playing hide and go seek, that they’d have to subject Chad to unnecessary and dangerous further biopsies and medical procedures to find where it migrated to. The dermatologist further stated that the melanoma had become even more deadly, claiming it has now traveled to different organs. The prescription for surgery is a large border excision to the skullbone. Chad says he is old enough to defend this country’s freedoms, but he is denied that same freedom of choice when it comes to his own health and he is also under gag order. Ms. Jessop intends to sue anyone who touches her son against their wishes. All Chad’s blood tests are consistent with a healthy 17 year old 6′2″ young man. They refuse to tolerate anyone trying to clear their conscience at his expense. Laurie says her record stands, she will not back down, and she wants parents to know they do not have to be intimidated by this system! The judge has stated twice that she doesn’t want Chad to die while she is on the bench; which sounds like she has bias in the case! Surgery and chemotherapy had been intended for the following week. The doctor is still of the mind Chad could die any day now. When giving testimony, the dermatologist was asked if he could perform surgery on Chad, knowing that Chad would not cooperate with any Western medical butchery. His answer was emphatic No, he could not perform an operation on anyone against their will.

What Big Brother has been doing to Ms. Jessop and her children is unconscionable, beyond outrageous, a gross miscarriage of justice and an abuse of authority. Many families have been torn apart by lesser abuses of CPS and modern medicine. The Jessop family is very united and strong in their convictions, very aware of their constitutional rights, and will not give up to our corrupt system. Being a single parent for the last 11 years, Laurie has done herself proud raising her children and is extremely close to both of them. Laurie and her children have stood the test and this hellish ordeal has brought them closer together as a family. She said at the press conference, “I am a mama bear and no one is messing with my cubs!”

Laurie’s deadbeat ex-husband, Marcus, has never voluntarily paid for child support or any of the children’s medical bills, even though he is legally bound to pay for half according to their divorce agreement. She has had to drag him into court to get a judgment and garnish his wages in order to collect on past due medical bills. It so happens Marcus is in agreement with the state, he wants his son, (having had no contact for the last 10 years) to be butchered and drugged to eliminate this incredible cancer, that refuses to carry out its death sentence and is too clever to show up on tests. Marcus is in court with his own public defender, pushing for this even though he has no legal or physical custody, not even any visitation rights. If he was in agreement with Laurie’s medical beliefs, this court probably wouldn’t allow him in the courtroom. Our tax dollars, hard at work!

In the state of Virginia, a brilliant 17 year old young man went through a very similar ordeal, but won his battle with CPS. Once his case was over, he was instrumental in passing a new law in the state of Virginia. Abraham’s Law, that gives a minor the right to make their own medical decisions when they are bright and understand their choices. Laurie wants to get her story out and push through a similar bill in California, called “Chad’s Law,” so that other families do not have to go through the abusive nature of a department that is supposed to be protecting our children. As “Roy of Hollywood” stated on KPFK recently, who is protecting us from the Child Protective Social Services Department? Pushing through a bill like this may be very expensive, but once Laurie makes up her mind that she is doing something, she is all steel, determined, and will persevere to find a way to make this happen. If you can help her in any way, please contact me via e-mail.

Orthodox medicine is unwilling to admit it does not know everything, and it hates competition. Its methods of treating cancer are not the only ways that can work. Ms. Jessop believed she could find another way, and her son, given a diagnosis of imminent death, is now free of cancer. Never mind, the doctor is sure it’s still there, so Big Brother intends to make an example of her as an unfit mother for disobeying her doctor, putting her son in mortal danger. That’s not happening, but truth often doesn’t matter to Big Brother, as is apparent in most government policy. If Chad were actually endangered by not getting conventional treatment, the authorities might have a leg to stand on, but in this case, it’s not his mother putting him in jeopardy, it’s the system! The doctor has egg on her face, because she was sure Chad would die quickly without aggressive conventional treatment, and she has been proven wrong! Instead of learning from her error, she wants to make Ms. Jessop and her son pay for showing her up!

I’m helping her get her story out. One newspaper did a story, but in general, very little has been reported so far. I tried to find the story online, but no luck. A press conference was held on Sept. 6th, just before court. Two of the major TV news stations and one of the largest AM radio all news stations showed up. KNX radio ran the story immediately that day. As soon as court started the judge announced that there was a gag order on this case and threatened jail time and contempt of court to anyone (including the minor in question), that spoke to the press or anyone else for that matter. One of the TV news stations didn’t want to run the story without interviewing Chad and getting his viewpoints. The judge denied a continuance six different times, ignoring all six times valid reasons for the requests. The judge also denied Laurie the right to hire her own attorney! She retained a law firm with her own money, but the judge insisted she has to keep her Public Defender, presumably as a public servant easier to control than a private attorney not so dependent on the system.

If anyone reading this wants to help get the story out, feel free to blog away. I could give out phone numbers for Ms. Jessop or Mr. Miller if you send me a note at alexwren@pacbell.net This blog is angryscientist.wordpress.com. Laurie can’t risk violating the gag order, but she’d appreciate your prayers and support in her very difficult time of fighting our corrupt system in order to keep her family together. Thanks for taking the time to read this long story. Now that you know what sort of injustice masquerades as protecting children, you can do something to help wake up sleepwalking friends and neighbors, trusting “The System” to know what’s best for the children, and adults too.

This sentence of misspelled names is to assist searchers to have a better chance to find this information: Lori Jessop; Lori Jessup; Laurie Jessup; Chad Jessup; L. Jessop; L. Jessup; Lauri Jessup; Lauri Jessop; Laura Jessup; Laura Jessop.

Update:

There is deep gratitude for all the many angels who stepped up, and put their lives and careers on the line to assist in the healing of a young teen. Although many individuals have been honored with anonymity, below are named some of the angels that have assisted in Chad’s recovery:

Abundant Life International, Inc.
Mark Lawson
905 E. Twain Ave. A-1
Las Vegas, NV 89109
www.abundantlifeintl.com

Alternative Health Center
9225 Chesapeak Dr.
San Diego, CA 92123
(85 467-1500
www.althealthcenter.com

Life Center for Health
Calvin Ross, D.C.
31882 Del Obispo
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
(949) 661-9476
www.drrossdc.com

Gary Null talked about this case on his daily show September 13, 2007, starting at 11 minutes and 45 seconds into the broadcast, for over five minutes. That show was available for listening or downloading at http://garynull.ws/2007/09/13/the-gary-null-show-91307.aspx but Null has moved his archives to Itunes.

Chuck Aubrey aka “The Baron” interviewed Laurie Jessop on his Gnosis show on KJLL in Tucson, Arizona on November 03, 2007 between 6 and 7 PM. If anyone wants to get a copy of the show, send a request with your snail mail address to dashoak@netzero.net.

WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP?

Laurie is committed to being an instrument in legislative reform, enacting a minor’s bill of rights and to assist those who are experiencing similar intimidation tactics by social services. Laurie is looking for the best vehicles to educate and inform the masses, as to the importance of standing up for our “Sovereign Rights.” Any suggestions that you may have with media contacts would be greatly appreciated. Laurie is in the final stages of setting up a non profit organization called the CHAD FOUNDATION (Choosing Health Alternatives Deliberately). If you have any ideas or suggestions, please send e-mail to chadfoundation@gmail.com, or if would like to make a tax deductible donation to assist in reform and help with legal expenses for the cause, you may do so by mailing to:

Laurie Jessop
C/O Chad Foundation
P.O. Box 808
Lake Forest, CA 92609

This entry is for the trolls to sound off, explain what makes them tick, why they do what they do, if they can write something with actual content possible to discuss. I’m including a couple of examples from hostile commenters. From my limited understanding, the trolls call themselves the Legion, the followers of lulz, who choose to attack certain web sites and blogs for reasons I wish to explore, since in my eyes these guys have a real problem with radfems, and a minor one with me. I got lots of subtle hate porn story spam, but no threats like what these raeped women are getting. The Obvious Troll sent me lots of crap in the initial invasion, but the level of threat of his “Eat shit and die traitor” doesn’t come close to what they throw at women. Most of my new visitors come from a Wikipedia spoof site with particular venom toward feminazis like Heart and her friends.

Note, if you find or know of that site, it mentions sites shut down by this lulz crew. It had precise instructions on how to shut down each target, since deleted. A publicly hosted blog is a harder nut to crack, though they could still make a blog exceed its traffic limit, unless the blog host is protected. I’ll miss reading the womensspace board, though I have to say, that was a space where what men would think didn’t seem to stop those women from saying anything. I have no idea what they were saying in private, though I did read a few allusions to forums not open to the public. It’s all closed down now, and I doubt it will come back as a board the public, or I, can read. Great victory? What was that about freedom of speech? My part in this is peripheral. Evidently a mother’s post about frustration with her teenage son’s propensities got taken way out of proportion and context, as an excuse to locate her and torture her with threats, in an epic battle with feminazis. One issue they seem to think works only in their favor is freedom of speech, deliberately suppressed by lulz. I’d be interested in any explanation of why a self-respecting man would stoop to such tactics preventing women from having their say in a safe space. For this particular blog entry, I’m suspending most of my rules. What is the harm in women talking freely? Do they shut you down? What is wrong with this picture, guys? The truth you can play fast and loose, laughing all the way, but it’s not on your side here!

You must think I’m totally off my rocker, huh? If a man had a teenage son who told him to fuck off and die, is there any man who might not think, I wish I hadn’t fathered this boy? That mother loves her son, despite major issues with the father. Humans have this faculty called better judgment that can prevent them from acting on harsh feelings. She is alarmed at her son’s behavior. Maybe you think it’s no big deal that young teens get to view what is supposed to be adult material. If she didn’t intervene, she might be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, in some states. Am I mistaken? A mother can’t win, as usual. Whether she lets her adolescent son view adult material or tries to stop him, she is a bad mother in the eyes of the law or this strange gang, if not both. I don’t get why this gang isn’t trying to change the law if they care so much about a mother trying to stop her son from breaking it. Where is the beef? The beef seems to be with the law defining adult material off limits for children, but the mother gets death threats. This doesn’t compute to me. Explain. I’m dead serious. I want to know why a gang of men is picking on this particular mother. Tell me how what she said is worse than how you would react if your son told you to fuck off and die. Maybe this son didn’t use those exact words, but think about it. What would be going through your mind?

She didn’t specify what kind of porn she caught her son viewing, or if he got his hands on a credit card. We all know there is wide variety in what is called porn. Some of what is called porn is just plain nudity, which if portrayed artistically might not bother a feminist. On the other end of the spectrum is sexualizing women getting hurt, more or less. Rape, snuff, S/M, lots of variety, but the principle is not about sex, it’s about men dominating and/or hurting women. That may seem harmless to men, but I’m old enough to remember before Hustler came on the scene and busted all the rules, so men could take desperate women on a sleigh ride, paying them money to submit to torture. I don’t know what was on the black market, but Hustler broke the ground for normalizing sexualizing men’s vicious feelings towards women. I know, most guys think this is harmless, but I have to disagree. Women are raped, battered, harassed, terrorized, or worse on a routine basis. This society is in big trouble for lots of reasons, but one is its acceptance of such vicious feelings as normal for males. I’ve got nothing against male lust for women expressed appropriately, though it isn’t a casual thing for me. Humans also have this faculty called imagination. A normal straight male libido is not dependent on degrading women. Guys who try harder find out, sex can be be fun for women too.

Before my minor slice of troll invasion, I got this comment buried in Akismet from Anonymous at ebaums world. I decided to rescue it, because it raises a point I’m curious about.

Heart is a moron who blames problems on arbitrary stuff, just like any racist or bigot.

I don’t see why somebody like you supports her.

Somebody like me, meaning what? A man? A scientist, perhaps, who specializes in a branch of logic? I disagree heartily with this characterization. What men do to women is not arbitrary stuff. Heart knows not all men are like the lulz legion or get off on hurting women. Heart lets me comment on her blog, sometimes. One comment got me deigned a challenger to lulz, thus fair game. I recognized one troll from lurking at another board long defunct. Sorry, guys, to get on my blog you have to raise some issue, like the above, calling Heart moronic. Is that a reason to crash her site? What is the reason? I’m asking for an explanation, if you are reading here still thinking how to torpedo me for sticking up for her right to get her ideas out. She may make you mad as hell, but that’s no excuse for this dishonorable gangpile behavior. Is this done to everyone who expresses views that piss you guys off, or only if they appear to lack power to retaliate? High tech gang rape, no? Yes, the lulz gang openly recommends rape or raep of its declared enemies.

Why? What does it benefit you, to shut down discourse? Or is all a big joke, temporary amusement? I’d like to know, because I don’t get the joke. Is threatening rape and murder funny? It is criminal, by the way, anonymous or not. What’s so horrible about a mother regretting a child, when her feelings for him clearly outweighed her frustration? Her son is not in any danger because of her frustration. Can she say the same? What’s the reason for torturing her? Laughs? Why is this funny? I don’t get it. Why is she fair game for torture, because she fears her son will learn women are fair game to rape, batter, humiliate? Is that not what most porn is all about these days?

Is this an epic witch hunt, or a warning? I understand why men might want to satirize Heart, since she is running for President, but why these foul threats? And why pick on her friends? I understand this is part of a long-running campaign against women bloggers. Correct me if I am wrong. Most movements have factions, hangers-on, rogues, intrigues perturbing their common purposes. I don’t get what the gang is after with this rescuing the brother business. Her son should learn the truth about his mother being so distraught over his defiance of her that she wrote about it, and how he was conceived, and that she sometimes has wished he hadn’t been born? Why is it anybody’s business? That’d be hard on her and her son, but not as hard as if some anonymous guy pops up and tells him lies or wild exaggerations about it. He can rebel against his mother without any help. Where is the need or right to intervene? Nonexistent, but somehow that doesn’t matter, the lost brother must be rescued. You expect me to be on the side of that? Illogical mania based on deliberate distortion? Give it up guys, you’re making all men look really bad. If you want a fight, fight with me, with actual content, not wasting bandwidth with silly stories or poetry by someone calling himself Stalin. I believe in free speech. I have to object when I see it getting squashed. I object to any kind of thought police. I also object to the views of the inventor of that word, feminazi. I disagree with Rush Limbaugh just about 100%, but you don’t see me trying to shut him down.

This comment was posted on womensspace:

on 10 Aug 2007 at 6:19 am

91 Neuromancer

I can scarecly believe it. You’ve been given everything. EVERYTHING. And you still think that this is about feminism. Open your eyes for fuck’s sake, just close your mouth and pay attention. It’s not that hard. It’s like you willfully ignore information that contradicts your preconceptions. You can’t be that obtuse, noone is.

—

Yes, heart, I know you’re not going to post this, I wrote it in the off chance that you would let a differing opinion in. This isn’t about you, and it never really was, you should know that. Just lie low and it’ll blow over in a couple of days. Bring your website back up and start where you left off. Noone’s going to come after you, we don’t care. Radical opinion is necessary in any society, as it keeps it fresh and healthy, and the world knows that the american empire needs that now more than ever. I don’t agree with a thing you say, but that doesn’t mean that I want to stop you from saying it.

Is this true of more than Neuromancer? Is the lulz gang just sending a message, blowing off steam until it gets bored? Or is it determined to pursue a war to silence radfems? I know a bunch of you lulz guys have visited here. Sound off! What’s motivating you? Why are you picking on these women, really? Isn’t your real beef with the law, or the empire? What do you intend to do to them? Where do you draw the line? What does freedom of speech mean to you? How is it compatible with threats?

ETA: Follow the links of the commenters at your own risk.

Oh, those poor transgender folks, feeling oppressed by a film created by acclaimed lesbian filmmaker Catherine Crouch, because her film makes a point they don’t want to hear. This article from the Bay Area Reporter I found linked at Womensspace. Heart said she would be blogging about it shortly. Crouch says:

Things are getting very strange for women these days. More and more often we see young heterosexual women carving their bodies into porno Barbie dolls and lesbian women altering themselves into transmen. Our distorted cultural norms are making women feel compelled to use medical advances to change themselves, instead of working to change the world. This is one story, showing one possible scary future. I am hopeful that this story will foster discussion about female body modification and medical ethics.

Not if the transgender activists have their way! They say Crouch and her film are peddling transphobic stereotypes! That’s news to her. At least one of the outraged transmen is torn about the idea of censoring her, but such qualms didn’t stop more than 130 people from signing a petition denouncing her film and Frameline’s decision to screen it. I have to ask, who is oppressing whom here? She is worried about this trend of women who don’t fit the female stereotype feeling they have to change into men. Who sold them that bill of goods, I’d like to know. I’ve had more than a few women friends. None of them fit the female stereotype. What the hell does taking testosterone and going through such drastic surgery have to do with being a gender outlaw? Nothing. That’s just trading one stereotype for another, not to mention probable cancer or other major health problems to look forward to. I think it’s important to discuss the compromised medical ethics involved, but to these outraged transpeople, that’s just more of the same old transphobia!

Why would women do this to themselves? I think it has everything to do with the way culture indoctrinates everyone to see women as inferior to men. One would think women rebelling against stereotyping wouldn’t fall for this deceptive solution to their issues with how females are supposed to be. What does it buy them, a ticket to validate female inferiority from the other side? I don’t know, but it sounds like a hell of a way to rebel, becoming a man to prove to oneself one is not like a typical woman? There is no such thing as a typical woman anyway, at least not from my point of view.

Men are different in that respect, because we men are highly rewarded for conforming, and most men don’t have the balls to defy how men are supposed to be. In a sense, women are also rewarded for conforming, but that reward is more like hollow societal approval for accepting their place as inferior beings, which offers no protection from being harassed, raped, or battered. Typical men don’t have to deal with such threats. Transmen do, especially when discovered.

I’m not going to claim to understand why women do this to themselves. I have my suspicions, but no way of knowing. I can sort of comprehend the MTF phenomenon, because the male stereotype makes me want to distance myself, at least psychologically. As a man who respects and cares about women, I find it abhorrent and incredibly sad that women would feel this is a viable way to escape oppression. Maybe they feel changing the world is hopeless. I could certainly understand that pessimism, though I don’t share it. I’m not in their shoes, though I’m a gender outlaw myself, considering myself a straight androgynous man. I’m fascinated by women, but I have no desire to alter my biochemistry. I’m weird, and like it that way, despite the flak I catch for it.

It’s one thing for a convicted murderer to confess while doing hard time, another for OJ who got away with murder virtually scot-free. A Boston Globe editorial says a couple thousand was seized so far against the 33 million judgment, expecting he would find some sleazy way to keep the money he makes off this book. This is first-class brazen effrontery marketed as a tell-all book. Anyone who believed he was innocent, OJ sure had you fooled. Now he is laughing all the way to the bank. If I did it, this is how it would go? Who are you kidding, OJ? Safe from criminal prosecution, you might as well revel in your infamy?

He hasn’t had enough of his power trip, which led him to batter, terrorize, then murder his ex-wife. The criminal jury somehow managed to find him innocent. He never admitted guilt, maintaining he was put through hell for nothing. It’s hardly unusual for a batterer to kill a woman who leaves him. Such a jealous fit of violent rage, unless determined to be premeditated, is called a crime of passion, the least severely punished type of intentional murder. OJ was rich enough to get sharp lawyers to make the most of evidence rules and prosecution mistakes. He may be less rich now, after paying off his lawyers, though who knows where he stashed his money. His book will probably make him plenty more. There will be efforts to seize the profits, but good luck.

What a sick ego trip, describing his take on the deed, knowing it would torture everyone else involved. Hasn’t he caused enough anguish? Apparently not, he wants to rub salt in the wound. Could he be any more the brazen ass murderer who got away with it? He scoffs at the civil lawsuit he lost, which seems not worth the paper it’s written on.

I found an amazing study on MSNBC, which basically says there is no correlation between the viral load and how sick a person is. Sound unbelievable? Only if you swallow the orthodox line. Excerpts of the article:

Amount of HIV not indicative of AIDS progress
Viral load, often used to determine meds, not good predictor, study says
Reuters
Updated: 4:18 p.m. PT Sept 26, 2006

But a study of 2,800 untreated HIV-positive individuals found only about 5 percent of the variations in viral load corresponded to variations in immune system damage.

Depletion of CD4 cells is therefore not a simple consequence of the amount of virus circulating, said the study published in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association.

“The results of this nationwide study may have profound implications in our understanding of how HIV causes disease and in our approach to the management of HIV-infected patients,” said lead investigator Dr. Benigno Rodriguez of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

Because of issues of drug resistance and the potent side effects of the drugs, doctors and patients often defer starting medications until medically necessary.

The study challenges the current belief that the degree to which the virus replicates itself is the trigger for the loss of CD4 cells, white blood cells that are a key component of the body’s immune system.

An accompanying editorial in the journal said the findings were exciting because they suggested that researchers should look for and target non-viral factors that set off the eventual decline in the immune system.

Well! And what might these non-viral factors be? And if HIV is not what sets off the eventual decline in the immune system, why bother trying to destroy it with those drugs with such potent side-effects? By the way, one side-effect of the heavy doses of AZT that used to be the accepted treatment for AIDS is immune system devastation, followed by death.

There are so many factors compromising our immune systems, it’s a wonder we don’t all have AIDS. In a relatively healthy person, the toxic burden we all carry merely weakens our immunity, not to the point that we die from opportunistic infections that the body ordinarily can fight off. In a place like Africa, where AIDS victims are generally dirt poor, starving or at least malnourished, under constant attack from malaria, tuberculosis, parasites, and other diseases associated with filthy water, is it any wonder they die early? Attributing that to HIV is just an excuse to ignore their real problems.

USA salves its guilty conscience by giving Africans surplus genetically engineered food, milk full of recombinant bovine growth hormone, condoms, vaccines, AIDS drugs, and recently DDT. Is any of that really helping them? I doubt it. More likely that kind of aid does more harm than good.

Gary Null interviewed Peter Duesberg on his 9/29/06 Internet radio show to discuss this study.

Update: The MSNBC link has expired, but the story can still be found at the Children’s Aid Fund October 2006 HIV Update or at The Chive

I posted the following over at Alas, a Blog. The thread had apparently died out, after the pro-Alas clique seemed to chase away the protestors. 

http://amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/10/11/i-sold-amptoonscom-comments-are-now-open/

Maybe as a virtually unknown new blogger I shouldn’t care about this odd bailout, since I don’t depend on writing for my living, would’ve starved long ago if I dared, almost did just that when young and reckless, but that’s another story. What makes me care is what transpired concerning this allegedly representative of feminist blogs behind the backs of several really pissed off women who posted here. Ampersand, it makes me think your idea of feminism makes you feel independent of what women feel about your actions, as I observed on my blog about Hugh Hefner, also a man claiming feminist leanings while profiting on this peculiarity of our culture, using women sexually for money.

I found some odd reversals reading this thread, particularly in responses to radfems and to John. If this is porn funding feminist discussion, why are many of the feminist posters jumping ship, breaking longstanding blog links? Offended is putting it mildly. They are furious, and in my view, rightly so. My view may not count for anything, as a male outsider, but I have to agree with John that this makes men who fight sexism look bad, or at least less credible. It reflects badly on men who make an effort to support the cause. It puts in question whether any man can be trusted as a reliable ally of feminism. This makes it my business, so I am here to register my protest. If you censor me, it will be on my blog, with a protest of that tactic tacked on. I’d hope you aren’t heavily censoring this thread, though I’m sure you hoped it’d die off already.

Why did you do it, really? None of anybody’s business, seems to have been your attitude, though you profess regret now. Kinda late, better late than never? Yeah, well, maybe you are sincere, maybe not. Obviously you have to maintain that you are. It just strains credulity, if you look at it from my point of view. Here you are in money trouble. Who bails you out? Would you accept a bailout from a child pornographer? Oh wait, I guess you did. What goes on here? Does informed consent mean anything to you, or your loyal defenders? You didn’t think women posting here deserved to know until how long after it was a done deal, then were busted, then buried a cursory announcement by disallowing comments, then finally a man convinced you to open a thread for comments. Did I get the timetable wrong? Maybe you think women in the industry know what they’re getting into. My info says, most want to get out, feel trapped. Sounds like they didn’t know. Do you care, Amp? I don’t get it. People say this is a feminist blog being supported by porn? Fun feminist blog, maybe, the kind that think women in sex work gave consent, so no problem, right? Did they understand what they were getting into? I think that is a big issue you ought to face. Sounds like, this is a blog discussing feminism while supporting porn. You may have a legal right to sell your blog to anyone you wish, but hardly a moral high ground. No, I wouldn’t go so far as it say such a blog is a complete oxymoron, not really for me to judge, but that depends on how far it degenerates. This thread is a bad sign.

Maybe the porn merchant hosting this blog is not hocking (sic) the worst of porn, but where do you draw the line? This is not rocket science. This is not erotic art this guy is selling. I don’t know what he is selling, because I’m not buying, but I can tell that much. If this is some kind of speech, it’s hate speech, saying women are sex objects for sale to gratify male lust. I think you could get out of this deal if you really want to. That might go a long way to convince your old friends you regret the mistake. I get the impression some are unconvinced, and likely to remain so, since you want to drop the subject as settled, over, nothing anyone can do about it now. If so, that may well be true, but the boycott may spread until it chokes you. The fate of one who gets a reputation as phony is rarely pretty. I got the impression some women feel scammed, while others expected you sooner or later to betray your real colors. You didn’t do yourself any favor by accepting this deal or by being devious about it, unless you really don’t care that women feel betrayed. Then, hey, no skin off your back, but you don’t want women to think you are that indifferent to the issues they are raising. What a trap you dug for yourself. I almost feel sorry for you, guy, but I’d never trust you, so I don’t. Another man betrays feminism for whatever reason, yawn, what else is new? Maybe this shouldn’t be a big deal for feminists, just like when the antiwar group Not in Our Name welcomed support from Mr. Progressive Larry Flynt? Thanks a lot, alleged ally. You are no ally of mine. I’ll answer if someone responds, but otherwise I’m an outsider, so I’ll leave you alone, except perhaps to raise some more hell on my blog. 

 Note: There has been one comment so far since my post yesterday afternoon, very sarcastic and evasive. I tried to respond, but I think amptoons is still having technical difficulties with responses. I had to correct her implications of my implications, also my misuse of the word hocking, meaning to say not hawking the worst of porn. If my response is caught in the vortex of tech failure I’ll try posting it later.

 Another note: The tech problem is apparently history. It appears I may have misconstrued the meaning of teen sensation. The review doesn’t say, but it may be this young woman is of age. I thought I remembered reading she was 17, but don’t recall where. So the new owner of Amptoons may not be promoting child porn. Does anyone who knows porn lingo know if teenage sensation is equivalent to barely legal? I had to acknowledge the probable error at Amp’s blog, but also said this has little bearing on my argument, as a matter of principle.

Part 2, Raw Feelings

I can analyze stuff that makes me feel angry beyond my own capacity to imagine, but expressing that kind of anger is so treacherous. Some occasions call for it, and this is one. These incidents are the tip of an iceberg, making the news because schoolgirls were targeted instead of individual women. Men assault women all the time, in virtually every circumstance sick minds can imagine. This is a stain on the honor of all men, though the desensitization enforced by our culture makes many men oblivious, except when something spectacular happens. So oblivious that men pay to see women getting roughed up sexually, calling it free speech. Incitements to violence are hate speech. Why is it legal to incite violence against women, but not minority groups? John Lennon wrote a song, after Yoko Ono got him to see some things. Woman is the (N word) of the World, he sings, better scream about it.

What the hell is up with the media calling these attacks school shootings, when girls were clearly targeted? Count on the media to obfuscate what matters. These guys wanted to send a message to women. Angry at God, my ass. I could think of unlimited reasons to be angry at God, if I could believe in a perfect being. No, I blame the mess the world is in on the powers that be, and last I looked, they have virtually all been power-hungry violent women-hating men for thousands of years.

Yes, men have terrorized women for thousands of years. Mostly it happens in private, or in war, so it’s kind of an open secret. Women are a conquered people with no obvious means to fight back. Men generally see this state of affairs as natural, so don’t understand why feminists are so angry about it. After all, some laws were passed, that should be the end of the issue, as many men see it. No, those laws were politically motivated, half-assed attempts to buy women off without really changing anything. Women have made the best of those laws and broken down barriers all over. In that respect, society has progressed, but not without fierce resistance. Many men hate the idea of having to compete fairly with women. Those guys need to grow up.

Yeah, I mean grow up! Boys learn how to deal with losing to other boys. Why should the respect of competitive rivalry boys learn in sports not apply to women at work? Men call that respect sportsmanship, taking it like a man, learning from mistakes. The obsession with winning undercuts those qualities, and supports the myth that superiors deserve to wield power over subordinates, which in its most basic form is men feeling they deserve to wield power over women.

This is the foundation of hierarchical culture, this wholly undeserved power men wield over women, because they can, and they like the feeling. This is how degenerate our culture is, that men can like the feeling of owning and controlling a lover, and react violently when she looks out for herself. It doesn’t matter that not all men are violent. It only takes a few suicide attackers to terrorize USA, so why should it take omnipresent violence to terrorize women? The threat is omnipresent, but women have been dealing with this for at least thousands of years, only recently gaining some legal standing. Nowadays virtually all feminism has accomplished is threatened by reactionary stacking of courts. This is feminism wrecking the culture, so men must fight back? This culture is too corrupted to survive. Maybe it needs wrecking, but not in the ways of Bush.

Some men yell feminism has weakened the moral fiber of the culture, or male character. Any character requiring preeminent status in a relationship is weakened beyond repair. This is such a fundamental contradiction in terms, it stands logic on its head. A decent relationship requires mutual respect and caring to make a partnership work. It can be much more, but without those I think any relationship is doomed, at least poisoned. So, bitter men, was yours doomed? Maybe you need to learn some lessons from your errors! Blaming women will get you nowhere. Venting is not a problem if it doesn’t become obsessive. Then it’s no big jump to rape or murder. You can be reasonably angry at a woman who hurt your feelings, but blaming women for that is just plain dumb. You had no part in her deciding to hurt you? Give me a break. She was probably reacting to you hurting her, but that dynamic is irrelevant to you? Why? If you cared, you should care about that, and if you didn’t, did you deserve her time of day? If you escaped from a devil, does that make all women like her? Hey, one con artist scammed me, another woman maybe used me, but I couldn’t generalize from that to women I’ve known personally, forget about all women! Women are so different from the ideas men hold about women, it’s not even funny.

Part 1, Connections

This was posted on a popular feminist blog, cited from Wikipedia for analogy to these recent incidents of suicidal attacks on female students. Look up Marc Lepine or Ecole Polytechnique Massacre for more info. If you are here to make trouble, you have no cause to hound feminist blogs about what I say. Though I cite one here and another elsewhere, I am solely responsible for the opinions I express here on this blog, and elsewhere. If your post doesn’t show up right away, it means you triggered a moderation alarm, so after I look it over, it may go through. Since I am actively inviting hostile attack on this and the next post, it probably will go through unless you are so far outside the rules I must censor you anyway. On other posts not inviting hostile attack ( Rape, Camp Trans, Sadism Unmasked are also open) the rules stand; violators will be yanked or banned without notice.

He first went into a mechanical engineering class, forced the men out at gunpoint, began to scream about how he hated feminists, and then opened fire. Lépine continued his rampage in other parts of the building, opening fire on other women he encountered. He killed 14 women (12 engineering students, one nursing student and one employee of the university) and injured 13 others (including at least 4 men) before committing suicide.

Born Gamil Gharibi, Lépine had a very troubled childhood, including an abusive father. During his parents’ divorce, his mother told the court at their divorce hearing that her husband, an Algerian immigrant, “had a total disdain for women and believed they were intended only to serve men.” After the divorce, Gharibi legally changed his name to Marc Lépine. He developed a lasting hatred toward women and had left a note blaming feminism for all the failures in his life, including his aforementioned rejection from the engineering school. (Note: The article explains his coursework didn’t meet requirements.)

There are obvious differences, on the level of age difference, since a child molester is not quite on the same page as a humiliated peer, but I say, the spirit of Marc Lepine lives again. This was a man blaming his misfortunes on feminism, sacrificing his life for revenge. One can argue about whether this was aberrant mental illness, or these latest suicide attacks on girls in school. Mental illness is way too vague for me. Those guys knew what they intended to do, carried out elaborate plans. This was not just out of control suicidal mania. Lepine focused on murdering his female peers, while these latest men consumed by hatred of women wanted to rape, kill, torture girls, because this represented dying to get the worst revenge on women.

What would drive a man to this? What drives men to batter women? What about rape? What about all the relatively mild insults, harassment, condescension, discrimination, not giving women credit as due? I think the answer is clear, though multifaceted in its expression. Men like to think women are somehow beneath men, not as capable in ways that matter, therefore men should make important decisions, while women should support men. Some believe this kind of malarkey more openly than others. Some men flaunt this on web sites anyone can read, where all the ills of society are blamed on women, or feminism, as if women drive men to irrational explosions of violence. In that case, men who commit suicide attacks on girls would be martyrs in this war men as a group wage against women as a group. Many men support this war blindly, though they shrink from such blatant manifestations, not realizing the attitude culture fosters toward women, in men and women both, is so poisonous, so biased in favor of men that without challenging it up front, it is bound to twist male perspective and behavior into familiar realms, cultural norms oppressive to women.

Women who go along with this are not unscathed, though in business and politics, they are more likely to get favorable attention from men in power than rebellious women. That offer to collude, at least in the political arena, is a tempting trap, dangling a taste of power at the cost of selling out her principles. Examples of powerful women going along, not challenging enough to rock the boat, would be Margaret Thatcher and Hillary Clinton. Probably the only rebellious woman of the past most men would recognize by name is Susan B. Anthony. Some modern activists have considerable notoriety, such as Jane Fonda and Cindy Sheehan. So the idea that feminists have ruined society is a sick joke. Feminists have made a lasting impact, but more on the barriers to women’s participation in man’s system than on how the system itself operates. If feminists are so powerful, why is abortion a choice men think is their business to strip from women? Women were legally male property in this country not so long ago. On that sort of thing, feminism has made a big impact, but what really bothers average men about feminism, I think, is women looking out for each other. That could snowball, so men do their worst to divide and conquer women. I think that’s a good thing, women rebelling, working together, looking out for each other, but I’m weird that way.

Guys who hate women, that may be legal, but it sure does not speak well for your rationality or perspective capacity. You think women should defer to their betters? Why? You learned to believe that, a baseless, but convenient myth. Women are at least as capable as men, in every way that matters, except maybe to guys who worship sports heroes. The problem is not feminism. You have no idea what that means anyway. Women are not the problem. Women have almost no influence on politics. If you resent your woman’s influence on you, or some nasty breakup, you are missing the forest for the trees. For one thing, women are all different, in ways you’d never imagine as well as the obvious, and besides, we all got big problems with Uncle Sam and that insidious wrecking crew in charge, and I don’t mean white knights on donkeys are coming to the rescue! They come, not to rock the boat, but to promote their own agenda they call reform, better way, competent war on terror, oversight, middle-class tax relief, ad nauseam, after letting Alito and Roberts get confirmed and lots of other issues slide through without much of a fight. But that is another topic entirely.

So, guys who hate women, you vary in your expression of that hatred, but fundamentally, you believe women deserve hatred, and how far is that from extremes like these? Maybe you restrict yourself to verbal violence, maybe you get off on cruelty, maybe you have fantasies like these latest incidents, but think only crazy men act on them, while you are in control, know how to keep your violent feelings in check. I hope at least that much is true, but have to wonder what happens to that control when men get drunk, mad, or both. I have my own theory of male behavior. My book delves into some of these issues. I analyze the problem, from my theoretical perspective.

Some incidents, like these invasions of schools by predatory men on suicidal vengeful missions to terrorize girls, most men prefer to denounce, evading how it fits right in with belief systems underlying this culture. Basic to those belief systems is some variation on the theme, women exist to serve men. A man who believes any variation on that theme, which encompasses most men across cultures, will find his ways to oppress women, keep them down in their place. This manifests in a wide spectrum, from relatively mildly crude or obnoxious attitudes to incidents like these. Men may deny holding such a belief, but I hear men talking behind the backs of women. The Bible story of Adam and Eve says she was created to help him. What a crock. Talk about illogical. Man is not half as logical or clever as he thinks. Scientists are supposed to be independent of religious biases, but look at how popular Freud was. Freud, notorious for his penis envy theory, comparable nonsense about how women would be happy if only they would accept their submissive role. Psychology is a social science at best, not a science that could stand up to standards of rigor, or scrutiny of many of its diagnoses and treatments. Though people have predictable tendencies, this does not make us necessarily predictable. Male theories of women are by definition suspect, though men can understand women to some extent, if motivated to make an effort.

On one side of that spectrum I’d put more commonplace male behavior, like putting women down behind their backs, being condescending or chivalrous, staring at breasts, wolf whistles, milder forms of harassment. On the other side, sadism, battering, child molesting, rape, murder. Ranging in between, buying sex or pornography, Camp Trans, harsher forms of harassment. All variations on that theme, differing in particulars, degree of viciousness, how the law views the act, how men justify themselves, such details. Logically, the principle of subordination can explain these incidents, not as aberrations but as a predictable extreme variation on that theme men seem so cavalier about. This is why I’d never argue these men are so out of the ordinary. Men have a really dangerous dark side, and who knows how much brutality women suffer silently. Most women dare not report to authorities, or not to anyone, because that is how the man wants it, usually reinforced with dire threats.

I don’t need to get into things women I know have gone through, but theory aside, I have to say, brutal male aggression against women is far more common than men like to admit. As long as men feel justified in hating women, some will choose to end their lives in such a way. Some will try similar things and hope to get away with it. The point is that hating women is not a simple matter of free speech. There is no exception saying hate speech is free speech if directed against women. Violence against an oppressed group is no less hate crime when directed against women, no matter how mad or humiliated a man claims a woman made him. That’s called ducking his responsibility for his actions. No man can expect to justify violence against women by claiming he had no choice but to act the way he did. That only applies to self-defense. Men also have other choices of feelings, and I don’t just refer to love, lust, or milder forms of resentment to substitute for hate. Genuinely friendly interest, for instance.

It’s a male bonding ritual to put women down, which may seem harmless to men. To some extent this is whining, men feeling inadequate or resentful in the face of women not acting according to male fantasy plans. This is what these guys call women castrating them. Disillusionment is part of growing up, guys. So is rejection, disappointment, having to face personal demons and other aspects of reality, taking responsibility for your life, actions, beliefs. So convenient to blame your woes on women, or feminism. You know nothing about either besides your tinted impressions of how women react to you.

Women are diverse, perhaps more so than men, at least in my impressions. Generalizing women for the purpose of justifying hating them is not just illogical. I find it a disease, spread by culture deliberately, maliciously. Some men deny infection, but still view females with distorted lenses reinforcing male ego. The virulence of the infection may vary. Men like to conflate not wanting to be like women with not wanting to like or respect women. A man will never be exactly like a woman no matter what he does to himself, so this is merely a convenient device to rationalize the contradictions of male ego. Being like women has a connection with liking and respecting women, but not what most men would think. Understanding women has a tighter connection, or appreciating women. Men evade the matter by thinking, we’re men, we don’t want to be like women! That would mean we were gay, or bisexual! That is not the issue, not even close. For one thing, some men with no attraction to males are androgynous.

That may be hard to believe, but I should know. But the issue I’m raising is why male animosity towards women is so prevalent. A man need not be androgynous to find another way to relate to women. If a man had a truly open mind, which is only possible through unlearning just about everything men learn to believe about women, and most of what men learn to believe about men, then a man could see the magnitude of what women give men. That’s nothing to sneeze at, though men learn to take all of what women give in relationships for granted, thinking it’s their due as men, finding fault wherever possible, inventing fault to justify abusing women.

Ah, I know, you feel women don’t appreciate what men give. What exactly is that you feel is underappreciated? The breadwinner argument is nonsensical. Men have to work to live, not just to support the family, especially since most women bring in their share plus more than their share of housework. Sex? That may be the most laughable argument. If you are good at sex, women appreciate that consideration. If not, she is giving way more than you. In general, women give far more time and energy than men realize, but it’s so convenient for men to ignore what women sacrifice caring for men they try to love, despite all the roadblocks men throw up to intimacy and partnership. When a relationship busts up, blame flies around, but since there is plenty of that to go around, what is the point of blaming women in general, or feminism? Gets you off the hook? Not really, but you can fool yourself into thinking it does.

Women give men so much, and what does it get them in return? Some combination of scorn, sweet talk, lust, rants, contempt, abuse, beating, conciliatory words, and rape, if they are not lucky enough to find a man who knows a little about appreciating a woman. This is a matter of degrees, depending on factors average men find uninteresting, unmanly, or unimaginable, but they could think about all the ways the women in their lives give their time and energy to make men’s lives work. They may prefer to think this is all about sex, more convenient repression of reality. Women’s sacrifice of time and energy for male happiness and convenience goes so far beyond sex. Men who have lived on their own have some experience of the tedious chores of living, but no idea of what it’s like to be pregnant, give birth, or be a mother. Women go through all this partly to express their profound feelings for men. Some men are responsive to those feelings, and that is also a matter of degrees. Other men take all this for granted, and wonder why women want more. The emotional energy women put into making relationships work is almost incomprehensible to men, but men should think about that too before calling women names. Relationships can be so close, passionate, intimate, rewarding, teaching, exquisite, but only when women feel they can trust a man enough to let her hair down, not when men have rotten attitudes. Is it that women generally place emotional significance and value on sex, so men have to earn the privilege, that makes you guys call women whores? No, whores are mostly desperate women who cannot afford to feel any such significance, so in order to survive they sell the privilege.

Men traditionally place no economic value on what they consider women’s work, another way to evade the value of women’s sacrifices. Men are just lucky women are willing to put up with and clean up after men. Think of the chaos if women organized a sex strike, or no women showed up to work for a day. Men are so lucky women go along with all their crap. Women really don’t have to. They could be self-sufficient, continuing the species with sperm banks. Technology is nowhere near the point of replacing women’s role in reproduction. So men, count your lucky stars women do not hate men, are not even mad enough to rebel except in little ways, so far. You really have no business resenting women for looking out for themselves. The way average men feel about women, it’s no wonder women are wary of trusting men.