Skip to content

Male feminist Micheal Flood allegedly, while posing as a member of a fathers rights group – sent offensive emails to politicians from the university which employs him.

This is the level of the feminist counter-argument, they just don’t have one.

“Editor: I just want to preface this excellent article with our own experience with Michael Flood. He has on a previous occasion mis-represented himself as a separated father in order to unethically and fraudulently gain access to our resources that we had struggled to make available for the benefit of distressed fathers.
He then proceeded to misuse these facilities and send out offensive letters in the name of Fathers4Equality to every member of the Australian federal parliament, in an effort to discredit and undermine our efforts and reputation.
We conclusively tracked down this misuse of our facilities to Michael Flood, at his campus office at James Cook University. We then contacted him and confronted him with this misuse of such important resources for separated and distressed fathers.
He initially denied and refuted his involvement in these bizarre actions, but in the face of overwhelming evidence he finally accepted that it was his actions, and his alone, and he apologized for these unethical acts.
It actually beggars belief that this man is supposed to be an impartial professional researcher in this very important field of gender equality, and yet he has behaved in a way more akin to a professional fraudster.
It goes without saying that anything you hear or read from Michael Flood should be seriously questioned, if his history of deception and fraud is anything to go by.”

Almost unbelievable.

What are the bets that the emails to the politicians involved falsely painting the Father Right’s group as abusers?

More activism in Sweden. Swedish feminist provides the details and thanks A Voice for Men.

Quote from AVfM


“I’m new to this blog and found my way here through media related to SCUM. I grew up in a society where women have not had the same opportunities as men and are not respected as authority figures, etc. For such reasons, I consider myself a feminist, meaning that I believe women are equally human and deserving of the same respect and opportunities, etc. which men are given by society. I believe that all humans should have opportunities and earn respect through their actions. As a woman, I do not hold myself below men, nor above men. I find it repulsive that individuals who advocate SCUM in anyway consider themselves feminists. I am both disgusted and saddened by the hate advocated by this group, and I am angered that they are being supported and promoted by the state.

I came across one comment on a Swedish site that said SCUM is performing in the school system for children, and at such performances, “The girls and guys are segregated. While the girls sit on satin cushions with gold tassels and are given a constant serving of sweets and fruit, the boys are seated in the worst area and forced to sit on hard wooden chairs. This is because they are to feel guilty and even in prison for man’s crimes against humanity in the form of wars, violence, torture, money system, imagination, and biological inferiority.”

So this is part of the Swedish school system?! Now, please also understand that Sweden just recently outlawed home schooling. To my understanding, the only other Western nation to have done this was Nazi Germany! Please also note that the Swedish state can remove children from their home at any whim – no proof of abuse needed! The Swedish state knows no bounds and children are taken from their parents without evidence of abuse and held in state custody for months and years. This law is abused, and there are horror stories. Anyone who goes against the state risks having their children stolen from them.

Please also note that SCUM is being funded by Swedish tax payers. Tax payers may not like it, but the state could care less what the average Sven thinks. Big “Sister” knows best! If you would like to write to some of the monster politicians who are using tax payer funds to promote abuse, violence, murder, etc., please write to the Swedish Art Council and the County of Stockholm, whose representatives have approved funding for this hate speech: and

There are also laws in Sweden to protect “folk groups” from hate. If women are a protected folk group, then men should be as well. For this, please write to the Discrimination Ombudsman (DO,, English option available)

You might also consider writing to the Swedish Ombudsmen for Justice (JO). Anyone from anywhere in the world can write to this official. The complaint will be recorded and be accessible to view by the public. The JO is required to consider and respond to each complaint and state what type of action is needed, if action is deemed necessary.

Please use your voices if you are serious about this issue! Contact information and further English info availabe here: and

Thank you “a voice for men” for bringing attention to this issue! Those of us in Sweden, especially welcome your help!”


Manboobz feminists minimize feminist hate propaganda

Feminists on Manboobz are minimizing a film clip that promotes a state funded stage production of Valery Solans’ Society for Cutting Up Men that’s being shown to school children by comparing it to taste jokes on reddit. The clip shown an execution of a man in the name of feminism, followed by an ecstatic celebration of the murder and the message “do your part”.

And in true feminist fashion, on Manboobz they are manufacturing false accusations relating to violence against the men’s movement.

JTO dissects feminist David Futrelle’s latest lies and false accusations

Johntheother writes here, original piece here

….”[A] male feminist has taken exception to my article, two days ago, calling for the public identification of Swedish murder advocates. These are the Valerie Solinas followers who identify themselves as “Scum having fun” in a video depicting the gleeful shooting of a man for no reason.

Futrelle apparently thinks publicly identifying the promoters of murder is a problem. The video, which has been on youtube for a year – is in no danger of being taken offline – despite its unambiguous call for murder. Futrelle claims that “do your part” after depicting a young woman shooting a man point blank is only a performance piece. “Violence and murder have been dramatized in the theater since its beginnings,” says David.

And he’s right, however, horror, or action films depicting violence aren’t published under the title “manifesto” and generally don’t end with calls to action, emulating the depicted violence.

Shakespear didn’t attempt to kill his own uncle after writing Hamlet. Solinas, the author of The Scum Manifesto, did attempt to murder Andy Warhol. The same Scum Manifesto from which our Swedish murder enthusiasts take their identification.

There’s a difference between between depiction of violence – and advocacy of it, and Futrelle is trying to disguise that difference. Futrelle might even half-believe his own argument. It must require constant effort to keep cheerleading a doctrine of violence and hatred while telling yourself it’s humanism. However, seeking approval for conformance to the dominant ideology is more important than actually opposing murder for this depraved and futile male feminist.

So, the MRA is the bad guy for what, publishing the names of advocates of murder?

Our Depraved and futile murder apologist actually makes my points for me. In his copy-paste of my argument, he even highlights a key statement which I assumed readers didn’t need explicitly pointed out to them. [Emphasis Futrelle’s]

Some individuals may criticize the intent to publish not only names, but also addresses, phone numbers, employers and other personal information – on the grounds that such exposure create a risk of retributive violence against individuals who openly advocate murder based on sex. It is the considered position of the editorial board of AVfM that any such risks are out-weighed by the ongoing hazard to the public of these individuals continuing to operate in anonymity.

That’s right manboob, identifying a group of self-declared murder advocates to the public is more important than protecting those murder advocates from the consequences of advocating murder.

In the truth-is-fiction world of Futrelle’s mind, the men’s right advocates calling for public identification of a hate organization have been transmogrified into promoters of violence.

And what if they get killed David? What if rather than be arrested – as promoters of hate, and public advocates of murder, what if these depraved and murderous female supremacists come to harm at the hands of a citizen. If that happens, it will mean that a society’s system of law, designed to prevent hate organizations, and to allow redress of grievance through non violent due process is gone, wiped out by your ideology of violence and hate. That’s what you’re defending, David.

The futile and depraved collaborator carried on to cite several apparently inflammatory comments by readers of AVfM, and since no item of feminist agitprop is complete without lies, he throws a few in.

In his ideologically induced blindness – Manboob is unable to see that the phrase “shoot back” implies defensive use of force. It’s impossible to shoot back, if you are not already being shot at. You know – shot like what is clearly and unambiguously advocated by the swedish feminists.

Yes Dave, I advocate shooting back. As opposed to sitting still while hateful ideologues work themselves up to murder and the public endorsement of killing. Self defense is a moral imperative, although given the deep disconnect from reality demonstrated by our Futile and Depraved Dave – this most simple principal obviously needs explaining.

In truth, the Depraved and Futile attempt to characterize opposition to murder as if it was the feminists video endorsing murder is hard to rebuke, because in Futrelle’s failed criticism, he makes my own point for me several times. At one point quoting my thesis statement:

“Open advocation of murder cannot be allowed in a civil society, without that society devolving into a culture of brutal violence.”

Unfortunately, he spoils this apparent moment of enlightenment by lying.

Evidently [John the Other] has no problem with, or has somehow not noticed, the comments on AVfM fantasizing about shooting and killing the women involved in the video.


Every comment posted on that article is still in place – and none advocate violent aggression. The very few hyperbolic mentions of the use of force are statements advocating defense. You would characterize these as murderous, you shameful worm. While you pretend a humanist ethic in defense of the open advocacy of murder.

In fact, I hope your article remains online, Dave – because no rebuttal of mine could exceed the job of outing your craven stupidity, and sickening support of murder-advocating hate organization naming itself “Society for Cutting Up Men.”

To those who support you or your ideology, beware. Not of violence – not of murder. Unlike David Futrelle, I do not and will not lend myself to the support of violence, or indeed, of murder. Beware that we will expose you, and illuminate your hatred and your support of violence for the world to see clearly.

David Futrelle is not, in my opinion, confused. He knows his position is immoral, unethical and in support of hatred and violence and murder. He takes this position not because he thinks it’s right, but because it is the dominant narrative, the dominant ideology. He is an authoritarian, and a lickspittle, and he knows it.”

Other online feminists that have come out in support of these lies and false accusations include Holly Pervocracy and NSWATM’s Ozymandias.

Hugo Schwyzer lies on The Good Men Project to obscure female perpetrated child sex abuse

On The Good Men Project Jacob Taylor has challenged Schwyzer’s unsourced, sweeping claim that ““Because women are much less likely to sexually abuse teens than are men,  those rare cases that do feature female defendants tend to attract lots of media attention—particularly when the woman involved is relatively young and conventionally attractive.” by publishing stats relating to female on child sex abuse in cornological order to demonstrate the fact that as we gather more information about this crime the old myths and notions about this crime being gendered are being destroyed.

  • In 1994, David Finkelhor published a paper reporting that women commit 20 percent of the sexual abuse against boys.
  • In 1996, the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect found that women committed 25 percent of sexual abuse against children.
  • Both the 2000 American Association of University Women study and the Cameron study showed that about 42 percent of students reported abuse by women.
  • The 2005 Long-Term Consequences of Childhood Sexual Abuse by Gender of Victim study found that women committed 38 percent of the abuse against boys.
  • According to a 2008 University of British Columbia study of homeless youths, nearly half the youths said at least one woman sexually exploited them, and 1 in 3 said that only women exploited them.
  • The 2008-09 Sexual Victimization in Juvenile Facilities Reported by Youth report found that of the staff members who sexually abused juveniles, women committing 95 percent of that abuse.
  • In 2009, ChildLine received 2,142 calls from children abused by women, and found that boys reported more abuse by women (1,722 cases) than by men (1,651 cases).

Of course in predictable fashion Hugo arrives in the comments section and misrepresents Jacob and cites stats that are known to exclude female on male rape by envolopmet.

“It is true that men are victimized by women. But to conflate physical abuse statistics with sexual abuse statistics is disingenuous at best, which is what Jacob does here with the stats from Childline.

Women rape boys, and it is awful. It is also comparatively rare. And though we can presume some degree of underreporting from boys, that underreporting cannot be quantified. What can be quantified makes it clear that the overwhelming percentage of sexual predators are men, and the overwhelming percentage of victims are women. Check out the most respected organization in America, RAINN, and their stats:

Jacob responds to Hugo’s dishonesty here

Where are the feminists that aren’t like that?

Feminist blogger that promotes the idea that women should be afraid of men makes a false accusation

Holly Pervocracy is a feminist blogger who says that all women should fear all men. When talking about rape figures, Holly likes to quote stats from RAINN – that exclude female on male rape by envelopment.  This is how feminists are taught to perceive and depict rape as a gendered problem and promote the idea that women should fear men – by only telling half of the story. Of course these followers for the most part either don’t know they are promoting hate and fear, or they do and do it under the guise of “creating awareness” for the common good. Which is Holly?

Today on a  typically misandrist and hypocritical Manbooz entry, Holly Pervocracy manufactured a threat of being stalked  against her.  These strong independent gender binary challenging feminists will use misandrist tropes and the patriarchal archetype of the evil man and damsel in distress whenever it suits. And they say that false accusations are not common.

Where are the feminists that aren’t like that?

The Swedish State is showing a stage production of SCUM to its school children.

Here is Swedish MRA Pelle Billing on the screen play being shown to school children.

(Translated from Swedish)


It has stormed here on the blog in recent days. Even on Twitter has discussed the waves went high, and Facebook has a protest been advertised.

Debaklet does not apply to a SCUM Performance set. Not at all. The point is that the show will be sold to high school classes.

The show is based on the SCUM Manifesto, which contains passages such as:

“The man is a biological accident.”

“To call the man an animal is to flatter him, he is a machine, a walking dildo.”

In a story in Cultural News can be seen that this type of statement is included in the play – there is not water it down raw and aggressive allocation:

[…] The fact that a woman’s main goal in life is to crush the male sex.

The provisions addressed thus directly to the men, and as I argued in Ajour this may well be considered verbal abuse by high school boys. All the guys will not understand why their school has brought them there, and placing them on wooden benches while the girls sit on soft pillows and eat candy. The risk is also imminent that the ensuing discussion, hinders more than it helps.

There is support in our culture to ideology behind SCUM is correct, even if the distance is taken from the violence and the extinction of men. Radical Feminism is enshrined in our government documents, is largely the basis of our equal opportunities policy and it is often in chronicles and culture articles in newspapers.

Cultural context can not simply be disregarded. To do so is naive, and prevents an understanding of the criticism directed at high school students visiting the SCUM show.

When school children get to see Schindler’s List is the whole point of the movie and discussion afterwards that Nazism is wrong and horrible. If a high school can read Lolita, the whole culture agree that pedophilia is wrong, and that consensus is disturbed not by a book. De Sade’s works with assault and mutilation against women will also find the zero support in our culture.

But what happens when high school students get to see SCUM? To begin with, the purpose (according to those who set up the play) to shake our view of sex and gender roles . It is, therefore, be a positive thing in the play, even if the distance is taken from the destruction of men.

Andrea Edwards, who in front of the monologue, says himself:

– The goal is that people will become confused and begin to question their structural thinking. A brainwashing that will wash away the existing brainwashing, where male supremacy is taken for granted.

SCUM is considered able to weed out false ideas about male superiority, by a violent frontal attack against males.

There is thus an aid to SCUM’s message is good and worth, as long as you remove the violence and excesses. This is a crucial difference with ideas of Nazism or the oppression of women. There is the cultural support null and void, even if violence is cleared away.

A discussion among the students after the performance is thus in a context where the attacks on men legitimized as long as the purpose is not to kill the men, but only shake their brains. In this way, the idea partly sanctioned, which most probably is the worst of all for the boys.

Andrea Edwards was also upset when she read the SCUM for the first time:

Andrea Edwards himself was so upset when she first came into contact with the Scum Manifesto for a few years ago that she could not finish reading the book.

If an adult person, who also is a woman and not under fire – becomes so upset by the book, then why should young, vulnerable teenage boys to see the play?

What can Edwards to believe that boys are more durable than her? I’m trying to understand her logic but can not find.