Brazilian TV confirmed in prime time news, that the ministry of the exterior will not give a visa nor permit entry to Julien Blanc for allegedly promoting violence against women.
In the US and Europe, attempts to expel convicted felon illegal foreigners rarely succeed. Felons, ISIS terrorists, mercenaries rarely get denied visas and rarely get kicked out of countries. Hooligans, street brawlers, convicted robbers rarely get kicked out of Australia or blocked entry into Brazil. So the Julien Blanc case is a demonstration of the awesome power of feminist activism! Feminist power, like the license to kill husbands and impunity for Lorena Bobbitt‘s penis slicing.
I renounce all my female legal and societal privilege, in in an irrevocable, legally binding notarized declaration. As a strong, empowered woman, I am deeply offended by unequal treatment on the basis of gender on issues, like lifetime alimony, child support, DNA testing and paternity fraud, "domestic violence only against women act", rape shield and harassment laws. I can not change feminist anti-male laws. But I can renounce my female privilege    and I suggest every honest egalitarian woman to do the same.
I hereby irrevocably renounce any privileges I enjoy by virtue of my female gender 
and I refuse to engage in discrimination against men . Especially
10 Reasons False Rape Accusations are Common by AVoiceForMaleStudents is a very detailed analysis that lists most evidence, be it scientific data or statements by unbiased experts in the field.
police will occasionally show off-the-cuff candor. After investigating a woman’s claim that turned out to be false, Captain Randy Lewis of Rexburg PD told reporters that “we run into that all the time” . After a similar investigation Captain Lynn Mitchell of the U Police said “Rape is a very ugly, violent crime which law enforcement and the community take very seriously. However, there are many fraudulent reports of rape each year” .
After a woman falsely accused a man of rape in Orlando, FL, police told local news reporters that false reporting “has reached an epidemic level” . They then made a point to ask the community stop making so many false rape claims because it was draining precious resources from the criminal justice system .
Sgt. Sandra Tomeo of Plano PD told reporters for the Plano Star Courier that false rape accusations were “a common occurrence,” citing numbers indicating that ~47% of rape accusations made to Plano, TX police were demonstrably false .
Rarely do we discuss the large number of men that are in prison because they could NOT prove their innocence against a false rape accusation. There is no due process in rape accusations, so many men are in prison because they were not lucky enough to videotape the sex act, or to get a loving kiss by the lying victim right in front of a surveillance camera.
Add to this the men that are in prison due to absurd feminist re-definition of *rape. Regret is not rape: lessons from an old-school Feminist
Very intelligent people arguing about women needing to force their way into Google, facebook, etc. Is it not disgusting how women are prevented from making inventions, from changing the world. /sarcasm
Occam’s razor fell out of fashion. If white heterosexual men create the most innovative companies in the world, create untold wealth, and change the world: maybe they just have a special talent. Maybe the richest companies in the world became rich because they did things right, not because they did everything wrong.
The following video is so appalling, it is worth watching, to understand the dangerous, deceptive, warped logic that is taking over the world.
Is Silicon Valley Toxic to Women?
A former executive Tinder has sued the dating app, claiming she was sexually harassed and discriminated against before being forced out. Vivek Wadhwa, Stanford University fellow and author of the forthcoming book "Innovating Women," discusses Silicon Valley’s frat culture on Lunch Break with Tanya Rivero. Photo: iStock
READ THE RELATED STORY | not endorsed by Human Stupidity:
The case comes at a particularly sensitive time for the booming technology industry, which has been criticized for being insensitive or hostile to women.
Seems men can take the insensitivity, and the most competitive still thrive and make world changing inventions. A few women also can make it, without quota.
Others want to demand that men change to fit those in that otherwise could not make it on their own
Weakness is a mighty weapon for fragile feminist crybaby girls: The Sexual Harassment Industry
Fathers rights defenders at AvoiceForMen call themselves MHRA, men’s human rights activists. They defend the rights of fathers and family men, and even some rights for boys. Glaringly absent is the defense of sexual rights for men and boys. Feminists and religious zealots have united to create draconic sex laws. The declared goal of the suffragettes was to use the power of the vote to increase the age of consent and to close brothels and to end prostitution.
These clueless male equal rights feminists MHRA put up this nice touching movie about a 16 year old boy with his jailbait girlfriend. No mention about the serious dangers this boy is in:
"Family Court" tramples due process, puts men into life long indentured slavery, confiscates property worth Millions and Billions, confiscates future income and pension, re-instated debtor’s prison where men are imprisoned for a decade for non-payment of spousal support to the slave owner. "Family Court" accepts hearsay as proof enough to kick a man out of his home (SAID: Sexual Allegations in Divorce). Ex parte (one party accusation) orders are based on the flimsiest of evidence or upon mere accusations, "temporary" orders allow unconstitutional orders to be extended for years on end. "Protection from Abuse" (restraining) orders, like all other abominations of family court, abuse mostly men and confer special rights upon women. Human Rights are enforced for criminals, but not for law abiding family men.
We recommend you read the entire post we excerpt here
Family Court. What a friendly sounding name. A court for families, so open and inviting.
A place where families are welcome and invited, a place for families to bring their troubles and disagreements, where there are people specially trained to help them with their problems, and where issues can be resolved in a fair compromise, so that everyone can be happy. […]
How true. What a promising nice name
And yet, nothing could be better Orwellianly named than this institution; there is nothing friendly about it. It is a snakepit of anguish and despair, impacting millions of people each year.
By re-casting all familial issues into a mutated type of civil court action variously termed “special proceedings”, and by radically recasting the concepts of just what a judicial court is, e.g., its procedures, discretions and evidentiary standards, the state had effectively done away with all the inconvenient and expensive due process and constitutional protections required in every other American court.
While retaining the traditional powers of a judicial court – enforcement, fines and imprisonment – none of the checks and balances against those powers were concomitantly retained. Expedience of process and the legitimization of raw state power was the goal.
In creating these special “People’s Courts” – not-quite-criminal, not-quite-civil – dozens of due process protections were sloughed away leaving a raw, grinning changeling in its place.
Domestic violence abuse is based on falsified science and enforced by unconstitutional family court. SAID: Sexual Allegations in Divorce is a potent weapon thanks to complicity of family courts. Debtor’s prison longer then a decade has been reinstated under the guise of "contempt of court".
Constitutional procedural protections against self-incrimination, right to an attorney, presumptions of innocence, right to jury were done away with.
Inviolable substantive rights to federal parenting guarantees, property and liberty, became optional concerns and subordinate to statutory directives. Legal financial obligations to others persons were created out of whole cloth and determined from the flimsiest allegations.
The rights to financial and medical privacy were extorted away, as was the Constitutional right to free travel.
Astonishing. Men can get deprived of their passports to prevent them from fleeing their indentured wage slavery. Fugitive slave laws are still in effect world wide: Robert Sand: ‘Most wanted deadbeat dad’ arrested in Thailand for owing millions to his slave owner wife.
Here are 10 key points/memes to memorize and spread as far and widely as possible regarding the age of consent, and in particular, the validity of discussion of the age of consent, both within and outside the men’s rights movement :
1 / If the discussion of sex laws had always been taboo/forbidden, then homosexuality would still be illegal. Homosexuality is illegal in many countries, and being criminalized in several others. If we disallow discussion of (changing) sex laws in the West, we will be in a poor position to prevent similar attempts to suppress even discussion of the rights of homosexuals in countries where homosexuality is illegal. We criticize Russia for making it illegal to ‘promote’ homosexuality to children, yet those same ‘liberal’ progressives want to make it illegal to ‘promote’ (i.e discuss rationally) lowering the age of consent or to criticize any laws ostensibly protecting children. If discussing ‘child protection’ laws had always been off limits, Alan Turing would still be considered a child abusing pervert (he had illegal sex with a boy under the age of majority at the time).
Reprinted with the kind permission of the Antifeminist.
This post fits into the Thilo Sarrazin discussion, because it deals with taboo speech that makes it impossible to engage in rational discussion and scientific search for truth. I recommend reading my Sarrazin reviews, especially the ones still due to be published. See also Robert Kurzban.
It of course fits into our Human-Stupidity age of consent and teenage sexuality discussions.
2(and relating to 1)/ The age of consent in the UK was set at 16 (raised from 12/13) in a backward Victorian criminal amendment act (1885) that also criminalized homosexuality, punishable by death. The same law that Alan Turing was prosecuted under. Ironically, it is now effectively taboo to criticize one half of that backward 1885 bill (the age of consent of 16) and yet taboo, and even illegal, to support the other half of that same backward Victorian bill (the criminalization of homosexuality).
3/ The age of consent was set at 16 by puritanical feminists (suffragettes) in the UK, and that same bill (and age of 16) was a model for similar rises in the age of consent in the USA and elsewhere (also lobbied for by feminists/suffragettes). This is an important point to stress within the context of men’s rights.
Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Age of Consent” »
Age of Consent » continues here »