University of Montana

Rape hysteria crisis at the University of Montana

The University of Montana has become an epicenter of rape hysteria and now, men’s activism

The Department of Education issued its revised sexual assault mandates on April 4, 2011, instantly removing the presumption of innocence for male students accused of sexual assault, subjecting men around the country to unwarranted hearings. In one such scenario the Department of Justice entered the quaint mountain town of Missoula, Montana and used the DOE’s revised mandates to convert the “safest campus in the nation” to the “rape capital of the world”, seemingly overnight. Recent Federal legislation has made this a terrifying reality for all men and boys, everywhere in the nation for years to come.

Less than one year after the sexual assault mandate was issued the DOJ used the lowered standard of evidence to “find” 80 sexual assaults had occurred on the University of Montana campus, effectively creating a “rape prone culture.” The ensuing hysteria removed numerous officials of the once prominent Griz Nation, as well as a number of targeted star players. One such player accepted a plea bargain to escape jury proceedings; but a young quarterback and his family were willing to risk everything to defend his innocence. Across the state, another student of the Montana University System began to counter the attempt to create a rape community at Montana State University.

Finding it strange that 80 sexual assaults were suddenly discovered on the University of Montana campus, Christopher J. Thompson began to ask questions of numerous University officials and, devoid any significant answers, he began the National Coalition For Men-Montana State, a men’s organization formed to help protect and guide college men through this precarious situation. Planning to represent NCFM-Montana State for the Tunnel of Oppression exhibit recently, Thompson began browsing through information posted outside the tuition funded Women’s Center and was startled to find Jackson Katz’s “10 Things Men Can Do To Stop Rape”.

Katz’s instructions begin by telling students to:


View men not only as perpetrators or possible offenders, but as empowered bystanders who can confront abusive peers.

Thompson began asking why it was acceptable to assume all men are “perpetrators or possible offenders” and the MSU Womens Center, Men Stopping Rape, and VOICE Center responded in their Tunnel of Oppression exhibit by altering it to say they are working to “clarify myths and misperceptions that ‘all men are potential rapists’ by stating that most men are NOT rapists.”

Discovering the change, Thompson approached the aforementioned organizations to find the discussion he had been having deleted in its entirety, replaced with the usual diatribe that “false reports are rare,” continuing that possibly 2-10% of sexual assaults reported are false.

In Missoula these ideas had been forced on all students attending University of Montana by the PETSA videos recently implemented, which state: “MYTH: People lie about sexual assault…FACT: The vast majority of sexual assault reports are true”.

The Missoula Police Department policy manual reinforces this idea by ordering “every sex crime investigation is to be initiated with the belief it is true until evidence demonstrates otherwise.”

This devastation was realized in the case against accused University of Montana quarterback, Jordan Johnson. Missoula County District Court judge Karen Townsend denied a defense motion to dismiss the case, stating that the accused is not entitled to a presumption of innocence while a rape investigation is going on:


It is not until the time of trial that the defendant is guaranteed a right to a fair trial and is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

Thankfully, Johnson has been found innocent, and the pain his father can only describe as watching the death of his son is over. In a terrifying turn of events, however, the flawed sexual assault policies implemented on campus that gave way to this chaos have worked their way into the Violence Against Women Act and are now positioned to impact everyone burdened by the Y chromosome. If you are one of these “endowed” individuals, or know someone who is, your fundamental rights are being eroded.

Hang on, its going to be a wild ride, or join the National Coalition For Men to help enact changes to protect innocent men.

Publisher’s note: Christopher J. Thompson is Campus Ambassador for the National Coalition For Men. He is leading a work group to identify other campuses suitable for an NCFM campus chapter. If you are a student at a university and interested in helping establish such a chapter please contact Chris a

AVFM will be working officially with NCFM to support efforts to establish anti-misandric men’s organizations in universities throughout western culture. The time for grass roots organization has arrived, and universities are the place where it must happen. “Hang on” is right. Better yet, buckle up.

  • Dan Perrins

    <<Laced up and boots on the ground, stickers, cameras handy too.

    Organize network, get involved a little or a lot there's a part for every level of involvement in this.
    Donate some time and a few dollars to hanging some posters.
    Write an email or two,,,,, thousand.
    Every ounce of effort counts folks.

  • Grumpy Old Man

    “every sex crime investigation is to be initiated with the belief it is true until evidence demonstrates otherwise.”

    How the heck does this get into police policy when by its own words counters the law?

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      Don’t they teach The Constitution or Due Process Rights in college any more?

      • greg

        They don’t need to. The Constitution and Due Process are meaningless due to VAWA and Patriot Act.

        In regards to an accusation of sexual assault/rape, the presumption of innocence is no more, the accused are guilty, until they prove their innocence, and then they are still convicted. Terrifying.

    • TigerMan

      Indeed. If I stayed @ home alone on the alleged time of the attack – my accuser is going to be believed and I am automatically up shit creek because I have no alibi. Nice to know that staying home alone can be so hazardous to your life and liberty!

  • Bewildered

    All those idiots who make ridiculous claims have to be exposed in public so that the sheeple don’t buy their BS.
    It’s high time that there was a law that punishes authorities for spreading false information knowingly or unknowingly. There’s simply no excuse for their malfeasance.

    • Roger O Thornhill (George Kaplan)


  • Stephen O’Brian

    “every sex crime investigation is to be initiated with the belief it is true until evidence demonstrates otherwise.”

    Sounds like something straight from Arthur Miller’s McCarthyesque play – “The Crucible”.
    Replace nutbar clergy from puritan times with today’s feminists on a demented witch hunt for (guilty until proven innocent) men.
    Absolutely staggering that in our supposed age of sophistication and civilization that this shit goes on – in academia! of all places! the place that’s supposed to be the summit of higher thought!!! In supposedly one of the most advanced nations on earth.
    Freakin’ amazing.

  • Kimski

    “In the spirit of things lately, it seems that university groups dedicated to actually helping men are starting to pop up in the most unexpected places: Universities.”

    Rational reaction to irrational hysteria.
    It had to happen sometime. Now we just need to deal with the rest of society, but the pendulum is obviously in motion. This will become a trend before long, and these kids will be the future leaders raised in the spirit of that trend.

  • napocapo69

    The presumption of innocence was a male priviledge, and it had to be removed….

    Anyway just a small consideration, hope you do not get it wrong, quote:

    “every sex crime investigation is to be initiated with the belief it is true until evidence demonstrates otherwise.”

    There is nothing wrong in this, any investigation has to be initiated with such belief, and conducted with sane skepticism; but, initiating an investigation with such belief, should not imply that you start it with the presumption of guiltiness of the accused; the crime and the criminal are two different things.

    Thanks for the article.

    • thefeministmra

      A very good point. The Police are bound to assume guilt not as a matter of political policy, but social duty. Their job is to investigate crimes and possible criminal behavior and arrest those accused for due process by the court system. As testimony is evidence, the police are required to act upon it; until such time as the officers in question can make an accurate judgment call.

      Our police officers are in one of the shittiest positions in our society. They must treat any claim as accurate because to do otherwise would jeapordize the safety of the common wealth. It is not their duty to dispense justice; merely to enforce it.

      I strongly urge the cooperation with any officer as your best course of action. Doing so can be instramental in your further proceedings (assuming of course you don’t run smack dab into a bias judge).

    • MGTOW-man

      “…the crime and the criminal are two different things.”
      —Absolutely, you are objective; they are not.

      To all reading: Over-emotional, feelings-dominated, fanatical women are not going to be able to distinguish between the two. Their subjectivity makes them unfit for public discussion. We men do know that, for we have historically lived alongside women for thousands + years—plenty of time to get to know how they operate.

      We need to stop kidding ourselves, being too nice. In response to being considered automatically guilty of rape, etc, we need to counter their crap with treating them all the same until they prove otherwise that they are not like we say they are.

      It sounds mean that naive people won’t understand, and NAWALT, but unfortunately there has to be something about their minds in general, and largely spread across their gender that is different that is making them see things this way and to tolerate such blatant hatred of males in every corner of our society—even the men of today who caved in to let them have their way.

      I believe we need to understand our enemy, as with any war. Thus, even sweeping generalizations and stereotypes must be examined thoroughly in order to prevent certain women from sneaking passed. The good women, they must understand our scrutiny, or else they are not our friends either.

      Do we want to stop radical feminists, OR NOT? That is the question. Then we need to do everything we legally can. Stop at nothing short of illegal.

      And time is running out before we get censored—which actually is already occurring. Every one of us can name several ways we men get shut out and/or denied an audience…done by the minds and hands of vicious, envious, vengeful, socialistic, yet oblivious women and their traitorous cohorts.

      The big censorship is coming on the grounds of “hostility” and “prevention” of pursuing happiness. Laugh now, but weep later.

      The result, if we do not come to grips with scrutinizing their minds? Well, we are living in it. Need more proof?

      To all reading: “Brain Sex: The Real Differences Between Men and Women” by Anne Moir, Ph.d, and David Jessel. The answers are science and science is how this book is presented.

      Read it and use it.

      • napocapo69

        Hi MGTOW-man. A couple of considerations stemming from your post.

        First of all, I understand your point and I feel your sense of disappointment for what it seems irrational behaviour from “feeling-dominated women”.

        Overall I understand your invite to “to stop kidding ourselves, being too nice. In response to being considered automatically guilty of rape”.

        But I do not follow into “we need to counter their crap with treating them all the same until they prove otherwise that they are not like we say they are”.
        Who are them? Are the feeling dominated women?

        “The good women, they must understand our scrutiny, or else they are not our friends either.”
        Who are the good women? The non feeling dominated?

        “The big censorship is coming on the grounds of “hostility” and “prevention” of pursuing happiness. Laugh now, but weep later.”
        I’m not laughing at all, but the only censorship I’m afraid of, is the selfcensorship in which the compliant male has lived in the last decades. I’m not afraid of the big brother or the big sister, but of the vile brothers.

        Beware, I’m not passing under scrutiny your statements. It is just that I feel compassionate of your hanger and fears, and your post is a good preface to what I’d like to say on the violence topic and realted misandric hysteria.

        The following is anedocte, a real story sadly, just happened few days ago. I hope it will help me to clarify my stance.

        Roughly two weeks ago a girl aged 19 years old has been raped not more than a couple of miles from my house, in a town counting roughly 50000 inhabitants. She has not “only” been raped; she has been mutilated by a criminal maniac. I’m not going into details, but it is enough to say that her parents are spendig the day beside her because they are concerned she might kill herself; during the night her father scouts the streets of the outskirts with his rifle to hunt this criminal, exposing himself to danger and of course to the risk of killing the wrong person.
        As you may guess the community was shocked.
        The local newspapers have taken the occasion to correlate this episode with other 4 aggressions (completely different dynamic and purpose), fostering a collective psychosis. Local politicans are debating if they have done enough to make the streets more secure.
        Needless to say that now the city is under a sort of curfew.
        Last week I was having dinner with some “feeling dominated female friends” and of course my wife. The recent aggravated rape was part of the discussion. As you can immagine the feeling dominated women were not excatly calm and cold, and the rule of law was not exactly their main concern. Yes I played the wise man, I was “cold” as ice, and overall I succeded in putting the discussion within the boundaries of rationality. By the way the success has been partial, and my wife has anyway decided to keep with her a sort of “tazer”. As a matter of fact, I’m the one in danger now… And of course I’m getting back from work earlier to not leave her alone in the evenings, and I’m much closer to her. Yeah, I’m white-knighting, I’m not sticking to my survival instinct, I’m partially feeling dominated. A sort of compromise: to make them more rational, I surrended to feelings, at least partially.

        How the fuck are women so feeling dominated to not see the truth? And for their fault, by cascade I’m forced to be partially feeling-dominated….!

        Well, as a man to me it is much easier to deal with fear. For self reliance, the presumption that violenve cannot occur to me. Yes I know that 70% of violent crimes happen to men, but still I think “I’m tall, strong, in good health, what can happen to me? An in case of aggression, I will fight back!” Sound familiar? I’m feeling-dominated, by another feeling the unconsciousness.
        For a woman this is completely different, because she feels more exposed to violence, even when she is not. There is very little you can do with it, because biology rules.
        The only thing you can do, as a man, is to talk with these “feeling-dominated” women, and mitigate the possible hysteria. If you react on a pure rational basis, without the proper compassion, you’ll end in opening a fight, in dismissing their fears, and they will feel even more exposed, and become good “humus” for misandric policies.
        The only ones you should really be afraid of, even more than the radical feminists, are the politicians the media; they base their power on the manipulation of fear.

        Closing, the only way to cohexist in a society, is to be partially feeling dominated. If you do not have compassion for the other individuals, you’ll end in being strictly rational, at the extremes. And the extreme rationality collapse into instinct, the survival instinct, “the big fish eats small fish”. Why should I care for her if she’s raped; her life is at risk, not big deal. What should I care for him if he’s trown in jail; his life is at risk, not bid deal.

        That was it.

        First compassion, then brain.

        A long post, sorry, good night.

        • MGTOW-man

          Good morning napocapo69.

          I read your comments and have a few things to respond. Not in defensiveness, but just to set the record straight. I do not perceive your reply to my comments as bad, abrasive, or whatever. However, it is important to note that I had switched from talking specifically to you to that of general readers, hopefully uncommitted ones on the fringe, because while I had addressed you already, I wanted to move on.

          But I am glad you replied. I read most of your comments on this site and think you have a great head on your shoulders, which is why I chose to comment in the first place. So thank you for taking time to answer. That shows your diligence and passion. The boys will appreciate you for sure.

          When I said feelings-dominated, I did not mean that men do not have feelings so therefore no women should either. I will leave such categorical irrationality to the women (and men) whom the shoe fits.

          But I do think that if certain women are more prone to be overly emotional and so feelings-dominated in their overall schema, that, like it or not, they are not fit to help run things in our world—let alone, set in stone our policies. Not comparing, just being honest, but for the same reason, we do not allow children to compete with adult power.

          You are, of course entitled to disagree, and I am not sure you did entirely.

          But, folks out there, we are about to change the world; let it all be flipped like an egg in a frying pan; changing all that we know; throwing thousands of years of survival and related commonsense, technique, traditions, rules, successes, and so forth into the trash can, ignoring the inevitable fallout that eventually very well might turn out to be species -threatening.

          Surely, the world itself as a whole is much more important than the inclusiveness of all women—even the ones who will foul things up—precisely because they are feelings-dominated—-in which we let them ruin it for everyone. (That is why we are here on this site…to complain, activate, and help avoid a looming world crisis if we do not gather everything we can to oppose the tyranny that will befall us all, and is in working progress already). In this context, letting emotions and feelings obliviously control who you are so much as what feminists (and many women) are doing, then extort, blackmail, manipulate, and bully others to abide, and again, change it all up to something alien, cold, and starkly different, then for Pete’s sake, why would we men (who are charged with protecting everything), let this happen before our very eyes when we knew darned well we know women well enough and knew better to let it unfold? (Whew! that was long.)

          Keeping women pleased and making them like us men can’t be and isn’t worth it. The truth is the truth, and if women are on the “bad” side of that truth, then I can’t help it, am not responsible, and will not pity them or apologize—precisely because I still think the world is bigger than women. The center of the universe is not the feelings of women.

          Having cleared that up, I hope, let me move on to say how sorry I am, napocapo69, for your family and community to suffer like it is having to do at the despicable hands of a vicious monster. I would help hunt him down myself if I could. I will keep you, your family, and the community at large in my thoughts.

          However, it does fit right in here. Sure the women in your area are scared, and many things have changed to protect them, and rightly so. But…and here is the point, if the feminists had their way in your area right now, ALL MEN THERE WOULD BE UNDER CURFEW UNTIL THE PERP IS FOUND. I am not being ridiculous to say this, because look at all the hair-brained rules against men that feminists have successfully installed that flies in the face of just being a male—as if collectively, we males are all at fault for being males. It would be misandry at its absolute worse.

          Women scared or not, we simply can not let the feelings and oft-accompanying irrationality of women control us like it would if feminists had their way. Our species functioning properly should have more priority than keeping women pleased.

          My understanding is that avoiding the feminist tyranny is why we are here and if it takes it for us men and good women to do whatever it takes, short of violence, then so be it.

          You see, I want to win. Winning involves some compromise, but not to the point that we let irrational feelings take over and screw everything up.

          I am sorry that females and their biology are often caught in the middle of how nature, evolution, and commonsense survival strategies consistently and independently steered the human populations in ways that make women feel left out, but it is what it is.

          …And they weren’t strictly “left out” anyway. A few of them, misguided, became so envious of men—erroneously thinking that being a man, with all its sacrifices, duties, accountability and responsibility (that feminists and many women in general refuse to see or are blinded by their feelings from seeing), that it made them FEEL like they were second to men. The truth is—and great strides have been successfully met on this site to illustrate the myth of women’s oppression—but women have always been first in the minds of men. What appeared as awful treatment of women, largely but not always, was just life unfolding in ways that provided the most success for the most people about most things, making overall survival easier and more pleasant in general. It wasn’t supposed to be a cakewalk.

          I still think women collectively are smaller than the world itself. Keeping it all in perspective, I do not feel mean, hateful, dominating, or apologetic for my refusal to let the oft-irrational feelings of women become so much larger than the world itself. I truly believe I am being responsible by not letting myself be shifted in philosophy and function like so many other men are allowing.

          Before closing, let me clarify one more point. Thanks.

          Why do you readers out there think we men haven’t done more to oppose radical feminism? In the words of Harvey C. Mansfield’s book “Manliness”: “There has been an astonishing lack of resistance [against destructive feminism].” Why do you suppose that has happened? This IS the BIG question. Answer it and you solve half the problem.

          Think about what happens if men, everywhere, went full steam against feminism’s changes. Wouldn’t nearly every woman we know, have a BIG problem with us men? Even if they profess to be conservative, on our side, and in agreement with us, DO WE MEN NOT KNOW THAT A CERTAIN THREAD THAT RUNS ALMOST CONSISTENTLY THROUGHOUT THE FEMALE SEX would flare up in our faces to counter us, even shame us, in every way they can reach against us. So many of us would risk losing even the good women in our lives, for women are more alike than different. I do not need to know all women to be correct here; what I just said is commonsense. If I am wrong here, then let’s go mass-oppose today.

          I am not afraid to take this step. I would start today if droves of others would manage some courage to back me up correctly and permanently. That is a part of being MGTOW—for sure. But I think most men are scared to death of it. Perhaps they already know more than I give them credit.

          However, I am not wrong for refusing to cave in to something irrational and destructive as that of letting the non-objective, overly-felt feelings of women, often borne of misguided envy, knock me from my bearings—no matter what they say, no matter what I am called, no matter who opposes, no matter what!

          Do we men want to win and make true equality a reality? If not, why are we here?

          • napocapo69

            Thank you MGTOW-man for the esteem and for the compassion.

            First of all I want to clarify one thing; I mentioned this episode not for generating compassion or manipulate emotions, but just because I believed it fit well the topic we were covering, violence and hysteria.
            I tried at my best to reproduce the emotional status only for one purpose; our mutual relationships and perceptions of facts are influenced by emotions, and we all are influenced by them so much that some of us might feel overexposed and other, viceversa, underexposed to violence.
            And I do not think that women are more prone to be feelings dominated.

            You say that we should not make compromise on certain topics (at least this is my take), such as equality before the law and men’s human rights; I fully agree.

            Maybe I gave a different impression, but my intention was addressing the communication issue. Before opening a dialectic around some sensible topic, you have to lower the shields, and help the other to lower his/her shields.
            This is not a theoretical ground this is a practical one.
            Your vote and your opinion count “one”, so you can’t fix things if you are not going to bring others on your side.

            Few weeks ago I was reading the USA study on violence against women (NAWA); a pretty similar study has been performed in my country. It is a shameful survey and I do not want to digress on it, but one thing was astonishing by my “male” point of view.
            Among the contemplated forms of violence there were threats of physical violence; in the stalking category anything could be considered a threatening act.
            But if that was the case, why the parental alienation and kidnapping of children, mostly committed by women was not considered as violence? And why threatening someone of alienation from children, was not considered violence?
            Yes, the survey has been performed under a feminist agenda, and for sure those little gender ideologues knew that inserting such kind of violence categories into the survey would have lead to surprising results. Those that made the survey knew that a man is not easily physically threatened by a woman; this is the reason why women do not frequently threaten men physically and viceversa men do not report those rare events. Because, to feel the fear, the potential act of violence must be assumed as realistic. Every psychologist knows it. On par, men feel threatened of being alienated from children because it is realistic (given the current family system) and women know it. Who on Earth would not prefer to be beaten than losing his/her children?
            But apparently this was not the “belief” driving the survey.
            And not only because it has been done by feminists, with malevolence; but also because it has been performed according to a “female” interpretation of violence.
            Beware that the Survey, almost surely, has been read also by non feminists, and they, most surely, have not noticed this absurd approach to measuring violence.
            Because of ignorance. Simply because around the concept of violence there is no two-way communication, not for lack of rationality but for lack of compassion for men.
            And when we raise our shields and sometimes we draw our swords, women usually do not get we are on defensive stance, they feel we are attacking.

            So, closing, I’m not interested at all in negotiating rights, in complying with women fears such as to give up dignity or my values. But there is a time and occasion to fight and a time and occasion to drop shield and sword.

  • August Løvenskiolds

    There are a lot of heroes in our midst that rarely get recognized for their work. Christopher J. Thompson, thank you.

  • Steve_85

    The Girl Who Cried Rape.

    There once was a girl, who was bored as she sat in her classroom listening to the lecturer. To amuse herself, she ran outside and cried, “Rape! Rape! Help me, I’m being Raped!”

    The students and teachers all came running outside to find the girl alone, standing next to a support post and laughing at everyone who had come running to help. One person came up to the girl and said, “Don’t cry ‘rape’ little girl when there’s no rape. Everyone went back inside, grumbling.

    Later, the girl sang out again, “Rape! Rape! Help me, I’m being Raped!” To her naughty delight, everyone again came running to help save her from the rapist. When the students and teachers saw again that there was no one there, they sternly said, “Save your frightened song for when there really is something wrong. Don’t cry ‘rape’ when there is no rape!” But the girl just grinned and watched as they all filed back into their lecture hall.

    Later that afternoon, as the girl was walking home, she again felt bored. Walking up to a man, she screamed, pointed at him and cried again, “Rape! Rape! Help me, I’ve been raped!” Once again, the other students and teachers who heard this came running, and this time, seeing her pointing her finger, they attacked the man. When they heard the girl laughing behind them, they stopped, but the damage had already been done. The man was badly injured and would never walk again. Again, they said to the girl, “What you have done here is evil. Look at what has been done to this man because you cried rape! Don’t cry ‘rape’ when there is nothing wrong.”

    On the Friday of that week, the girl went out drinking. She drank a lot and in her drunken state she went home with a man. The next day, he didn’t call her. She waited by the phone for hours, yet it didn’t ring. On the Sunday, she again waited for a phone call that never came, and before she went to bed, she decided she was going to get her own back!

    The next day, she rang the police and cried, “Rape! Rape! Help me, I’ve been raped!” When the police asked her for more information, she gave them the man’s name and phone number and giggled to herself as she hung up, “That will teach him to not call.” That very afternoon, the man was arrested. He appeared on the 6 o’clock news and in the newspapers. He lost his job, and was beaten up by the boys who lived on the same street as the girl. When the girl later revealed that she had fooled everyone again, the townspeople looked at her and scolded, “don’t cry ‘rape’ when there is nothing wrong! This man’s life is ruined now because of what you have done.”

    Two weeks later, whilst walking home from university, the girl hears the bushes rustling next to her. She squeals and yells out, “Rape! Rape! Help me, I’m being raped!” As she is dragged off into the bushes, no one even flinches. Later, when an old man found her laying on the ground crying, she looked up at him and sobbed, “Why didn’t you help me? I cried for help! There really was a rape, and no one came!”

    The old man looked down at her with a stern face and replied, “Nobody believes a liar, even when they’re telling the truth.”

    That is the end of my adaptation of one of Aesop’s Fables, The Boy Who Cried Wolf. I will note however, that in both the original, and in this version, simply punishing the offender for falsely calling ‘wolf’ would have solved the problem.

    There are many other forms of ‘rape’ that are not discussed in this post, including but not limited to, ‘I changed my mind’ rape, ‘it’s inconvenient for me’ rape, ‘my boyfriend/husband/parents found out’ rape, ‘nothing ever happened, but he has lots of money’ rape.

    All of these and more, contribute to a rising attitude of ‘Who gives a fuck?’ among many men I know. Feminists should be careful of over playing their hand. How long before rape loses any meaning whatsoever? How long before women can be raped for real in the streets, and no one comes running, because we’ve all seen and heard this little dance one too many times?

  • knightrunner

    Does anyone else feel that this Jackson katz guy needs to be taken down a notch or 12! Not violently, of course, but he needs to be shown for what he is and his reputation as an authority on gender should be scrutinized. The fact that this person, who I can only describe as a bigot, should be allowed to influence young minds with his hatred is beyond appalling. Yeah I know that some people will call this silencing free speech. I think he should be able to say what ever he wants. I don’t think he should be placed in a setting where students are forced to listen. Would a university allow the grand wizard of the KKK to be given a forum in which to.spread his message? I think not.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      No, but they would allow Joseph McCarthy to.

  • Wendy

    Rape is such a tricky thing to prosecute or defend against. I feel terrible for anyone on either side — either an honest-to-god victim who can’t get a conviction of their rapist or a falsely accused person. It really gets down to accuser says/accused says. And both are hurt by false accusations. The real rape victim may not be believed because of the prevalence of false rape accusations and future accused may fall victim because the false accuser knows they can get away with it. They won’t be punished.

  • Disorderly Conduct

    “MYTH: People lie about sexual assault…FACT: The vast majority of sexual assault reports are true”

    “People never lie about rape, but sometimes people lie about rape” is what they just said

  • Robert Sides

    > “Does anyone else feel that this Jackson katz guy needs to be taken down a notch,,,”

    Yesssssss. Let’s make “Katz and the Pussy-rioters” sing a different tune.

    Let’s confront him. Since he already makes a living hating men, we won’t be giving him more attention so much as putting an “M” (for mangina) on his back:

    Guys like him aren’t used to being challenged by other men. He’s like the behind-the-lines pencil-pusher nerd during war who brags to the waitresses at the local canteen that he’s a frontline grunt. Time to show how willing he is to savage men in order to get women to pat him on the head.

    He’s a misogynist who thinks women incapable of equal agency. He thinks women can be in combat, but not criminals.

    He’s a vestal virgin at Temple Vajayjay.

    Worse, he maligns male athletes. Sports is one of the few activities where men can get out of their heads and into their bodies… and have F-U-N. Yet he wants to say they are brutes because muscles mean misogyny. He feeds the myth that males’ bigger size makes them evil. As if we should fear manatees more than scorpions!

    Katz is Beria to Steinem’s Stalin.

    Let’s re-educate him.

  • donzaloog

    The madness is finally being pushed back. Glad to see men are waking up to the nasty double standards that pervade our legal system. That judge that said all men accused of sexual assault are presumed guilty until proven innocent, should be removed from the bench and never be allowed to work in any capacity regarding the law because she clearly has no understanding of the fundamental pillar off the legal system. “Innocent until proven guilty”

    • TheSandreGuy

      I just wish men would start to push back at the double standards of the legal system here in Sweden.

      Far too many manginas over here.

  • TheSandreGuy

    Holy fuck.

    Feminists think more about rape than actual rapists do.

  • MGTOW-man

    This is a reply to napocapo69 “in reply to MGTOW-man” above. Since the reply option was missing, I couldn’t continue my conversation with him and with other interested readers. So here it is. I hope it reaches the proper destinations.

    Why does AVfM not have instant messaging where we can continue such discourse?

    napocapo69, you and I are mostly in agreement. I do however continue to dissent from your position about feelings, relative to men vs. women.

    So much of the examples you gave in your response to my response illustrated exactly what I am saying. Thus, I couldn’t believe you are in a disagreement with me over it. I will list them here: wait, I won’t because they are too numerous. But if you will re-read your response to me, listing so many of the feminist plans for violence and how they do not believe their violence is violence, then, if you will think about how they shakily arrive at such hair-brained conclusions, only one thing can be the reason for such an “oversight” or “oblivion”, or refusal to acknowledge such commonsense-derived perspectives that the rest of us have.

    That reason is simple: because most men and most women have different circuitry emotion-wise, which equals feelings-influenced-perspectives for women largely.

    This is where I definitely disagree with you; women ARE more feelings-dominated, compared to men. Men feel also, and should. But with women, their feelings are so much of who the are and their schemas that a blurring of reality often results. Sometimes it borders on paranoia and hysteria.

    Evolution/natural selection made women’s minds so that they can better make it to raising their offspring to sexual maturity; causing them to perceive “dangers” and safety differently than males is what helps them accomplish their main task as females. That is fine for survival in the primal sense, but in the modern world, it has no place now.

    This explains why a woman thinks she has been “hurt” when the man only said something that offended her. To those women, they have trouble separating physical hurt from emotional hurt because to them, the two are the same—which is irrational.

    So much of these kinds of irrational viewpoints radiate from the feminist camp. This also explains why so many of the “fixes” feminists have, are bordering on feelings-hysteria that have no physical manifestation, thus, no place in REAL reality.

    I finish, by maintaining my position, that many more women than men are grossly unfit to help run our policies simply because their perceptions stem from their feelings and what they want to believe; the truth as they FEEL it—as it makes them FEEL good.

    This is why feminism is wrong. It is self-short-sighted on reality…because their reality IS their feelings, nothing physical and provable, but just how they wish and want, and want us men to abide.

    I know you must see what I am saying. Male circuitry (or conditioning) is such that they withhold them from view usually. Men do not let their feelings overwhelm them so much that they become oblivious to their feelings creeping in on how they perceive the world—not near as much as women do, apparently.

    I have lived with a lot of women. Too many probably. My exposure to so many of them has yielded the same results time after time. Women are different than men. Not all, but the kind that I am talking about in this thread should not be allowed to decide very much beyond their daily lives.

    But unfortunately, the feminists who are most active in changing it all around to suit them, are exactly the last ones that should have a place in the community pot of rule making.

    The evidence is all around us!

    Having feelings isn’t bad. Being a feelings-dominated woman is not bad. But letting them run things and make our rules is something else altogether.

    Again, the evidence is all around us.

    • napocapo69

      That’s ok if we dissent on something. Beware that we live in different countries and opinions are influenced by different experiences, in similar yet different cultures.

      Anyway I think that the reason we dissent on being feeling dominated, is more a matter of terminology.It is all about the concept of feelings; IMHO women tend to fear the unknown a bit too much; men tend to be too much self reliant. That’s biology and it is the reason man and women were used to match each other.

      In any case you might be closer to truth than me.

      I just point out that whatever is the truth, you have to deal with such situation in the most effective way.

  • MGTOW-man

    I upvoted you because I appreciate you and your persistence. You have the stuff an MHRA needs to have.

    I also agree that it is OK to disagree. As long as we men stay on the same side overall, knowing that our ultimate goal is TRUE (actual) equality, then we will be just fine.

    I do not agree with many positions on this site, but I will always believe that …United we stand a chance; Divided, we will be erased.

    I really like being able to chat with other like-minded people. Well, mostly like-minded. Mostly enough.

    Thanks again. Stay cool. Cheers!