Saturday, 11 May 2013

Torture, Misandry and Our Antiquated Feminist Fixation

Nicola Tedder

Something that has long troubled me about the Men's Movement is its fixation on 'feminism'. Of course, it would be churlish to argue that feminists like Greer or McKinnon don't represent a serious obstacle in our path. For all that, this fixation often blinds us to the fact that many who do not overtly self-identify as feminists still hate men, or discriminate against them. Further, misandry is embedded in Anglo-American laws, customs and institutions, and inflects every facet of the male experience.

Many MRAs seem to assume that, if only these evil 'feminists' were swept away, misandry would also wither. And that women would instantly transform into sweet-natured angels, brimming over with love and kindness. I consider this a very unlikely outcome, given the all-pervasive nature of misandry in the Anglosphere. Most Anglo-American women - feminists or not - harbour a deep loathing of males, as the following article attests:

Woman, 32, jumped on child’s stomach wearing flip-flops and perforated his bowel in shocking campaign of violence

  • Rubbed his excrement in his face if he soiled himself
  • Held his feet against a piping hot radiator until he burnt
  • Jailed for seven years for causing injuries described as being like 'something from a horror film'
  • Nicola Tedder denied charges and claimed child was 'clumsy' and had injured himself

A sadistic woman who jumped on a little boy's stomach after losing her patience with him has been jailed for seven years. The savage assault led to the child being rushed to hospital with a perforated bowel, Guildford Crown Court heard.

Nicola Tedder, 32, inflicted a catalogue of cruelties on the child, including plunging her fingers into his eyes, holding his feet against a piping hot radiator until they burnt and clasping her hands around his throat and pushing him under water. She hit him on the head with kitchen utensils and even rubbed his face in his own excrement if he soiled himself. Tedder, from Haslemere, Surrey, was found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. She was also convicted of four offences of assault causing actual bodily harm and one of child cruelty after a five-week trial at Guildford Crown Court.Alexia Durran, prosecuting, said: 'On one occasion she held his feet against a radiator which was hot enough to cause burning to his feet.

'On another occasion, she poked her fingers into his eyes, causing him ulcers and abrasions to his eyes. It looked like something out of a horror film.'

The court was told that the defendant would put her hands around the boy’s throat and shove his head under bath water as well as hitting him over the head with kitchen utensils and rubbing his nose in his own excrement if he soiled himself. But the most serious assault was when Tedder jumped up and down on the youngster last year. Ms Durran said the injured boy was rushed to the Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, suffering from excruciating abdominal pain.

'It was as a result of his stomach being stamped upon. A doctor said he had only seen an injury like this from a karate kick - which will give some idea of the force used,' she said.

Ms Durran said: 'The victim said that the defendant had jumped on his stomach with both feet. She was wearing flip-flops at the time.'

She said that a tear was discovered in the boy’s colon and he had to be transferred to St. George’s Hospital, Tooting, for specialist treatment. The incident led to Tedder being arrested and prosecuted. The defendant denied all the charges against her. Tedder claimed that the boy was clumsy and injured himself.

Jailing the defendant, Judge Michael Addison said: 'You deliberately jumped on his stomach. This caused very serious injuries.'

He said it would probably never be clear why Tedder had inflicted such violence on the child.

'You may have a short temper or a cruel disposition,' added Judge Addison. He said the innocent child might well suffer from long-term psychological damage as a result of his suffering at her hands. The court was told that staff at the victim’s school had already noticed that the boy seemed to suffer cuts and bruising with a greater regularity than was considered normal for a child of his age.

'One of the staff remarked last year that the boy was walking like an old man,' said Ms Durran.

Andrew Turton, defending, said his client had never been in trouble with the law before.

'She continues to deny committing these offences which makes mitigation very difficult,' he said.

SOURCE: Daily Mail, September 2012
There is no evidence of this woman being a feminist, or identifying with 'feminism'. Still, however, she hated males to such an extent that she almost killed one. My own special contribution to the Men's Movement is the insight that, having a puritanical undercurrent, Anglo-American culture's 'default setting' is pro-female misandry. That is, misandry is not the result of feminism - instead, pan-Anglosphere feminism and misandry both spring from the same source - a puritanical meme embedded at the deepest level of Anglo-Saxon culture.


  1. I agree, I think women in English speaking countries have a deep seated subconscious hatred towards men. It just seems like feminists hate men the most, or are at least are the most vocal about their hatred towards men.

    Rookh, do you think the only solution is for men to move to more "male friendly" countries like the Philippines, South America, eastern Europe or Russia?

    1. James, I think your question answers itself...!

  2. Undoubtedly, women being treated as sacred cows, is going to turn their minds; just look at the episodes of 'I Claudius' on YouTube [or read the books].

    The relationship between cultural misandry and feminism maybe that of the wind and fire. They have been working together for decades, that we see them as the same phenomenon. I guess Rookh's theory helps to explain the ease with which it takes hold in the Anglo-sphere, and not other cultures.

    Just as the Nazi movement grew under the effect of the privations from the collapsed economy of the late 1920s, that is the 'cultural' environment was conducive to it, so too does feminism require sterile ground to flourish.

    Hence feminism, and other forms of fascism, is a purely State political contrivance, that still needs the opportunity of the right environment to fester and burn successfully within.

    The long term hope is that the radicalism of any fascist system, undermines the very environment it needed to flourish by in the first place; for the fire burns out without the old fuel. Feminism needs to maintain the myth of women's 'victim-hood' and 'saintliness', but their State sponsored empowerment and subsequent abusive perpetrations [vis the scandal of the use of Ritalin on boys], must undermine their credibility in the peoples slow gazing eyes in the long run.

    Eventually the State will dump feminists as a whip against men, and deploy other useful idiots in their stead. maybe that is why they are adding the 'gay-rights' angle in the mix.

    When feminism collapses, the desperate State will likely resort to direct police control; and hopefully that will stimulate the people to rise up and reset the 'democracy' back to sanity.

    1. I think that gynocentric feminism makes societies inefficient and uncompetitive and, in itself, that will precipitate its demise. How many liberal arts graduates working in telesales do we really need? How many divorce lawyers? How many psychologists? How many single-mothered morons, criminals and drug-addicts?

      At base, feminism is very, very costly. And it makes societies inefficient. Really, gynocentric Anglo feminism was a luxury affordable in the affluent post-War era but much less affordable now. In a way, the MRM is surfing on a wave of pragmatic necessity

  3. Adria Richards does not consider herself to be a feminist.

    The hatred of men is the root problem - in my opinion.

    When this hatred started - I do not know.

    I can say that the radical feminists from the 60's certainly added to it with herstory revisions and bogus factoids...

    But they are not primarily responsible...

    Negative stereotypes of men existed long before they did...

  4. Rookh:
    Here's a great specimen of the puritanical element underpinning misandry. It's been making the media rounds over here this last week:

    This guy has managed to outdistance even Tommy Fleming in puritanical white-knightism. He's actually lobbying for a 'National Day of Male Atonement' in the US!

    1. It is notable that he is a psychiatrist. In my previous post I singled out psychiatry as one of the Anglosphere institutions still rooted in the 1950s - that is, hopelessly out of touch with social reality.

      Perhaps shrinks need a 'National Day of Atonement' themselves - weren't many of them sterilizing and killing people in Nazi Germany (and in Sweden until quite recently)? And in the Anglosphere, didn't Southern psychiatrists label slaves seeking freedom as 'Drapetomaniacs'?

      You couldn't make it up:

    2. May 13th - it was written on May 8th - and comments for that article are already closed...

      There are also no comments for that article...

      I can only imagine what kind of sh*t-storm ensued in those comments...

      The kind of thinking that Dr. Peter Breggin and his ilk spread is clearly losing favor in the public eye.

    3. I noticed that, too. I would not say that his ideas are losing favour at a mass level, only that right-thinking people are now prepared to challenge them in public. It is not the beginning of the end, just the end of the beginning.

      Nonetheless, the misandrist/feminist values shared by traditional authorities/oracles such as journalists, politicians and psychiatrists surely seem increasingly eccentric to thinking members of the public.

  5. Scarecrow:
    I think a latent hatred of men has always been present, just like there are always latent racial hatreds; even hatreds been tribes in primitive societies.

    Civilization is about overcoming these inherent tendencies; but feminism wants to overthrow civilization as 'patriarchal'. That's what most feminist 'liberation' is really about: liberating women from civilized behavior, and misandry follows quickly in its train.

    1. Or to be blunt - and to re-iterate Dr. Rookh Kshatriya - feminism is NOT a revolutionary movement - it is simply a movement dedicated to maintaining the current order of things...Puritanism, sex-hatred, etc...

      The more "revolutionary" they claim to be - the more they demonstrate that they are designed to maintain the status quo...

  6. There are two main reasons for misandry, in my opinion. First, almost no woman is able to protect herself, therefore she senses herself as trapped in a cage together with potential harmful creatures, called men. This is a very fundamental insight of women throughout their entire life.

    That immanent fear forces women to manipulate all forms of social interactions in order to beeing seen as fragile victims. As a result, the hatret against men is just the weakness of women, or precise: The realization of women, that they cant survive in a world without men. (In their spoiled mind) men turn out not just as a necessary evil but a target of hate.

    (Men actually dealt in the same way with deadly creatures in a very harmful environement hundreds and thousands years back in time.)

    No wonder that radical feminists consider men as animals and dream about a world without men or at least one, where men are held as slaves meant to hardwork and produce whatever women need to have a good life. That´s the world we live in, period.

    Through the eyes of young girls, anyway, mothers and females are just older girls -there is nothing to do or achive to become one self someday. Men, on the other hand, are recognized als heros who domesticated their envionment to the stage, where is no danger anymore. The controllers, the gods, if I do say so myself. And of couse, that´s not very pleasing for women.

    The hatret against men, is clearly no more than the "unfairness" of mother nature, who gave women a female body and mind. What they feminists and western woman don´t understand (or even want to): That´s not our fucking fault! We are as innocent as you guys -and therefore not to blame nor to punish. We were lucky to enter the world as men -that´s all.

    An adult person will accept that fact, and live with it. Not so feminists. They are out for trouble. And as parents do, we (men) have to do: regulating the world, they live in and minimazing their childish impact they otherwise might carry into the world.

    Sorry for my bad english. It´s not my mothertongue. I´m married with a Pinay, by the way.

    1. Women can't survive without men? That's a cute little fairytale!

    2. And, I might add, a touch paradoxical. Consider family annihilatiors, rapists, serial killers. Such heroes!!!
      You are deluded and a narcissist. You might want to consider your position or you are heading for a fall - or a criminal conviction at least.
      In conclusion, you are wrong - women do not need men in order to survive. Because we DO survive without men - simple as that! But we do so like male company. Don't go spoiling it. Men may not be needed anymore, so you'd better make yourselves desirable at least. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face!!!

    3. Anon 12:13

      Compared to delusional, entitled femihags like you, serial killers and rapists are creme de la creme of humanity.

      And no, women can't survive a single day without the help of a male, or at least a device designed by one.

      It sucks for you women that you drew the shortest stick, but no amount of whining sill change that.

      Cry some more, bitch.

    4. Anon 21:13

      "Men not needed anymore?" They were needed once. So after they sacrificed and built you a comfortable lifestyle you just "don't need them" anymore?

      This is very telling of the nature of childish ungrateful females like yourself.

      You think you are able to survive on your own because of the systems and security men have designed around you.

      Boy would i like to see you try to survive on your own in an isolated piece of land. I would buy a ticket to see that you "DO survive without men."

      Male humans will be needed again after you bastardize every system and security designed for your safety.

      Nobody knows who you are ANON but im sure men will think twice before they help you survive

  7. Uhh, how is a single woman being a batshit insane sadist any proof of widespread misandry? This is just as bad as feminists using the occassional idiot man as a proof of oppressive "patriarchy".

    1. That was precisely my thought.
      The writer of this blog may have good points but this post didn't display any IMO.

    2. Shut up, pathetic, wretched female. Women are filth.

  8. It really amuses me that some of the 'Anonymous' comments are actually Girls in Real Life, despite the common internet convention of Guys In Real Life.

    With that out of the way, since running into this site, I eventually learned on my own that most of the feminists I'm unlearning are single white females, despite the Johnny-come-lately blacks and other minority feminists.

    Single white female feminism, as I learned by myself, is more rooted with the Anglo culture/collective memory of the Vikings' constant pillaging of the British Isles, which then got carried over to Victorian Puritanism England to now.

    Also, I learned on my own that in the Deep South 19th Century USA, it's common for single white females to get black men LYNCHED for false rape accusations.

    Lesson learned: teach women accountability and consequences.

  9. Excellent blog Mr. Kshatriya. I am ecstatic that this blog exists. It is an imperative to have such a resource. I hope that you keep up this service for as long as possible.

    I have a lot to share regarding this, however, writing it all at once would be daunting to read, so I'll try to keep it as short as I can -

    "Something that has long troubled me about the Men's Movement is its fixation on 'feminism'. This fixation often blinds us to the fact that many who do not overtly self-identify as feminists still hate men, or discriminate against them. Further, misandry is embedded in Anglo-American laws, customs and institutions, and inflects every facet of the male experience."

    I have been saying this for years!! People are so oblivious to it that they barely understand the gravity of it, let alone do something about it.

    There is one argument which I often use and I can safely say that it proves to be highly effective each time. It is like an ammunition against the white knight manginas who cannot help but continue living in blue-pill denial. I strongly recommend this argument to subdue our ideological opponents, even those who ostensibly are on our side, but in reality are nothing but closet white knights. So here it is -


    Close your eyes. Now imagine a world where there are 0 women who want to get jobs simply because they have a vagina using gender quotas and affirmative action.

    Do you think that in this world, gender quotas and affirmative action would still exist?

    No, they won't. Conclusion....?

    Now imagine a world where there are 0 women who want to exploit their ex-husbands through alimony

    Do you think that in this world, alimony laws would still exist?

    No, they won't. Conclusion....?

    Now imagine a world where there are 0 women who want to exploit child custody laws and take the children away from their fathers.

    Do you think that in this world, men still would not be able to see their children?

    No, they won't. Conclusion....?

    In all the cases above, as well as all other such instances, the point is that - No such practices would exist if only there were no women desiring them!

    They exist because _women_ desire them. Not just "feminists", but women.

    If women stop desiring these legislations, they will cease to exist.

    What does this tell you? - It tells you that the cause of such a system is female nature. The root of such practices is female nature.

    The reason behind feminism's existence is female nature!

    Please, stop living in denial. Stop being a closet white knight and stop shifting the blame of feminist tyranny on every-damn-one BUT women. Stop deluding yourself and others.

    _Feminism is the symptom, female nature is the cause_.

    Feminism is nothing but a vanguard of women. What women demand, feminists make possible.

    If there were no women demanding anti-male practices, and fostering misandry, feminism would not be extant! Feminism's entire existence is owed to the desires of women.

    If women were to stop demanding, feminism would stop exacting!

    If we wish to cure the symptom, we must address the underlying cause. If we concentrate solely on feminism, we're concentrating only on the symptom and not the cause.

    Who is to guarantee that all the misandry and female glorification at the expense of men would simply vanish once feminism ends? Can you guarantee that? No.

    So acknowledge the root of the problem and stop being a part of the problem.


    1. This was the argument. It is very likely to cause cognitive dissonance in the opponent (which is excellent). A lot of men in the western world are white knights in denial. You see, chivalry is ingrained in us, in men. And so is the protective instinct.

      One cry for help from a woman is enough to motivate every blue-pill man to eschew logic and reason, and devote his time to solve the woman's problem.

      This is why after sexuality, victimhood is the greatest weapon of feminists. More victimhood = More privleges. Feminists will never renounce the victim card. Ever. No matter how good they have it.

      Indubitably, the greatest reason for men acquiescing misandry without much opposition is the male sexual instinct. The male sexual instinct has the most significant role behind the male obsequiousness toward women and female glorication (women atop pedestals). The male sex drive is so strong, that one needs not any explanation for it. It is the very essence of the heterosexual man.

      As schopenhauer said - It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual instinct that could give that stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race the name of the fair sex; for the entire beauty of the sex is based on this instinct.

      This can be easily extended to more than simply treating them as the fair sex . This transcends to almost every sphere that men and women are a part of.

      So, instead of curbing this monstrous impediment, what if the precise opposite were to happen?

      What if instead of mitigating the effect of the male sexual instinct, he were subjected to the provocation of his sexual desire relentlessly?

      Such a situation would result in the amplification of subservience of men toward women, because the more that the man is sexually simulated, the more he values sex, and consequently the more value he assigns to the SOURCE of the sex - Women!

      And this lays the groundwork for female worship by men in the modern era, often at the expense of men themselves.

      So essentially, half of humanity - Women, want women on pedestals as it is, and the other half - Men, are compelled to put women on pedestals, which means ALL of humanity is constantly striving for women on pedestals.

      Is it any wonder, that women are on pedestals? :)

      This is why depreciating the value of sex is of utmost importance. How do we achieve it, is another question for later. (I'll leave it here for now)

  10. I stumbled on this blog, whilst searching for people I went to school with. This includes Nicola Tedder.

    I don't think there is any sophisticated feminism or misandry on her part, she was just a garden variety arsehole.