Thursday, July 23, 2009

Update on Andrew Steiger

" type=hidden>

Andrew G Steiger
View profile
More options Jul 23, 1:45 am
From: Andrew G Steiger>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:45:12 -0500
Local: Thurs, Jul 23 2009 1:45 am
Subject: Being politically careful on the net

Here is an interesting site, if we go near the bottom we find my name.
We also find more information that looks like a feminist compilation
dossier. What can we determine from this info being compiled and posted,
firstly apparently pissing off feminists means they go after you
personally and create blogsites trackbacks right to your employer.
Secondly they may as it appears in my case target where you work, and
even write bad things about you to your employer. This may explain why I
was fired. The most important thing to remember is that they will as is
best feminist current political practise, place your posts, numbers and
words out of context. Those sound bytes really count so be careful out
here. As I believe the blog is originated in Australia, I have little
concern for it, but do place concern as many fathers out there that when
you engage them they fight really dirty, just as many of the systems are
in place to impede fathers who take the high road.

Andrew we never sent anything to your employer so if you got fired, you managed to do that yourself!

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Shared Parenting Council of Australia

SHARED PARENTING (but only for fathers and only after separation)

Shared parenting Council have announced they are closing down because they have been unable to secure government funding but still operate the website paid for by tax payer dollars and are heavily involved in Here are some of their key members both current and ex.

Michael Green, Newtown NSW aka Agog, Sisyphus
also member of SRL and member of Dads On The Air. Has a mediation company but does not disclose his biased relationship with Fathers Rights.

Peter Saxon Sydney NSW aka Conan, Viking
also member of SRL, Dads On The Air, Dads In Distress and Fathers4Equality

Cheryl King Melbourne Australia

Coral Slattery Sutherland NSW aka NemosMum
Executive SPCA, SRL and Family Law Reform Aust member.

Simon Hunt Mornington Vic (ex member) aka Vascopajama
Former Executive member SPCA also FamilyLawAction Group and Fathers4Equality

Lindsay Jackel Melbourne aka Dad4life/Matrix/Tom Knoll/Manumit/Nuance
Executive SPCA also member of SRL, CRC Kids and executive of Dads On The Air, Fathers4Equality, Dads In Distress, Nuance Exchange

Matilda Bawden South Australia (ex member) Former Executive member

John Geremin Sydney NSW, Member of SRL and Non Custodial Parents.

Paul Saurine Sydney NSW aka Thad50 Member of SRL and Dads In Distress

Jim Carter Canberra ACT also Lone Fathers Association Aust aka Lfapolad.
Executive SPCA, CRC Executive and Lobbyist.

Barry Williams Canberra ACT also Lone Fathers Association Aust aka LFAABarry
Executive member SPCA

Ed Dabrowski Bubury WA Director SPCA, Executive member SPCA and Childrens Rights Council of Australia, also Creativity Centre and Lobbyist.

Geoff Greene SA Former Executive member of SPCA and still involved.

Trevor Bock Sydney NSW Executive SPCA also works with Michael Green in mediation business.

Lionel Richards WA Former Executive member now deceased. Executive SPCA and CRC Kids, Ozydads, Council for the Status of Fathers, Fathers4Justice.

Wayne Butler Central Coast NSW aka Oneringrules/secretaryspca
also member of SRL, CRC Kids and executive of Dads On The Air.

Sue Price Waterfall QLD Former SPCA Executive(ex member now founder of Mens Rights agency)

Ian Tuit Sydney NSW
Terry Bowker WA
Joan Hopkins WA
David Glenmere NSW
Graeme Campbell NSW
Peter Marsh QLD
Ian Wilson QLD
Shane Kelly SA
Susanne Cook SA
Michael Gray ACT
Paul Muckarovski NT
Greg Cairns
Geoff Holland QLD

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Your typical Fathers Rights Activist, Bob Allen

Bob Allen is a very popular and prolific mens and fathers rights activist and seems to make a habit out of writing what they are all thinking.
Bob is 57, uncircumcised and lives in Spokane Washinton. He also likes young girls and his views on children, women and violence are extremely disturbing. Nonetheless he is still considered a hero in Fathers Rights circles. He likes to go nude in public (and on the internet and hates the police with a vengeance to the point of rejoicing when one is killed on duty. He also uses Bobx23456 and likes to refer to himself in third person. He also has a fetish about male urinals. We're pretty sure that he can be found on child porn websites.
Some of his more famous comments are:

"Right on bro!

Another discussion board I frequent is managed by a man who's avitar carries the slogan "Kick them in the cunt." Men have been trying to get the feminists to sympathize with us for the past century, and all it does is allow them to stomp on us more and more. The only way men will ever restore our respect and position in society is to get angry, get mad, get aggressive, and to act MANLY.

Many decades of milquetoast whining has gotten men exactly nowhere. It will get us nowhere now. It is in fact supporting the feminist takeover of our society. Only by opposing feminism can men ever hope to oppose feminism. "Me too" feminism will get us nowhere.

Time to get angry. Take no prisoners.



The feminist fiction of "child support" has, of course, never had anything to do with supporting a man's children. Children are supported by putting a plate out at dinner time, and giveing htem a bed to sleep on. Feminists have used the fiction of "a man's obligation to support his children" as an excuse to demand PAYMENTS to females. So-called "child support" is about PAY to females, not about supporting a man's childrne. The evidence becomes clear when the agents of Satan in black robes of hell enforce binding him into indentured servitude (slavery) when he clearly is no more the father than the agent of Satan in black robes of hell.

It's time for the fiction called "child support" to be repealed and abandoned. It is a radical social experiment created in the 20th century and has been used to PAY females for destorying millions of families and hurting uncounted millions of children.



"Dead wives don't get custody. The Bible and other major religions teach that wives who practice adultary and other similar sins should be stoned to deah or put to death. Feminism has turned over the age old truths of life and made honorable husbands into villains, when it is the evil abusive adulterous wife who is the villain. She should be put to death. Men who take strong manly action, like OJ Simpson, should be our heros. Adulterous Nicole Simpson does not have custody."

"Non violence never works with these evil misandrist hate mongers.
Only violence can fight their kind of violence. This evil dark lord
in the black robe should not be allowed to walk the streets with
decent human beings. Don't just fall down and let them destroy you. Be a MAN and go down
fighting for your rights and for the rights of MEN!"


Normal boyish puberty play.

After hearing all the massive medial hype over Michael Jackson trial, I'm left wondering if any of the so-called "crime" amounts to a hill of beans. Even if everything the accusers said about sexual encounters is absolutely true, it amounts to the sort of thing that every boy does growing up. None of it amounts to a crime.

Sure, Jackson is a pervert who has psychotic problems -- probably from being forced to live like an adult entertainer starting at age 5. Yes, it's unusual for grown men to participate in the normal puberty play of boys. But is it a crime?

When sows fly.


What BOB Wants:

"Protect rights of MEN in normal men's sexual behavior.

37. End the criminalization of normal men's sexual behavior. Repeal all laws making men's sexuality, exposure, penetration, etc., into a criminal act unless there is demonstrable physical harm to a victim. Release and pardon all men who have been arrested for "statutory rape," "date rape," "spousal rape," "pornography," "soliciting a prostitute," and other weasel worded versions thereof. A woman's hurt feelings do not turn a man into a criminal.

38. Repeal laws prohibiting men from obtaining commercial sexual services from women who choose of their own free will to work in the sex industry. Such prohibitive laws serve to sexually control men by limiting men's access to sex and preventing open competition with wives' monopoly. Promulgate OSHA guidelines for the health and safety of sex workers.

65. End the so-called "sexual offender" reporting lists, which serve primarily as hate propaganda against men. They constitute cruel and unusual punishment and have no demonstrated value in deterring any future crime. Sex crimes have lower recidivism rates than other crimes. These lists and the life long publication of the names of men are unmitigated misandry.

It seems Bob has a bit of history and this quote might reveal a little of what happened and looks like it involved Bob's own teenaged son:

Bob Says:
When the children become old enough to begin to understand the situation their own desires and interests should weigh very heavily on any decisions. Teenage children have significant rights and can make many decisions themselves. A young child may not be able to determine his best interest, but a teenage son of 15 or 16 sure as hell can. Bob has been there, had that problem, had serious problems with a very abusive custody and support orders, and even more than 40 years later feel very, very strongly about it. Especially in a divorced family the children need to have their needs supported instead of denied. You can not be supporting the children's human rights, needs, and interests when you categorically deny any consideration of their interests and desires. Children old enough to choose between parents should be allowed to choose, and then change their minds next week or next year. "

Bob commenting on a baby whose back was snapped in two by her father:
"I don't know. I've lost all my sympathy for cunts, even little ones. Had she survived she would have hated men all her life. "

Bob wrote on his blog about Jon Benet Ramsay (Warning Warning this is completely sick and extremely disturbing).

"Monday, September 04, 2006

JonBenet never did get laid.

We've been getting a lot of comments about JonBenet Ramsey lately. For more than a decade now, the hysterical hate media has used JonBenet for a poster child to spread hate and fear of men. Recently they engaged in a feeding frenzy when some nutter claimed on the Internet that he had screwed her and then been responsible, accidently, for her death. Its time to take a more sober look at the whole sordid affair.

When alive, JonBenet's mother had her dressed, painted, and paraded as an adult female whore in pretend "beauty" contests held in several cities. Little JonBenet was trained to act and look as if she was an adult sexually attractive female of diminutive size. JonBenet had become a whore in appearance and action even if not in sexual fact. In Bob's opinion, such "beauty contests" for girls are child abuse, and everyone involved is a child abuser. They make young girls into painted whores, pushing them into adult appearance and action far younger than is reasonable or kind. The mother of JonBenet was primarily responsible for what had been done to her daughter, how her daughter appeared, and what eventually happened to her daughter.

It is normal for men to be sexually attracted to females who act as if they are inviting sexual attention. A female, of any age, who appears to be an adult whore strutting her sexual attraction before the world is going to attract male desire. As an old truth used to observe, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." JonBenet wallowed in the "kitchen" of female sexual display. Since she was, underneath her costume and paint, too young for sexual heat, she had no business wallowing in the kitchen of desire. But her psycho mother pushed little JonBenet into the life of a trollop on display, and in the end she attracted the lust she had openly encouraged.

One day in the basement of her parent's home, according to far too many news reports, some unknown man acted on her sexual pandering and tried to screw the little trollop. A good screwing is usually a boon to any female, and one who spends her life as a trollop on display should expect a good screwing from time to time. Despite all the hysterical feminazi raving, sex almost never hurts any female regardless of circumstances and usually provides physical pleasure and emotional satisfaction. Even when taken by force she understands that a man has chosen her and risked his life perhaps for her female charms. She is likely going to brag about "my rapist" for years and years, because it’s a story about how powerful and desirable she was as a female. Unfortunately for little JonBenet, according to the published reports her young cunt was not large enough to accommodate the man's organ so he ended up cuming in her pants instead of in her cunt. Her life as a trollop was, in reality, just pretend. She actually wasn't yet grown large enough to sexually function as a woman. She had succeeded in her act as a trollop and attracted a man's lust, but it was hollow success because she never did get the good screwing that an older woman could have enjoyed. Of course Bob expects all the rape-hysteria feminazi to whine that rape in hurtful and not a boon to females. But Bob remembers the common advice that my grandmother's generation passed on to my mother's generation before feminist rape-hate had taken over, "When rape is inevitable you might as well lie back and enjoy it." Despite all the rape-hate hysteria of the feminazi, sex is enjoyable, and forced sex is often the most enjoyable physically and emotionally for females. My grandmother's generation knew that. They hadn't been trained in hate lies by the organized hate of feminism. Unfortunately for little JonBenet her female parts were too small to function, so she didn't get the sex she had managed to attract with all her sexual costumes, makeup and parading.

What was the man to do then? He had tried and failed to fuck the little pretend whore. Under feminazi rape-hate, the law now requires that his life be destroyed and he be put into hellhole prison for the rest of his life. Once he had tried to fuck the little tart, her accusation would destroy his life. He was then required by law to silence her as a witness or face an extreme penalty. So poor JonBenet never lived long enough to grow up and enjoy the sexual pleasures she pretended to represent. A living witness to a man's sexual desire would allow the blue gun thugs, the feminazi Gestapo, to send him off to Auchwitz or some similar hellhole. To save himself the law only allows him to escape by silencing the witness. Poor JonBenet met her untimely end because of extreme over-punishment for a man who acts on his reasonable manly desire for a painted trollop. If he had to pay "50 shekels" as prescribed in the Christian Bible for raping another man's virgin daughter he could have paid his fine and little JonBenet could have continued being the trollop until she succeeded in getting laid. Since he hadn't actually been able to screw the little girl's cunt, a smaller fine of 10 shekels might have been more reasonable. But such is not the law under raving hysterical feminazi hate. Under hate law, men have to silence the witness or be totally destroyed. Poor JonBenet paid the price for feminazi hate, as do many young women.

The local blue gun thugs did what they called "an investigation." Of course they are largely incompetent bumbling assholes who's level of "investigation" is only effective when they assault and beat up an innocent man on the street. When a rape accusation is made the blue gun thugs normally arrest the first man they find on the street who fits a general description, white/black male about 5'10", and torture him into confessing. Most of the time there never was an actual rape, just some bitch making up a story so she can have "my rapist" to brag about with other women. When there is an actual rape or attempted rape such as JonBenet, the blue gun thugs are not competent enough to gather evidence and solve the "crime." Bob has called for a moratorium on rape persecutions until rational discussion can replace the raving hysteria of feminazi rape-hate. In a more sane world JonBenet could have grown up, been 16 years old by now, and been getting laid regularly like normal females.

The whole sordid mess is a tragedy. JonBenet never did get laid. The blue gun thugs demonstrate their total incompetence. The hate mongering media has a feeding frenzy. And some innocent man half way around the world is arrested and dragged to Bolder, CO, because he makes a foolish comment on the Internet. Those most responsible for JonBenet's death, her mother, the blue gun thugs, and the feminist rape-hate advocates, will never face their responsibility.

posted by Bob | Monday, September 04, 2006 | 31 comments

What Bob thinks about a man having sex with a 12 year old girl:

"The criminalizing of teenage sex is also way wrong. Biologically, a woman is ready for marriage and children at the age our grandmothers married, about age 14 to 16. In much of the US it was age 12 until the last part of the feminist century. New Mexico, a catholic dominated state, didn't raise their age of consent above age 12 until the 1990s. But of course the feminazis have finally won there too. Besides the feminist hatred of marriage and families, sleeping with the enemy, the laws on teen sex are an excuse to send men to prison for acting manly. Any man with the balls to screw a hot nubile young woman is a "pervert" and must be sent to prison. Just ask any man hating dyke feminist or their blue gun thug lackeys. Screwing a hot young babe who is biologically in the middle of her primary breeding years should never be a crime. "

And here he writes on his blog on 13 year old girls having sex:

As you can see from the question there are 13 year old young women who are not only choosing sex but demanding sex from young men. If the young man had consented he could have been a criminal rapist, sent to prison for 10 years, and had to register as a "sex offender" for the rest of his life. The hatred of the feminazi war on boys and men is full of lies and false crimes. Young women of course are old enough and do choose sex. In fact, as described above, they often demand sex. It is not "rape" when a young woman asks for and receives sex. It is not a crime when a man, of any age, complies with her demands. The crime in these situations is the evil hate mongering blue gun thugs, feminazi, and agents of Satan in black robes who use it as an excuse to destroy men. All of them need to be destroyed by any means necessary."

Here is what Fathers Rights Activists think of Bob Allen:"
Anonymous Eric said...

Thanks for your writing, Bob. Nothing gets my day going better then a good rant from my ideological father. In a world where cunts and their pet manginas are everywhere, it's good to know there are like-minded MEN like me. Sometimes I allow myself to think my mysogynist views are wrong, but you provinde the validation I need.

July 03, 2009 3:53 AM"

"I agree with you about the pointlessness of suicide. It is a selfish
act. Something done out of desperation and certainly with no Faith.
My motivations are quite different here and I certainly hope for a
different result. I want them to take full responsibility for me
after violating every fundamental right I have and just throwing me in

"Great post. My thoughts exactly. Major Tom."

100% correct! seems that some folk cant understand this position!"

"Bob, many times I do not agree to your postings, but you are standing on the side of the Men's Rights Movement. This was really a good comment from you!"

fuckin' A";_ylt=Aks_AWcMLjJaNQjL32L8Vgbty6IX;_ylv=3?link=answer&more=y&show=b083f5cfc429332664919bc2b5d3ab92aa&cp=2&tp=2&tnu=23

What is a MRA?

Explainer: What's an MRA?

| posted by Jeff Fecke | Friday, October 12, 2007

From time to time, it's good to remember that not everyone knows the lingo of the feminist and pro-feminist folks here at the Village of Shakes. In an ongoing quest to educate our readership, I want to take the time to explain a term I've thrown around liberally: MRA.

What is an MRA?

He's a Men's Rights Activist, part of the broader Men's Rights Movement. He--

Wait, wait. "Men's Rights Movement?"


Is that like the "National Association for the Advancement of White People" or the folks who think the Christian Right is oppressed?

Yes, the Men's Rights Movement is the same kind of animal. All of these groups share a common worldview, that the traditionally oppressed groups, be they women, minorities, or non-Christians, have somehow seized control of the country and are systematically denying the straight, white, Christian men their rights.

That's insane!

Well, yes, but don't ignore the reason for the pushback: men's traditional privileges really are under attack. It's just that these rights, like the right to beat and rape your wife with impunity, are anathema to a truly free and equitable society.

So they agitate for the right to rape and assault?

Not in so many words. But the MRAs do certainly seem preoccupied by the loss of that privilege. Look at the Glenn Sacks/Helen Smith interview we talked about early this week. It was all about how the Violence Against Women Act is a debacle for men, because, they say, men get sent to jail unfairly in domestic disputes. VAWA is a traditional hobby-horse for the MRA set.

Does this explain the obsession with the Duke Rape Case?

Yep. The Duke Rape Case is a rallying cry because, according to the MRAs, it proves that men are constantly being falsely accused of rape. Never mind that in this case, charges were dropped -- it's proof of a biased system, according to the MRAs, which is why they believe that women should be charged for rape allegations that don't result in convictions.

What?!? Wouldn't that radically curtail the number of real reports of rape that women make?

Well, yes. That's the point. It's the same reason that any discussion of date rape or contraception is instantly decried as "legislating sex" and "requiring a contract for touching." MRAs would like the option of putting a toe (or other body part) over the line once in a while without fear that they'll end up going to jail.

So are MRAs concerned about anything other than raping and beating women?

Oh, sure -- they also don't want to pay child support. There's a huge segment of MRAdom that's fed by divorced men angry that their ex got custody of the kids, and now they have to fork over money to support them.

Why would that be?

Well, for some men, it's the "she's taking my money" thing. They would have been much more comfortable in the 1800s when all marital property belonged to the man of the house, and divorce meant penury for the woman. Now assets are divided evenly, and the custodial parent gets support to pay for the kids. And the custodial parent is usually the mother.

Well, that is sort of unfair. Shouldn't it fall equally?

In a truly just and equitable society, it would. But we don't live in a truly just and equitable society. Women end up as the primary caregiver most of the time. And the custody system is designed to favor the primary caregiver in awarding custody. If men were more often the primary caregivers, they would more often win custody.

You mentioned divorced families. What about unmarried men who father children?

Well, funny you should mention that. The MRAs are big into the Choice for Men concept.

What is that?

They believe that men should be able to opt out of being fathers to a child if they want to.


Yeah, I know. Their argument is that women can get abortions, but men don't have control of pregnancy after their semen leaves their bodies, so men should have an abortion-like option of legally terminating paternity in order to get out of paying child support.

But--but--don't women actually go through pregnancy?

Ah, yes, but you're applying logic. The law right now says that what happens in your body is your business. I'm free to go get a vasectomy if I want to avoid fathering any more children, for example. But a fetus is contained inside a woman; if that ever changes, I suppose men would have the right to abortions for any children they carry to term. But given that child support is for the child, not for the mother, it seems a bit ridiculous to give men an opt-out clause.

You brought up abortion--I'm guessing the MRAs aren't exactly pro-choice, are they?

They're pro-choice for men. They think, by and large, that abortion is fine, if it gets them out of fatherhood when they want to, and they think, by and large, that abortion is evil if it keeps them from being fathers when they want to. They're big fans of spousal notification laws, and as you can see by the "Choice for Men" rhetoric, they're also big fans of having the legal system help them manipulate women into terminating pregnancies that they would otherwise carry to term.

So is there anything that the MRAs have a legitimate point on?

They're right about the fact that society in general views a "successful father" as a guy who brings home the bacon, not a guy who cares for his kids. Of course, for most MRA's, that's just a way of complaining about child support, but they're right that the law struggles to balance the interests of both parents in child custody cases. (Of course, as Liss reminded me, while women are usually given physical custody, in contested cases men have a better-than-even chance of getting some form of custody. And while joint physical custody is rare, joint legal custody is the norm in all but a few cases, contested or no.)

Of course, if fathers are undervalued as caregivers, it's for the same reason that women are undervalued as employees -- because neither fits the model of what men and women are "supposed to do."

How do you solve that?

With the novel idea that men and women should be able to map out their own destinies, free from being directed on what they're "supposed to do." It's a political ideology called "feminism." The MRAs with legitimate gripes would be well-served to embrace feminism. But given the overall hatred of women woven into the fabric of the movement, I won't hold my breath.