An Initial Comment On WOMAN

Now, for the most part, I like women. However, I do not trust, nor like, feminists. You very probably know that not all women are feminists, you may also know that only about 20% of women are feminists. And that tells us that 80% of the women are non-feminists. Additionally, the number of self-identified feminists is shrinking.

When I am talking about women, I am talking about non-feminist women. And when I say I like women, I mean that I respect them, appreciate them, and enjoy being in their presence. And, understand, that I feel them no harm.

However, I know that men and women are very different from each other. And that difference is based on biology and hormones, and that difference is certainly not a social construct. I know that based on the case of David Reimer who had a botched circumcision and was raised as a female. David Reimer committed suicide in 2004. That is the strongest evidence that sex is a matter of biology and not a social construct {I don’t know if I have said this before, but “gender” is a property of nouns whereas “sex” is in reference to biology}. And I knew a man who was having a sexual  reassignment operation and prior to the reassignment, he was taking high doses of estrogen. According to her, it seriously changed her personality due to the estrogen.

So, as I have said, men and women are very different from each other. Men have more upper body strength than women. Men are more athletic than women. Men are more logical thinkers than women. However, since I am a man, I do not know it what ways that women are better than men. So you need to forgive me for that oversight.

However, I do know that I my apartment is cleaner and neater than my ex-wife. Actually, my own apartments have all been cleaner and neater than all of my former girlfriend’s apartments were. Of course, it could be just me, but I do not know.

However, even with respect to the Men’s Rights Activist (MRA), Men’s Rights Movement (MRM), and the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), men, in general, are women have an influence on men. It’s more than just a minor thing, however. Women have an overwhelming influence on my life and the life of every man I know. However, I am not talking about a real live women, I am talking about WOMAN, an idealized larger-than-life “shadowy figures who inhabit our imaginations, inform our emotions, and indirectly give shape to many our actions”{“Fire In The Belly” by Sam Keen, page 13}.

This idealized WOMAN has built up over all of our evolution, and now exists as the center of our attention. Men are unconsciously in bondage to WOMAN. WOMAN is goddess and creatrix. WOMAN is mother and matrix. WOMAN is a source of erotic-spiritual power.

But, in order to be men as men, we need to say good-bye to WOMAN. The very first thing we need to do is to depart from WOMAN. We cannot fully realize our manhood until, and unless, we first get away from WOMAN.

We must realize, truly and honestly realize, within the depths of our being, that women are no better and no worse than men. Men are better in some things, women are better if other, different, things. In my opinion, when someone tells me that a women is better than a man, that a woman can do anything that a man can do, I know that person is blowing smoke up my ass. We need to ignore that lie and embrace our manhood. We need to stop saving women, especially those who get themselves in trouble because there is a man there to rescue her. We need to treat all women as adults.

Men need to be men, not as utilities for women. It seems to me that many fights between men are, ultimately, because of a woman, or women.

Men, we do not need to fight each other, especially for women.


The Patriarchy Does Not Exist

The Patriarchy Does Not Exist

Kevin Benko

Sep 12, 2014

 According to the various dictionary definitions available on-line, Patriarchy is defined as:
  • “a family, group, or government controlled by a man or a group of men”1,
  • “Patriarchy (from Greek: Patria meaning father and arché meaning rule) refers to a society in which male members predominate in positions of power. The term “patriarchy” is also used in systems of ranking male leadership in certain hierarchical churches or religious bodies, such as the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox churches.”2, and that
  • “Feminism defines patriarchy as an unjust social system that is oppressive to women. In feminist theory the concept of patriarchy is fluid and loosely defined.[31] It often includes all the social mechanisms that reproduce and exert male dominance over women. Feminist theory typically characterizes patriarchy as a social construction, which can be overcome by revealing and critically analyzing its manifestations.”3

Now, while the feminists would agree with all, but especially the last entry, in my opinion, I do not think that the Patriarchy exists in the United States nor in Canada. I will say that again, I do not think that the patriarchy exists!

Let us discuss this concept of The Patriarchy.
Feminists claim that men have always been in charge. Well, a simple refutation of that statement is if we have a single male that is not in charge, a better refutation is to point out that a vast majority of the men are, in no way, shape, or form, in charge of anything. So, how many politicians in the United States are there?

According to one source for “Politicians for any registered position included, such as councilman or school board member.” “Total number of elected offices: 537 (President, Vice President, 435 US House Members, 100 Senators). According to the Census data, there are more than 87,000
local and state governments constituting more than 511,000 offices.”4

So, I would say that 511,000 people in power.

Now, the population in 2010 was 307,745,538, and since there are slightly less males that females, I will pretend it is a 50/50 split, so there are about 153,872,769 men in the United States, now the ration between rules vs non rulers is 511,000:153,872,769, which is .00332 (or for every 301.20481 there is one person in charge).

Hmmm… That does not sound like all men are in charge.

Perhaps the statement that all men are in charge is bullshit!

The feminists have also told us that women have been oppressed. But I don’t see that. Both men and women have different roles based upon biology. Men have always been told that women are to be protected, at the detriment of men.

Men have been told that we are to sacrifice everyone for any random women which he has never met, if she is in trouble. How many men have gotten in a fight for an unknown woman because she needed
help? Really, answer that question!

Only recently, with the Men’s Rights Movement and with Men Going Their Own Way have men stopped saving women who manage to get into fights.

And for that, for not oppressing them, we are being cursed.

Women, in general, are not regarded as sex objects any more than men are regarded as sex, or success, objects by women.

Even when women were considered as domestic servants, the hour a day that was spent in the home slaving away (not!) was in response that the man was working all day, often in an either tedious or dangerous job. To be honest, I would rather spend an hour a day in the house than to work in a dangerous job.

To me, being a domestic servant is far better than working as a garbage man, sewer worker, construction laborer, or some other such job that the man could get hurt while doing that job.

And, as I have said before in “Lets Talk About The Alleged “Gender Wage Gap””5

We do not need to discuss the myth that women have ever been cheap labor. Seriously, I do not this whole “women have been oppressed” thing, ever.

Women, as I have said, we to be protected. Because they bear children, they need to be looked after so that no one hurts them or even get upset in any way. Women have told men in ancient times that their sons when they went to war that the should either come home carrying their shields, or on their shields. Women have always been shaming men to do damn fool things, like enlisting for World War One, World War Two, and countless other wars.

And, yet, the feminists claim that women are the ones that are oppressed?

Seriously, the men must register for selective service, while women may volunteer if they wish. It seems to me that women have had it easy, and I really have no problem with that, unless and until they start whining about being oppressed.

Tell me, who works the shit jobs in society? Who gets to die in wars? Who gets to generally pay alimony? Who generally does not get custody of the children in a divorce? Who gets instantly accused, without due process, if a women claims she was raped?

Tell me!

It is men!

And you feminists certainly know it, and while I like women, I have no stomach for feminists. And researching this information has gotten me a mess of dislike, antipathy, towards feminists.

So, I am sorry that this posting has probably exploded on me, but I am going to keep it as it is, because it has taken me so much time to write this post.









File translated from
version 4.05.
On 12 Sep 2014, 18:54.

What Has Happened To Boys?

When I was in primary and secondary school, back in the 1969-1982, there was no such thing as ADHD. There was never a real problem with the boys in the classes. But, probably in the late 1980’s, the schools have identified something called ADHD, and the teachers, ultimately, prescribed Ritalin, and other drugs to “control” the boys. Somehow.

What happened? What caused the boys to “grow wild” and unruly? Why were the teachers in the past able to deal with their students, but more recently were not able to deal with the boys unless they were sedated?

In my opinion, based on my observation and having spoken with some teachers a few years ago, I think the problem is twofold.

The first part is that the curricula has changed to favoring girls. The feminists have taken control of the classrooms, and the boys have suffered for that. So, everything is “normalized” to a girls way of learning things, and the boys way of learning things have been forgotten. And, we just have to face the fact that boys and girls are different. And the difference is not social constructs. Those differences, even at an early age, are based on biology, hormones, and whether their sex organs dangle or not.

So, of course the students are going to behave differently based on the sex of the student. That is a no-brainer. And anyone that tries to argue differently will need to support that statement based on hard evidence.

But, boys have been alienated by the schools since the curricula is teaching things from a feminine perspective. Boys feel left out, even if they cannot articulate it. Then when a boy “acts out”, according to the school “officials” they are most likely drugged so that the teachers can deal with the boys.

I think that I have heard that of all the school shootings since the 1990’s, including the 1999 Columbine shooting as well as the 1998 Thurston high school shooting, were boys that were prescribed, and taking, Ritalin or some other ADHD drug (I haven’t verified this information). If this is the case, then I would think that it was the shootings were caused by the drugs, perhaps, in my opinion, the drugs caused the genie to be put in a bottle, during school, but, like a pressure cooker without an escape, it eventually exploded and every one else was damaged by it.

Also, since the curricula has been feminized, then the teachers in the schools are tending towards being feminists. Or, at least they have an image in their minds that they will be teaching girls, or sedated boys. This, in my opinion, is a recipe for disaster.

The second part of the twofold problem is the fact that a female-only school, even in grade school, is ill-prepared to deal with boys. We need to put men as teachers again. Even in grade schools. That surprised me when I had heard that there were no longer any men, or very very few men in grade schools, and they are even rare in high school. My first question, is of course, WHY?

I would imagine that someone would say that the men could be potential rapists, or something like that. But you all know that there are female teachers that have seduced boys. In addition, we all know that there are female teachers that have been impregnated by their male students, and have had to pay fucking child support for her actions! So, if women behave in that manner, are you so certain that men will also behave in the same manner?

I don’t think so.

In my opinion, since the beginning of feminism, females have been given a free pass from having any agency whatsoever. Men, on the other hand, have always had agency. See, due to feminism, women are “never responsible for anything” and on the other hand men are “responsible for everything“. Feminism has resulted in no morality or ethical considerations for women.

Now, to continue. If we would let men teach in grade schools, again, then we would be rid of the ADHD diagnosis, since ADHD is merely boys acting as boys. There is no crime in that, it is just biology. But we have been denying biology since just after 1982. With man back in the classrooms, we would have good role models for the students, and when necessary, the male student could exert just enough pressure (punishment) to get the boy back in line. And, in the case of a very unruly student, the teacher and the student could have a closed door conference… we had called it a wall to wall education. (Yes, I have seen the result of that action as the student had some facial bruising the next day (the student was very unruly))

So, in my opinion, what has happened to our boys is feminism. And with feminism taking control of the schools, and the colleges, we wonder why our boys have been opting out of college?


My Problem With Atheism+ version 1

My Problem With Atheism+

Kevin Benko

Sep 9, 2014

Disclaimer: Note that I had a stroke three years ago, and it has taken me a great deal of time to write this post. And while this posting is partially about Atheism, it is also about feminism, thus, I have posted this on two separate blogs. Also, I have problems communicating (Aphasia), so if I have gotten confused in my writing this post, you may to look at it in the future if I have made any changes.

 I, like so many other people have a big problem with what is known as Atheism+, hereafter referred to as Not-Really-Atheism.

I will be talking with my particular problem with Not-Really-Atheism, while of the many other people have their own reasons for not liking Not-Really-Atheism, that is of no concern for me.

First of all, for those who have been living under a rock since the dreaded elevator-gate thing, let me discuss what happened with elevator-gate, and how Not-Really-Atheism was formed, in my opinion.

Rebecca Kay Watson, who you see a picture below acting like a slore at an Atheist conference with dollar bills being stuffed in her, insubstantial, cleavage. Now, when at an Atheist conference, a man asked him in the elevator if she would like a cup of coffee with him, she became outraged. She had claimed that “it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me.” However, in my opinion, the guy was just asking to have a cup of fucking coffee. Also, from her appearance, she is no prize, even without her attitude. She went onto say that she felt threatened by advances and warned other men that this is not how you should treat women.


Again, this was only because the other man had asked Watson if she wanted to have a cup of coffee with him.

Now shortly after that elevator-gate thing exploded, a movement started to grow within Atheism which had named itself Atheism+ , or Not-Really-Atheism. Jen McCreight started Not-Really-Atheism, a self described feminist and atheist. However, in my opinion, based on the official definition of Not-Really-Atheism, if we ignore all the extraneous nonsense, it is supposed to be some sort of “new Atheism” that is, essentially Atheism PLUS:

  • they care about social justice,
  • they support women’s rights,
  • they protest racism,
  • they fight homophobia and transphobia,
  • they use critical thinking and skepticism.

Now, I have three problem with this definition of Not-Really-Atheism.

First, Atheism is the null hypothesis concerning the existence of god. And that is all that it is, there are no other restriction, guidelines, or rules concerning Atheism. And, as far as I am concerned, all that other nonsense in Not-Really-Atheism is not only extraneous bullshit, it is also detracting Atheism as it has cause some conflicts between Atheism and Not-Really-Atheism.

Second, that last item has got to be a typo of some sort, because the last thing that Not-Really-Atheism proponents do is think critically or skeptically. First off, on “freethought blogs” they heavily censor their posts to the point where if you actively disagree with the Not-Really-Atheism party line, you will be booted from their forums. If you don’t believe that absolute fact, ask Thunderf00t, from youtube.

Not-Really-Atheism almost seems very cult-like. It is starting to behave like some sort of quasi-religious movement.

My third problem of the definition of Not-Really-Atheism is that it really is a part of the feminist movement. It looks like Atheist Feminism, to me. I kid you not. Some of the speakers in Not-Really-Atheism, Richard Cevantis Carrier, for example, have essentially admonished non-Not-Really-Atheism Atheists with some less than pleasant words. And those words were if they were coming from the feminist handbook. Following the announcement of Atheism Plus, fellow freethought blogger Dr. Richard Cevantis Carrier posted an article titled “New Atheism+ ” in which he expressed support for the idea and came forth with the view that anyone not immediately supporting (despite it still being quite unclear as to what it was) it were engaging in “douchery “.

So, in my opinion, Not-Really-Atheism is a parasite on proper Atheism, and it is sucking the life out of Atheism. In my opinion, there may be a war brewing as Atheism versus Feminism.

I think what the problem is that Not-Really-Atheism isn’t anything about Atheism. It is not about thinking critically and skeptically, it is about “social justice”, it is about feminism, but, and make no mistake, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM.

See, Atheists are supposed to have intellectual veracity, evidence, empiricism, objectivity, universality, and skepticism. Now there some people who do not deny that god exists, but that they do not like what god has to say. In my opinion, that is the heart of the matter. The Atheists that have a null hypothesis concerning the existence of god, versus the so-called Atheists who do not like god because he is a dick. That is where the divide between Atheism versus Not-Really-Atheism begun, and exists.

The Not-Really-Atheism is like choosing the faith that they want to hear. But it is not an acceptance of objective reality, but of agreement with the option that they agree with based upon emotions.

Atheism is a search for objective truth, weighs the evidence and finds evidence of of a deity lacking in veracity. Atheism is the acceptance of what is and the rejection of belief in those things that are not supported by evidence. And that is all Atheism is. Atheism is not by the appeal to consequences inherent of the religious community. Particularly with a rigid set of rules, society will collapse. Now while there are people who do need those rules, Atheists recognize that others are able to police their own actions. Atheism really doesn’t care about that at all, Atheism is only about a lack of evidence, and everything else is vacuous.

Atheism is not the appropriate place for people who dislike the constraints and requirements for religious dogma. Atheism is not a safe port in a storm for feminists, homosexuals, social justice warriors, those who have been oppressed by Christianity, Judaism, are Islam. Atheism is not for people who want to eat shellfish, eat bacon, have premarital sex, and it is not about preaching about belief systems that have oppressed people over human history. All of those things are appeals to consequences, and Atheists don’t, or shouldn’t, care about those types of issues.

Now, the consequence of Atheism are, in my opinion, better than the consequence of religion. And that is all concerning the arguments for or against Atheism and religion. It is like an argument against evolutionary psychology because it could be used to justify sexism. And that argument is all about emotion rather than rationality. That is a vacuous argument, and a real Atheist will, or should, say that.

So, all of those emotional appeals have no place within Atheism. Atheism is a commitment to the objective truth and reality, and nothing more. It has no room for emotional appeals of any sort at all.

Atheism is about objectivity and reality, not about consequences. Atheism is about facts, not feelings. Atheism is about evidence, not about the greater good.

Additionally, if compelling empirical evidence existed that theism created more just and prosperous societies that Atheism does, I would still be an Atheist. if compelling empirical evidence existed that Atheism was responsible for increased rates of poverty, crime, suffering, anti-social behavior, violence, war, improper grammar, bad hair, and STDs, I would still be an Atheist. If research into behavioral biology revealed that all the horrible things that had been done in the name of religion had been done in name only, that the flaw resided in human nature and not god, I would still be an Atheist.

Why? Because there is no evidence to suggest the existence of a god.

And any other reason to embrace Atheism is based on a logical fallacy. And the most popular fallacy is an appeal to consequences.

Unfortunately, this logical fallacy had opened the door when Watson, and her elevator-gate debacle happened, when McCreight created Not-Really-Atheism, and when proponents of Not-Really-Atheism, particularly Carrier, walked into Atheism with the realm of emotions. That was when Atheism was at risk from the feminists.

And the sad thing is that the Atheists opened that door willingly, and in my opinion, that door has never closed, and it may, possible, never be able to be closed. And the Not-Really-Atheism will always talk about how harmful religion is, rather than how irrational religion is. And that harm that religion has caused is not evidence of anything. And I think that Atheism has forgotten that simple fact ever since the Not-Really-Atheism has infested Atheism.

The fact that religion is cruel, harmful, and mean is of no consequence to Atheism. Because it is an irrelevant fact, because it is not based on objective facts. However, the cruel nature of religion has caused many people to embrace Atheism, and that appeal to emotions has allowed the Not-Really-Atheism to knock on the door. Ant the Atheists that opened the door has very probably ruined Atheism for a long time until someone, somehow, can manage to close that door on that emotional fallacy.

Make no mistake, Watson and McCreight did not embrace Atheism because of their skepticism. They didn’t embrace Atheism because of empirical evidence of god does not exist. Rather, they embraced Atheism because they do not like the way that god treats women, and their denying the existence of god means that, through Atheism, they do not have to put up with it. And, as a bonus, they can embrace Atheism and not have to get rid of their own ideological beliefs. And their entrance into Atheism, through Not-Really-Atheism, is just giving god the finger.

So, when the Not-Really-Atheism people came into the open door to Atheism, they let in all the people who do not think in a rational manner, rather, they let in a whole bunch of people who really do not understand Atheism at all. And now, there is a religious sect within Atheism, sad to say. And Not-Really-Atheism is still ruining Atheism, and while it may, hopefully, just scream and die, the damage is continuing today, as they try to destroy Atheism, burn it down, and salt the earth and replace it with Not-Really-Atheism.

And that Not-Really-Atheism sect is using the same tactics that the religious preachers use to keep their member in check, to police their own members: shunning, ostracism, othering, harassment, whispering campaigns, censorship, witch hunts, blacklists, vague feelings-based admonishments like “you just don’t get it”, accusations of sinfulness , or imputations of malice in reply to request for evidence.

Feminism is a belief system that does not care about how the real world operates, they don’t even, really, understand any position other than their own. It denies objective reality and an adherence to the unfalsifiable. Feminism does understand the facts of anything, as they are only concerned about how they feel about the thing. Subjectivity trumps objectivity, emotion trumps rationality, and belief trumps evidence.

And the Atheists have invited all that crap into their house, via Not-Really-Atheism, with open arms. Atheism, some of you, have asked for it! And now we are all stuck dealing with it.


File translated from TEX by TTH, version 4.05.
On 9 Sep 2014, 12:03.

Yeah For General Mills (Cheerios)

As a note, I had stopped watching television in 1989. Yes, I haven’t watched television in 25 years. However, I have recently been told that there is a positive portrayal of manhood/fatherhood for Cheerios that had come out about a month ago. (

Now, tell me, when was the last positive Male we have seen in a television commercial? Ten years ago, twenty years ago? This tells me that there is a very small chance that feminism is losing its grip on society. In general, women’s commercials are based on being strong, and men are portrayed as bumbling idiot. Now, I would like to personally see these types of advertisements come back in the future, not that men are idiots, but as we have been seeing the bumbling idiot trope repeated ad nauseum until we have started almost believing it, it feels good for me, and very probably for all men, to see this commercial.

Also see ( for another pro-male commercial.

So tell me, have you been upset of the way that men were pictured in commercials over the past twenty, or so, years? Isn’t it about time that we have seen some positive males in the commercials again, like in the good old days. Now, perhaps these commercials aren’t really going anywhere, as we have the standard anti-male commercials reassert themselves. But, then again, perhaps the advertisers are finally having a bit of a clue.



Yet ANOTHER Woman Murderer!!!

While this happened in Detroit Lakes, Minnesota, it is still close enough to Fargo for me to mention.

DETROIT LAKES, Minn. — A rural Ogema woman accused of killing her boyfriend waived her right to a speedy trial Tuesday in Becker County District Court.


Jessica Marie Kilde, 33, faces felony charges of second-degree murder and first-degree manslaughter in the death of Richard Allen Baity, 41, also of rural Ogema.

Her attorney, Nathan Welty, waived the right to a speedy omnibus hearing Tuesday and requested that it be set for “at least” six weeks from now.

Judge Joseph Evans agreed to the request, and Kilde’s next court appearance was set for Oct. 27.

Baity’s body was found lying about 160 feet from his driveway at about 10:30 p.m. Aug. 15. There were ligature marks on his neck, and part of a broken strap was found nearby, according to the criminal complaint.

The rest of the yellow ratchet tie-down strap was found attached to a Ford Sport Trac that Kilde had been observed driving. Drag marks ran from Baity’s driveway out into the street, indicating he had been dragged down the driveway, the complaint states.

Kilde remained at the Becker County Jail, with bail set at $1 million without conditions or $750,000 with conditions.

Yet Again, Another Killer-Woman

FINLEY, N.D. – A 61-year-old woman accused of murdering her husband appeared Wednesday in state district court in Finley and is on track to proceed to trial next year.


Sherry Midstokke of Finley is charged with the murder of Lyle Midstokke, who was found dead on their bedroom floor in February, according to court records. An autopsy showed that Lyle Midstokke died of asphyxiation.

No witnesses were called to the stand in Midstokke’s preliminary hearing Wednesday because the defense agreed there was probable cause for the case to move to trial.

Defense attorney Blake Hankey said he plans to argue that Midstokke was mentally ill at the time of the alleged murder, but that he and his client may accept a plea agreement.

Midstokke would not be criminally responsible if at the time of the alleged murder, she lacked “substantial capacity to comprehend the harmful nature or consequences of the conduct, or the conduct is the result of a loss or serious distortion of the individual’s capacity to recognize reality,” according to North Dakota law.

Midstokke was the one who called 911 and told police she had just discovered her husband’s body after returning home from work, according to court records. But police said later that day that Midstokke admitted to “intentionally” killing her husband in an interview with police, court records indicate.

Midstokke is scheduled to appear for a pretrial hearing Dec. 31, at which time the defense will decide to either proceed to trial or enter a guilty plea.

The jury trial is scheduled for Feb. 17.