Sunday, November 23, 2008

Julian Real Is A Quitter

This is the latest posting from Julian Real's "Radical Profeminist" blog.

A Radical Profeminist: Bye-bye Men's Rights Brethren

To John Dias, cybro, Kapt Krunch, Fidelbogen, MadShangi, Frostyboy, Anti Misandry, and all the other Father's Rights/Men's Rights/Antifeminist Activists out there:

It has been brought to my attention by a colleague that all the arguments you put forth have already been answered sufficiently (see below). Therefore, I decided it would be an utter waste of cyberspace to further engage you on those subjects here.

Since you don't seem to know it, I'll inform you that you are a group of very privileged human beings who are utterly clueless about the living conditions and lack of privileges most people in the world--who aren't you--live with, endure, and often don't survive.

When you are, from your points of view, unfairly treated, or falsely accused--sometimes by one woman in your past--this "affront" generates in far too many of you the most self-righteous, scathing, and scornful written assaults on women, especially feminists, with a particularly foolish level of deranged irrationality focused on radical feminists.

These sorts of ego-bruises--assuming the occasional personal injustice done to some of you--to which you are apparently not at all accustomed, is but one indication of the enormous amount of privilege you carry day to day. (Most women I know are treated unfairly every day of their lives.

You give humanity a bad name. So much for the myth of white men being western civilisation's standard of sanity, honesty, and integrity.

Let the record show that, to date, my questions to antimisandrists have never been answered. I gave John Dias his requested two days to reply here, and he did not choose to do so.

I apologise to the anti-misogynist visitors here for giving those men as much attention as I have.

I'll close this post with the following quotes, correspondence, and this important link (a website from which all of what follows was found). What is blockquoted below, in addition to the other information found at the link just above, thoroughly exposes many of the distortions and lies Fathers' Rights and Men's Rights Groups are organised to promote and promulgate.

Robert Okun, a specialist in men's issues and domestic violence, pointed out that many of today’s dads, whether married, never-married or divorced, are doing their best to stay actively involved in their children’s lives. But of men in the organized father’s rights movement, who typically represent themselves as the innocent victims of gender discrimination and manipulative ex-wives, Okun writes: "Some may very well be getting a raw deal. If so, it is essential that divorce lawyers, psychotherapists, family service court officers, mediators, guardians ad litem and judges educate themselves about those circumstances and take steps to intervene when a man has been erroneously targeted as part of a strategy in a contentious custody complaint. However, in a dangerously high number of cases, many of these fathers have a documented history of abuse."

[C]oncerned citizens who've taken the time to investigate the activities of father's rights groups in greater depth -- notably Trish Wilson, a freelance writer who considers exposing the shady underside of the father's custody movement her part-time job. Ms. Wilson first became curious about the movement when she stumbled into a father's rights message board on AOL ten years ago. When she questioned the accuracy of child support statistics posted on the board, Ms. Wilson reports she was "attacked by the regulars there. The woman who had posted the original out-of-context quotes told me that I believed all women should have custody of their children because they had uteruses, which is nonsense. There were similar, ugly flames thrown at me by others. I was taken aback at how nasty they were." Since then, Ms. Wilson has conducted extensive research reviews and produced a series of articles disputing the studies and data father's rights advocates use to justify their intention to overhaul child custody and support laws.

Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 06:12:26 -0500 (CDT)
To: liz
Subject: Re: SMH


One evening I was sitting at dinner with a man who stated "Women don't understand abstract justice." I said, "What do you mean by that?"

He said, "They can only see the world through relationships, and that is all that matters to them."

Thanks for proving his point.

Look for this man's book coming out this year, "The Case for Father Custody." [5]

Liz, a man is very interested in raising his progeny, not somebody elses.

"Organisms have evolved to expend their very lives enhancing the fitness prospects of their descendants. Parental investment is a precious resource, and selection must favor those parental psyches that do not squander it on nonrelatives." --Daly and Wilson, 1988.



I see you've run out of arguments and now have descended into thinly veiled insults, i.e. telling me (a lawyer), that (being a woman) I do not understand "justice," as well as resorting to sloganism, and the "authoritative fallacy," i.e. quoting others, who are to be given extra credence because their words have been published.

You go on to say: "A man is very interested in raising his progeny not somebody elses."

I have a question back. It's "why?" Why do you think so? Are you sure it's RAISING that progeny and not merely passing on genes?

My response to you is this: catering to an adult's ego is just not a priority consideration. It has nothing whatever to do with the interests of a child. If you believe a parental DNA connection is a motivating thing, well that speaks volumes.

We're talking "possession" here, as in property, as in "mine." And "molding" here as in "indoctrination into my beliefs." Not caregiving. Not a child perspective. But self-adoration and replication. If the biological connection alone was so motivating, how is it we have the numbers of nonmarital unions and bad marriages we have? what about adoptive parents? what about sperm donors? I'll agree with you that some men think this way. I just don't buy it as some naturally arising drive, and even as a result of social indoctrination, I don't buy it as a given.

But let's accept your theory for the sake of argument. If a biological father's ostensible natural interest is in raising his own progeny, that interest nevertheless still is unlikely to compare favorably with the gestating mother's interest. She's got the very same biological connection, PLUS the biological relationship in fact with the child! And how is the father's interest later on demonstrated? Who is more likely to be the primary caregiver?

"The Case For Father Custody?" Nonsense. By your own measure, natural mothers' parenting generally would come out on top on both counts: your "abstract justice" theory, as well as my real life relationship preservation.

In one breath you've pretended (that male superiority thing?) that "women don't understand abstract justice," and then implicitly called upon nature, quoting talk about about organism evolution. Evolutionarily, the male reproductive drive in species the world over is merely to pass on the genes, not to raise the children. Most organisms also have evolved such that mothers raise their young.

And what about your "abstract justice?" Life is not lived in the abstract, and some men's egos are just not the sum total of what counts.

This is really what the FR movement is about, isn't it. Children and women as men's possessions. The ideology of property rights. Patriarchy. It has nothing whatever to do with the well-being of children.

By the way. Clarence Darrow, a famous man lawyer well known for his righting of wrongs, had this to say about "abstract justice": there is no such thing, in or out of court.


I just got a call from my mother a few minutes ago. She had just been reading my blog, and decided to give me a call late at night. I was glad, I was worried it would have been someone I didn't want to talk to: like a bill collector, Tele-Marketer, or my employers.

"I just want to say 'kudos' to you for holding your own against that Julian Real guy," she said, "I'm so proud of you. He surfs around policing other people's opinions and threatening to call the cops. He's insane! I was writing you an e-mail and said 'fuck it," I'll just give you a call. Oh, and I noticed on one of your videos that your tower was maiking like a... siren sound... and I think I know how to fix it..."

Thanks, mom. And I just got your e-mail. I'll check it out. ;)

Oh, and for those of you liked my posted gangsta rap lyrics. You'll love this.

Julian Real, you're a punk
Faking down Fake Street, fake in the funk
You're a bitch, whiny man-child little snitch
MadShangi says “Fuck what you pitch!”
You're a bitch, and you're just like a pony
giving kid's rides, 'cause you sad and lonely
You think you own me, but I own you
Grow some balls, bitch – 'cause I own two
Your life is through, 'cause you try to hang me
But, you punk: you can't fuck with MadShangi
I can say what I wanna say, 'cause it's my blog
And if you don't like it, you can go fuck the dog
Cause I know you do anyway
If the dog shits, eat it, 'cause fuck what you say
You publish my name, so I'm a publish yours
'Cause punks like you are just like cold sores
Pussy, it's time to smarten up, you little wussy
MadShangi says: “Fuck this Little Tootsie!”
I may be no Vanilla Ice, but I don't give fuck
MadShangi just showed up 'cause you suck
Call the cops, coward 'cause you're overpowered
Get devoured! 'Cause your milk has soured
I've broken no laws, and my records are clean
Julian Real is just venting his spleen
Sit down, take it like a man, Peter Pan, Neverland
'cause you've just been shit-canned
So you was touched when you were little
It's not like I'm unsympathetic...
But that's no excuse for you to be this pathetic
Stop. Now. And seek some help, get your head checked
'Cause the shit you write is mind-wrecked
Bullshit – motherfucker, pull shit – let's expose it
Gangster-fronting feminized boy, that fronts to pose it
I know what your last name is, but I'm the one that's Real
So deal! And like a pig you will squeal for your meal
That's your appeal, Julian Real

Ha! Ha! That was cathartic for me. It really was. Julian, you're a fucking quitter. You really are. Oh, and by the way... who reads your shit anyway but us? So I say goodbye to you too, and poo-poo, for you get no kiss for you boo-boo. Sucker!

"Let the record show that, to date, my questions to antimisandrists have never been answered. I gave John Dias his requested two days to reply here, and he did not choose to do so." - Julian Real

MARX - Forum Admin

I couldn't be blessed to read beyond that point, because he is undeniably lying through his teeth. John's repsonse is pasted to this thread and Julian seems to be unwilling to allow John's post (at Julian's blog) to be approved or has been deleted in order to serve as 'evidence' of his (Julian's) claim (that John did not reply).

Let's assume worst case scenario here though, and give Julian benefit of the doubt: We know, by Julian's own admission, that he misrepresented his claim to have presented questions to members. Instead, he had posted questions elsewhere. They were then pasted in Kim's blog, which is mirrored here.

Now Julian presents this as him "asking members a questions and they did not answer my questions".

See the difference folks?

Regardless though, Julian knew that his questions were contained in here - and he considers their very presense reason enough to justify a claim against


So, even *if* John had not answered at Julian's blog - his answer still exists here, on

If Julian can anticipate that we should 'just know' he expected us to answer his question, being as they existed here - surely the same logic works for John's response...

Or is it different this time around, because it doesn't suit the obvious agenda?

Here's JD's answers to Julian, anyway.


Originally Posted by John Dias View Post
Since he dedicated a post specifically to letting me give our side of the story, I posted the following comment on his blog today.

- - - - - - - - -

I did a search on AntiMisandry, and found a post in which you were quoted. The quote was taken from a comment that you left on a post at the blog of Rex Patriarch. That post on Rex Patriarch was written in response to a Washington Times article entitled, "Calling for truce in War of the Sexes," which is a book review of "Save the Males: Why Men Matter, Why Women Should Care" by Kathleen Parker.

So it seems that this is the chronology:

1. Kathleen Parker writes a pro-male book, entitled "Save the Males," in 2008.

2. Washington Times columnist Larry Thornberry writes a column on July 20, 2008, which is favorable to Parker's pro-male book.

3. Cybro, owner of the Rex Patriarch MRA-oriented blog, quotes liberally from the Washington Times article, using the quotes to illustrate how radical feminism has unjustly demonized innocent boys and men for the actions of a few.

4. Julianreal (you) comments on Cybro's blog posting on July 24, 2008, and is subsequently and summarily dismissed by Cybro as a feminist ideologue and likely women's studies graduate.

5. Kim, a pro-male female blogger who is also a member at, creates a thread that quotes from and lambastes Julianreal's comment on the Rex Patriarch blog post.

6. Julianreal creates a post on his blog entitled, " An Introduction," dated November 12, 2008. The post seems to be critical of the MRA-oriented site However, Julianreal cites no examples of objectionable content on, and instead links to
Athough the title of Julianreal's article is " An introduction," not one example is provided of writing on the site. The only links provided to the site pertain to the average age and full listing of the site's membership. What is critiqued is the general outlook of the site: opposes misandry (the teaching of contempt for males in popular culture). The theme of Julianreal's post concedes that it's possible that wrong can be done to men, and that when it happens it's wrong.

7. I, John Dias, respond with a comment on that same day (November 12, 2008), inviting Julianreal to ask me any questions.

8. On November 19, Julianreal creates this post, offers me the opportunity to comment on the question that he believes he posed back in July to the community at

So here I am. As you can see by the above chronology, your post was not made on, but rather on the blog of Rex Patriarch. You made a comment in response to a blog posting that was in response to a book review that was in response to a book. None of this had anything remotely to do with So let's be clear on that: you were not ignored, nor mistreated.

So these questions that you would now have me answer were not even directed to our site. Nevertheless, since you've given me the opportunity to represent and our outlook, I'm happy to do so.

Your comment referred to an article on the Web site, entitled, "Sexual violence against indigenous women discussed at United Nations," published May 18, 2007. The link to the article that you originally cited no longer works, but I dug up the article via

Before I begin responding to your questions, I would like to comment on the above article which you used as their basis:

I would say that the greater issue is that the well-being of any community depends on the preservation of the intact 2-parent family, preferably in a close-knit community of families, in which the natural abilities of women to nurture the members of the family are complemented by the abilities of men to nurture that family's survival. Here's a YouTube video that illustrates this perspective eloquently:

Pt. 6: Introduction to Patriarchy

By Elder George

I believe that a community of families as described above is nurturing and healthy, because it is made safe and secure (by the men) and its members are nurtured (by the women). It is governments which disrupt this delicate and natural balance, but not just governments. Cultural decay can do it too. The intact 2-parent family can mitigate the impact of anti-family influences, but a 1-parent mother-only family cannot do it alone, at least not as effectively.

Again, I point you to the video below, which extols the value of ensuring the safety of women, but emphasizes that men will be most motivated to do this when women in turn nurture the men and the family. The security provided to women by men means that such men are putting their lives on the line for those who they love. Hatred of men, and sidelining male influence in the family and culture, only breaks down the family, hence leaving women more vulnerable:

Pt. 6: Introduction to Patriarchy

By Elder George

Oh, please. Like her culture has absolutely no concept of women being raped. Who is responsible for the raping, then, if indigenous peoples simply have no concept of it? Why of course, the Western white males! Never mind that Ghenkis Khan, a member of a Mongol tribe (indigenous, I'd say), is famous for lopping of the heads of his vanquished and stacking them in huge piles. He must not have gotten the memo on the inherent peacefulness of indigenous people who hadn't yet been subdued by the Western hordes.

Now, on to your questions.

I suppose that you expect me to tell you that we need a halt to Western industrial colonialism, or some such left-wing ideology. I will simply say that we need a restoration of intact 2-parent families, and from that will come both personal security as well as an increase in personal modesty. The family is the answer, and hyper-industrialization along with hyper-consumerism does tend to turn our culture in a somewhat narcissistic direction, in my view. That's why innocent people (not just indigenous peoples) are hurting -- from violence, yes, but also from loneliness, isolation, and poor substitutes for group-belonging (gangs, etc.).

In schools, women comprise the vast majority of teachers. Normal behavior by boys is misinterpreted by these women as disruptive, and as a result, boys are falling behind in academic achievement. Colleges now have a major gender gap between female and male graduates, which I believe is partly due to the female-dominated education that boys have been subjected to throughout elementary and primary school.

The point of your question seems to be that female domination is not possible if females are not actually making the decisions, and occupying the positions of political and financial power. You probably won't agree with this, but elected leaders place a lot of value on not offending the female electorate. The business world also recognizes the spending power of women and caters to win their business. So you can see that women are more than capable of exerting their influence via proxy.

Whether it is stereotypical or not, it is a business, and to the extent that the participants are engaged voluntarily, on what basis would you limit it? Sure it's degrading, but it's degrading to humanity. If women are portrayed in pornography as sexual objects, certainly the men in such videos are unfairly "representing" men too.

What demonstrates a cultural sickness is not the existence of pornography, but rather the demand for it. If men and women were able to unite outside the influence of a hyper-sexualized culture, their sexual needs would be met. Pornography exists because men, who are expected to initiate romantic relations, are mocked for their failed attempts at romance (at one extreme) or are vilified as potential rapists (on the other extreme). So, facing such suppression and demonization of male sexuality, such men turn to artificial means of getting their rocks off. In the process, they run the risk of associating women in general with the women they see portrayed in pornographic material.

Here's a suggestion: let's stop painting manhood and masculinity as irrelevant at best, and threatening at worst. Let's celebrate men and manhood for a change, rather than making men out to be abject fools. If manhood is just a continuum of "affable doofus" on one extreme and "competent menace" on the other extreme, our boys won't have much positive to look forward to. Porn is a symptom of the problem of misandry. In summary, misogyny is the effect of porn, but misandry causes the demand.

The family courts, family court mediators, family court psych evaluators, child protective services, divorce attorneys, trial lawyers... And those are just dealing with the legal sphere. Then there are the media mavens and their sponsors, with their misandric portrayals of men. Where do we see realistic and plausible men portrayed as heroes, providers, protectors, competent, and yes, sexual (in a positive way)? This is rare. It's the result of decision makers in powerful positions (political, judicial, cultural, financial, and commercial), all reducing human beings -- BOTH men and women -- into caricatures and commodities.

Despite the fact that men compose 38 percent of all domestic violence injuries, there are no shelters devoted to men. Despite the fact that a significant body of research reveals that men suffer from domestic violence at similar rates to women, little attention is devoted to this fact (you'd think acknowledgment of male-victimization would be higher, since more men than women are elected officials). And of course, we have men being 98 percent of war dead, plus a requirement that only men must register for the draft (women are exempt, although Obama has indicated a willingness to change this). Men comprise over 90 percent of work-related injuries. But we have no "Office of Men's Health." Do you see how men's pain is being ignored, or merely acknowledged as a part of being a man? I have a son, and I'll be damned before I have to tell him that he's in for domestic violence, work-related injury, and eventually being a war casualty all because that's just what it means for a boy to become a man. Forget that!

Anti-misandrists are trying to highlight the negative effects of the above phenomenon on men. That's not to say that we intend to ignore female suffering. But someone has to be a voice for the pain that men feel, and the cultural isolation that we experience. We are that voice.

No, I don't know that many female victims of such crimes. I guess those atrocities must not be so widespread as you suggested, since I haven't encountered as many victims as you have. Perhaps your ideology has helped you to seek them out, or perhaps they seek you out. Or perhaps, you don't really know the whole story. Or maybe, in particular cases, there never was an atrocity.

I would surmise that you woke up one morning and decided to hug the entire oppressed world, and noticing the world's ambivalence, you can't figure out why they are not joining with you in the worldwide hug- and cry-fest. You conclude that they're reinforcing the oppression.

You have fallen victim to an ideology.

Oh, I do! I very much do! I referred earlier to men in power placing high emphasis on pleasing the female electorate and female consumers, giving women influence-by-proxy. But let's take a much less conceptual example. See what kind of reaction you get if you talk in mixed company about a man who has been beaten by his wife. What kind of reaction will you get from your male listeners? The answer is that a significant portion of them will scoff, calling such a man either a wimp, or a tyrant who somehow deserved it.

Male pain is not a politically correct subject. We must always go back to the continuum of men as either affable-yet-impotent, or potent-yet-menacing. Nowhere can male pain simply be acknowledged.

Here's another short video. It's only 5 minutes, but I encourage you to watch it. Please reply with YOUR reaction to it:

"Men's Issues" video

Boy's and the Boy Crisis Conference, July 13-14, 2007

It seems that you are concluding that women don't hate men, and that if they are hostile, it's a reaction to the male-imposed victimization that they have endured. Again with the ideology.

I'm not sure what you mean by "social experiences." At first I thought you wanted me to cite personal experiences, but you want the "large scale." I believe that I have provided some examples above. Especially the "Men's Issues" video.

I can give you a glimpse into what catalyzed me personally to get involved in the men's movement. I have a Web site of my own, apart from, and on that site I tell my story. Take a look at where I'm coming from. Also, if you're interested, here are some other men's stories. We are unhappy, some of us angry, about the way men have been treated in our culture and under our laws. Have the courage to acknowledge our perspective, and don't think that doing so is to invalidate women's pain.

"Aren't white men the Nazis?" Are you serious? Don't ask a question like this -- especially in a rhetorical way (thinking that the obvious answer is to agree with your ideology) -- and expect me to proffer a dignifying response.

Next question.

More about the "feminazi" word. I don't use that word, but I know some who do, and their use of the term refers to those feminists who are ideologically hostile to men as a biological group.

Well, like I linked to earlier, I was falsely accused.

Then there was the year-long mind-washing program that I was required to take after accepting a plea bargain for my Ex's false allegation.

But that's not all. Last year, I learned that my Ex (who shares child custody with me) was dealing drugs out of her home, and letting the drug dealer live with her and spank my son. I learned that her plan was not to report on him, but rather kidnap our son and move off to another state, on the pretext that it was all a "vacation." I brought this to the attention of Child Protective Services (CPS), the police department, the Sheriff department, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, all of whom refused to take a report (except CPS, who said that if they did take a report, they would remove my son not just from his mom's home, but also from mine). Finally I took the case to a judge in an ex-parte hearing. He told my son's mother to stay away from drugs and to keep our son in town. But that was it. He referred the case to family court, and washed his hands of it. A couple days later, my Ex falsely accused me of threatening her, and sought a restraining order. I hired an attorney for thousands of dollars, then weeks later, on the day of the hearing for the restraining order, my Ex didn't even show up. The female judge dismissed the case, shaking her head. I had spent thousands of dollars in my defense, and all of this (the false allegation) was simply a way for my Ex to deflect attention from the drug dealing that she had been involved in. All that drama was for nothing, and I was out thousands of dollars in attorney fees for it. I was trying to protect our son, and I paid dearly for it.

These types of incidents are very common in divorce and child custody proceedings. Where the court steps in, the delicate bonds that exist between fathers and kids are disturbed, and often completely cut off. Mothers are connected to their kids through child birth. But fathers are connected to their kids only by their emotional commitment; they could have impregnated the mother and then vanished. But sticking around is a noble decision, and even when fathers want to remain involved with their kids after a divorce, the family court treats the father's involvement as superfluous. "Just pay that child support check," the court tells fathers, "and you can have dinner with your kids a couple times a month. Oh, and don't complain about it either." When sole child custody is contested, over 90 percent of the time the family court awards it to the mother. This is devastating to both fathers and children, in my view. And the motivation for judges to make such rulings is misandry, which we identify and combat, at and other places.

Well, I hope this answers your question. I ran down the links you provided, read through not only that article on, but also read through various other articles on the site that the article linked to, This included declarations they submitted to the United Nations, such as this one, this one, and this one. I read them all, to get a good understanding of where you're coming from. Now I challenge you to do the same.

Take a look at all the links and videos that I have referenced in this reply (especially the videos on Men's Issues and Patriarchy. Do some research on my position, as I did on yours. Look into what we opponents of misandry believe. You don't necessarily have to agree with it, but I challenge you to look.

ChristianJ - Australian Men's News


"The Case For Father Custody?" Nonsense. By your own measure, natural mothers' parenting generally would come out on top on both counts: your "abstract justice" theory, as well as my real life relationship preservation.

Amongst that other drivel from ranting hysterical LIZ, we have another sexist lie..

Women do not do a better job at raising children as studies have already clearly demonstrated but they are just assumed they can..

Use google you sexist dimwit and get you're facts straight. Not the standard twisted hysterical femispeak response..

KIM - Forum Member

CD posted about this earlier on this thread, An Introduction

I noticed the same thing Marx did and, according to CD who had scanned through Julian's blog, there's no sign of John Dias's post there. So, either, through some error or glitch, John's post never made it on to the blog or (more likely) it was deleted and Mr. Real is now claiming that John never responded.

John Dias -

Oh, I posted alright -- within 1 day of the comment that he allowed me to make on there. He's lying about how I never responded. He just didn't want to look like an idiot after he excoriated, then had to admit that it wasn't that dismissed him after all, then had to face the mockery once again when I made my post (duplicated here).

I schooled that sucker.

1 comment:

  1. "It has been brought to my attention by a colleague that all the arguments you put forth have already been answered sufficiently (see below). Therefore, I decided it would be an utter waste of cyberspace to further engage you on those subjects here."

    BINGO! That is EXACTLY how *I* feel about feminism en masse! And I have been preaching this gospel for quite some time.

    Their arguments have been sufficiently answered, and it would be a waste of cyberspace and life energy, and everything else, to engage them further.

    Let them draw back behind their Maginot line, and we behind ours . . . and then, see how this war plays out in the long run.

    And that's exactly what it is: a war!

    Their sector against ours. And I believe that ours enjoys certain natural advantages. . .