For a few years now I've been aware of that allusive figure known as "Angry Harry." I've become an avid reader of his blog since I ran across it in June of 2001. I know not the exact identity of the man behind the infamous angryharry.com website and I'm glad for it (in case I ever get tortured by any feministas and be emoted into squealing out his whereabouts). The one thing that I can definitively state about Harry is that he is one of the most astute observers of popular culture that I've ever read. His site is fun, irritable, bitter, hysterical and brief. Thus, is it is the perfect microcosm for the politically incorrect life. This life is what we all would be living were it not for the harridans who try to police us into eliminating human instinct. Unlike the rest of us, Harry never backs down from a fight (at least in cyberspace) and the motto of his website is "Knowledge is Power" which he proves each week on Monday by releasing an arsenal of intelligence information that even the British Secret Service would envy. He has read a great many things and unselfishly shares his scholarship and links with his readers. Below I pose a few questions to this knight who stands "erect" against the radical feminist horde. What he shares should benefit us all.
1. Angry Harry, the first question is why the name? Have you thought of changing it for more widespread appeal? Or is the tongue in cheek title key to your success?
Harry was my father's name. I have no children. And I reckoned that promoting through the ether those thoughts and ideas that emanate from my head was an appropriate way of propagating his influence on my genetic make-up and upbringing. In other words, as I have no genetically-related offspring to perpetuate his genes, I am making up for it, in some way, by promoting the ideas and the values of what he produced instead.
The name 'Harry' makes this connection explicit.
And it assuages my guilt for not having had children.
The adjective Angry allows me to rant without being polite. And it helps me to send the message to those folk in polite society who demonise or discriminate against men that I am quite prepared to be very outspoken and offensive toward them given that they are offensive toward me.
Further, with the character Angry Harry I can also submerge myself inside a character that is different from my self.
Having said this, I'm not that much different from the character!
2. AH, what is a male rights activist? What does activism mean to you?
In my view, the Men's Movement is made up of the collection of ideas, thoughts, notions, desires and needs of men statistically summated and loosely coordinated both within and outside of cyberspace.
I see a male rights activist as someone who, in some way, tries to further the progress of the Men's Movement with specific regard to the well-being of men - in whatever circumstances they might find themselves e.g. in prison, in war, in marriage, in education etc.
3. Was there one defining moment in your life, a click experience if you will that caused you to become the anti-radical feminist?
Rather than a click, it was more a growing awareness of the fact that the leading feminists here in the UK were clearly very dysfunctional women. Worse still, they were also outright deceivers and liars, and it was this that caused me to despise them so deeply.
One of the most despicable acts by the feminists and the women's groups was to use their customary tactic of intimidation to cover up the huge negative effects of fatherlessness on children. It really was diabolical. For example, one headmaster here in London who dared to mention that the children of single mothers were often at an educational disadvantage compared to those who lived with both parents was very heavily attacked throughout the feminist-indoctrinated media. They wanted him sacked.
They clearly did not care at all about the welfare of the children. And this complete cover-up with regard to the damage being done to society by the alarming growth of single motherhood lasted at least 15 years. No-one dared to talk about it publicly. Further, even those who were in professions that were supposedly directly concerned with the welfare of children - such as teachers, psychologists, politicians and the children's charities - also said nothing to upset the feminists.
Basically, they sacrificed the children in order to appease the feminist groups. And this is an indication of just how powerful and how vindictive the feminists have been.
For almost 20 years, nothing could be said that was not consistent with the feminist agenda. The feminists had a complete stranglehold on the media and on the professionals. And they still have, to a very large degree.
4. We in America have such an antiquated view of jolly old England. It doesn't appear to be jolly or old anymore. How have the changes of the 60's and 70's changed your daily life on that enchanted isle?
Life is much better in the UK than it was in the 60s and 70s because people are nowadays much more free to be themselves. It was very claustrophobic in the old days with everybody trying to hide even the most trivial of their skeletons in the cupboard and trying desperately to conform to the expectations of others.
For example, people might go to church not because they believed in God but because their neighbours might notice their absence.
The atmosphere was just too oppressive for my liking. In my view, it was the gay rights movement - and mostly their associated pop stars - that did much to remove this heavily claustrophobic atmosphere. And it sexually liberated heterosexual men and women as well as gays.
Feminism, on the other hand, was a movement clearly based mostly on hysteria and hatred, and it actually retarded the social and psychological progress of just about everyone. For example, I well remember that the attitude of ordinary men in my circle toward women moving into areas that were traditionally male was, on the whole, fairly positive. In fact, men wanted more women around them in their work. Of course they did! But the confrontational hostile attitude of the feminists made them say, "If this is how today's women are going to behave, then, No thank you."
However, because I did not have the slightest interest in 'gender' issues in those days, it was not until the mid-80s that I actually connected Feminism with the DV industry etc.
5. We're both psychologists. You know some of my influences but what are yours? Who or what school has dominated your thinking?
I started reading books by psychologists at the age of 14. I was absolutely fascinated by the subject. However, by the time I was 30 - in 1982 - I believed that 90% of 'psychology' was a waste of time. The only psychology that seemed to have any merit - and made no great claims about itself - was experimental psychology. For readers who are not sure what this means, this is the type of psychology where fairly simple straightforward experiments are carried out and the statistical results observed.
For example, the simple finding that the vocabulary of children at age 8 correlates highly with their future academic success is definitely suggestive of something! The finding that the responses of day-old babies to ice-cold water correlates with their levels of introversion-extraversion twenty years later is also very revealing.
But, for the most part, the NON-experimental psychologists left me completely cold. Their theories were mostly self-contradictory, arbitrary, inconsistent, and not backed up by anything more than the similarly unfounded witterings of others in the same field. Further, it was clear that the 'personal' psychology about which they were allegedly propounding great truths was something that was never fixed or permanent - in that it could be changed simply through a change of fashion or through a series of TV programmes - and it was also inordinately complex - far too complex for their simple notions to describe.
Furthermore, and to add insult to injury, these 'individual' psychologists - notably the psychoanalytical types - spent a great deal of time knocking the experimental psychologists (who tended to describe the psychology of people with reference to a few simple dimensions e.g. extravert-introvert) by arguing that each individual was so unique that there was just no way that you could meaningfully place them into categories.
But the logical problem with this notion was that if people were uniquely defined, then how on Earth could you know anything about person B from studying person A? In other words, you could be a psychoanalyst for 20 years but you would still have to start from Square One with every new client. Your experience was of no value at all! Neither were all the text-books! After all, if there is no 'overlap' between people, then how can you write books or create theories that purport to give any worthwhile insights into them? On the other hand, if there are indeed 'overlaps' between people, then the 'categories' exist whether you notice them or not. And they can therefore be investigated as such!
This sort of thing used to drive me potty. And then, later on, the arrival of political correctoids into the whole area poisoned the whole profession. They infected it with their mindless baloney just as they have done in other areas - Education, History etc.
However, thanks to the arrival of computers, the last 20 years has greatly enabled experimental psychologists to do things that they could never have done before. And together with the recent arrival of brain-scanning techniques and gene analysis, I reckon that the value to society of experimental psychology is going to soar beyond our wildest expectations. And, just as important, the politically-correct phonies in the profession will not find it so easy to fool the new generations of students e.g. with regard to areas concerning intelligence, personality, mental disorder etc.
Nevertheless, with women now taking over the field, and with politics invading every department, even experimental psychologists need to be monitored very closely indeed - especially when they use such things as questionnaires or focus groups as part of any methodology. Further, their conclusions often have to be monitored extremely closely. They are often rather wild given the data on which they usually base them.
6. What does the future hold for men's rights? Are we over the hump or under the wheel?
No. We are not over the hump. Feminism still marches onward, albeit much more slowly. But we will soon see a complete reversal of fortune. As the large power structures lose their grip, and the Men's Movement increases in size, men will suddenly start to get their rights back. And I think that this will happen quite quickly once the ball starts rolling, because governments will realise what enormous forces they will be up against. Once the Men's Movement reaches a certain size, there will be no going back, and no opposing it.
However, we won't be stepping back 50 years.
My belief is that women will come to dominate the workplace, much as they do in schools, and ordinary men will find that they have much more time for their own interests. Also, in the not-too-distant future, and "for the sake of the species", I also think that we will start to manufacture more females than males.
But, as I've said before, it will be the males who will be calling the shots. And I think that fairly flexible polygynous relationships will be the order of the day.
It is also worth remembering that in 100 years time, life expectancy could easily reach 250. In the long term, therefore, marriage for life is a no-hoper. The forces against it are increasing all the time.
7. Is there one issue more than any other that is paramount for us to put our most time into defeating or battling? Custody? Sexual harassment?
In my view the most important issue is the dissemination of lies and the presentation of distorted and prejudicial information. While such things occur, we will continue to have real problems in sorting out anything. As such, in the area of gender relations, false or exaggerated allegations are probably the most destructive of them. And anything that encourages lies or deceit is our worst enemy e.g. anonymity in courtrooms, high rewards for alleged abuse, tinkering with what the jury is allowed to hear etc etc.
I think that false allegations should be the number one target - and this includes 'false allegations' made by, say, the media, or by wimmin's groups.
However, having said this, the real priority for men's activists is to open the eyes of more men and to get them involved in the Men's Movement - even if this just means that they simply read more about the issues.
8. You get a thousand emails each week. What are the issues that bother your readership the most?
I get about 700. About 90% of them come from activists telling me what is going on and where to find it online. And there is a lot of overlap! But they come from all over the world and so the dialogue between us is truly international in scope. The majority of my emails come from Americans, followed by Brits, Canadians, Aussies and New Zealanders. The Europeans speak a different language and so I suppose that this keeps them isolated in many ways. Further, on the whole, Europeans seem to have much less of the man-hating type of feminism to deal with - though French feminists are pretty revolting. American feminists are the worst by a long way.
The major issues are currently concerned with fatherhood in some form or another. At the moment, it is fathers who have been the most hurt by the feminist agenda. But the balance is slowly shifting toward 'men in general'. The central issue for these men seems to be the recognition of how they have been manipulated and conned by women whom they thought were in love with them - with variations around that theme. I think that men will soon wake up to the fact that women are brought up - and are also probably designed by nature - to manipulate men, and far too many are nowadays being allowed to take terrible advantage of this.
However, if we produce many more women than men in the future, the women will have to compete far more vigorously with each other for the men. As such, they will be less inclined to treat men so dismissively.
And, of course, the warm glow that the very thought of this will bring to most men will ensure that, one day, it will happen.
Indeed, we can support the feminists on this one! They often claim that they would dearly like to reduce our numbers!
Goodness, they're stupid.
9. This is a question I think I know the answer to but, and I'm being serious, what is the attitude of most women to your site? Not most feminists but I mean most women.
I now purposely make my site unattractive for women without, hopefully, being too offensive toward them, and so I do not get many emails from women. On balance, the non-feminists are quite positive about what I say, but they dislike what they see as continual women-bashing.
However, any site that is attractive to womenfolk has to be so tame on gender issues that it is unlikely to achieve very much in the way of furthering the cause. And I do not want to be restricted in what I can say.
10. Which piece of writing, and you've done a Churchillian amount, on your site are you the most proud of?
I'm not really proud of any of them. None of them fills me with any major sense of achievement.
However, my favourite piece is in my Comment section and it is called, "Men have bred dogs and cattle. Why not women?" because it appeals to my sense of mischief. Further, whereas in most pieces I tend to try to drum up a good amount of evidence in order to support my claims, in this particular piece I purposely held back a veritable mountain of it.
And part of the reason for doing this is because I see the website as a 'whole'. And my hope is that regular readers will begin to connect the different articles in a way that the occasional visitor cannot. And, with this particular piece, I did not want to give too much away to those occasional visitors who just happened to stumble upon it.
Subterfuge!
Bernard Chapin
Originally posted on Desert
Light Journal.
