A catalog of feminist lies and cruelty

For anyone aware of the rhetoric and the pursued policies of the politically powerful, central established flavor of feminism – it is overwhelmingly obvious that radical feminism is a doctrine of hatred and violence. This is the version of feminism established in university humanities departments. It’s proponents inform domestic policies and write white papers for the UN and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Radical feminism also informs the family courts, law enforcement, education, and employment law. The modern Western world runs on an unambiguously and increasingly feminist zeitgeist. That is to say the ideology driving public policy and opinion is a corrupt, violent, and hateful ideology.

This shouldn’t be news to anyone with a passing acquaintance of local and international news. What might not be understood is how completely devoid of a redeeming feature modern – mainstream radical feminist ideology is.

An evaluation of the doctrines and pursued policies of mainstream, big box feminism reveals a damning inventory.

Big, big, big lies. And lots of them.

The doctrine of “Patriarchy theory”, although not a scientific theory, states that society is organized to afford social, economic, and political power and privilege to men, at the expense of suppressed rights, and disenfranchisement of women. This doctrine is used to justify domestic policies and programs which elevate women’s powers and privileges, in an effort to redress the presumed patriarchal oppression. Oppression against women that is frequently mentioned, but never identified in any single specific detail.

Comparing the claim of patriarchal societal male advantage to mortality rates, workplace death rates, criminal sentencing outcomes, violent criminal victimization, sexually specific medical research funding, and a long list of other factors:

“In sentencing, […] women receive better outcomes; consistent with women’s being treated paternalistically in court. Although some contend that the sentencing guidelines harm women, studies have usually concluded that females are sentenced more leniently than males.”[1]

According to the US Department of Labor the sexual distribution of individuals killed on the job improved to the benefit of men in 2010. With an improvement of 1 percent, only 92% of those killed on the job in 2010 were men.
Men are also 94 to 97% of the homeless [2] in the United States, and 78.9% of suicides [3].

Men today die on average 6 years sooner than women [4][5][6]. In 1920 the variance was one year. The death rates for prostate and breast cancer are similar, but because men die of other things more frequently-accidents, war, heart disease etc., there are fewer men left to die of prostate cancer.

Women also control over 65% of discretionary spending worldwide [7]. In the top 20 markets, women control $10 trillion of $15.3 trillion in consumer discretionary spending. This is known to manufacturers, retailers and advertisers, and is used to drive the profit model in spite of the endlessly claimed “wage gap”. The wage gap lie starts from an element of truth. The life-time earnings of women are lower on average than the life-time earnings of men. That this translates to lower pay for the same work is where the spin-doctoring starts. Women, on average, work fewer hours over their lifetimes, and chose jobs affording flexibility, access to friends and family and with lower physical risk. That Bob and Betty work the same job with the same hours, training and seniority is one of feminism’s big lies, repeatedly debunked, but endlessly recycled. [8][9][10][11]

The Patriarchy is a myth, a lie, a farce, and so transparently false that repetition of it as a cultural root deserves open and instant contempt. Its purpose is to cultivate guilt, obeisance, and compliance from the demographic whose disposability is the basis for corporate profit and middle class safety.

Do I hear somebody claiming most the top politicians are male? Be quiet, idiot. The electorate putting those alpha male politicians into power is decidedly female [12]. In 2004 in the United States,

44.9% of women and 38.8% of men 18-24 years old voted
55% of women and 48.8% of men 25-44 years old voted
68.3% of women and 65.9% of men 45-64 years old voted
69.4% of women and 72.5% of men 65-74 years old voted

Oh, most executives are male? Gee whiz, have you ever worked 15 years, 65 hours a week, for minimum wage to build a company from zero to profitability? No? Then be quiet again. The patriarchy, if it can be said to occupy reality in any sense at all, exists as a rhetorical device to compel silence.

Rape Culture, the invisible crime wave:

Human sexuality is evil!!! Maybe not, but certainly male sexuality is evil.

  • “all men are rapists and that’s all they are” ~ Marilyn French
  • “And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference.” ~ Susan Griffin
  • “When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression.” ~ Sheila Jeffrys
  • “Men’s sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can ‘reach WITHIN women to fuck/construct us from the inside out” ~ Judith Levine

This [13] is an incomplete selection of published radical feminist thought (mainstream) on the issue of male sexuality. For the purpose of this discussion, no effort will be made to disabuse anyone of such ideas if they hold them. If that’s you, reader, I regard you as damaged beyond any possible salvage.

To everyone else – thank you for your attention.

Not only is the standard narrative false, that stated overtly or covertly, male sexuality is malicious, the idea is fundamentally hateful. It is a lie told in service of promoted hatred.

This same fundamentally hateful lie is reflected in anti-porn, anti-prostitution evangelism. The crusade against porn – a genre of commercial entertainment – ignores the peer reviewed research, in preference to an empirically false dogma that this produced entertainment is harmful and toxic. The common claim is that porn oppresses women. In reality, because porn’s audience is mostly male, the real reason for its opposition is the persistent lie that male sexuality is evil.

A few points of data:

  • Female porn actors make approximately six times more money than male porn actors [14][15].
  • For women, porn is a relatively high paying job requiring no skill or education.
  • A direct correlation between porn’s availability and reduced social pathology in society has been repeatedly established in peer reviewed literature on the topic [16][17][18][19][20].
  • Piling on top of the myth of this entertainment as a tool of men’s oppression of women, much of the porn industry in the Western world is run by women [21].

In spite of this, Porn Harms and other crusading organizations continue to promote the idiotic idea of porn as a cultural toxin, based on the false idea of its oppression of women. Anti-porn crusaders like Gail Dines, in spite of her apparent unfamiliarity with reality are taken seriously by the conservative right as well as mainstream feminists. On consideration, it may be that rather than taking her seriously, they find political utility in her irrational zeal for controlling the behavior of adult men and women. The politically established radical feminists and social conservatives also don’t care about reality outside of their respective ideologies.

The abstract of the 2009 study titled: “Pornography, Public Acceptance and Sex Related Crime: A Review” [17] published by the university of Hawaii read:

It has been found everywhere scientifically investigated that as pornography has increased in availability, sex crimes have either decreased or not increased. It is further been found that sexual erotica has not only wide spread personal acceptance and use but general tolerance for its availability to adults. This attitude is seen by both men and women and not only in urban communities but also in reputed conservative ones as well. Further this finding holds nationally in the United States and in widely different countries around the world. Indeed, no country where this matter has been scientifically studied has yet been found to think pornography ought be restricted from adults.

The political support from different ideological camps which should logically oppose one another indicates two facts. That political expediency trumps ethics for supporting political organizations, and that facts do not matter, as reported in the legitimate research on porn’s effects. To those opposing porn, what matters is doctrine, not reality. Porn caters to male sexuality – and therefore, it is evil.

Despite the evidence, anti-porn crusaders continue to bang their drum on the totally unsupportable claim that this entertainment genre is innately harmful to women. All credible research on the matter indicates the opposite. This begs the question of motive. While some in this camp are genuinely stupid and ignorant, the anti-porn segment of radical feminism cannot be written off or dismissed on that basis. This leaves several explanatory hypotheses.


The hypothesis that actors in the feminist camp exploit the existence of a narrative of women’s rights as a cover for personal indulgence in malicious harm to an acceptable enemy has, I believe significant weight. However, while this is a credible motivator for individuals, this fails as an understanding of the larger context of institutional feminism.


The continued story of women’s eternal victimhood is a vehicle for funding for organizations with a purported mandate of harm reduction. Women’s crisis centers, domestic violence organizations, and other groups have a demonstrated history of selling a fraudulent narrative in pursuit of government and private donation. If you’re in the business of opposing or ameliorating a certain type of crime, such as partner violence, the catch-22 comes when success in that pursuit runs your organization out of business. The grievance industry knows this all too well, as does anybody paying attention. This is what prompted a fellow at the American Enterprise Instrument Christina Hoff Sommers in 2011, speaking to a live audience said on the topic of domestic violence:

“We’re not talking about a few errors, we’re not talking about occasional lapses; we’re talking about a body of egregiously false information at the heart of the domestic violence movement. False claims are pervasive. False claims are not the exception, they are the rule.”

This widespread fraud is not limited to grievance advocacy organizations. Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States published a letter on the DOJ website [22] in October of 2009 stating that:

“Disturbingly, intimate partner homicide is the leading cause of death for African-American women ages 15 to 45.” One paragraph later, Holder says “These numbers are shocking and unacceptable”.

What he doesn’t say is that they are also a lie? They stats claimed on the DOJ website, in the letter from the Attorney General of the United States are fraud.
The actual leading causes of death for African-American women between the ages 15–45 are cancer, heart disease, unintentional injuries such as car accidents, and HIV disease. Homicide comes in fifth and includes murders by strangers [23][24].

How can this be possible, still on the DOJ website 3 years later, this same fraudulent statistic?

But it gets better. In November 2011, the Centers for Disease Control threw statistical rigor and intellectual honesty out the window with their report:

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report [25]

According to this survey, in the United States in 2010, approximately 1.3 million women were raped and an additional 12.6 million women and men were victims of sexual violence.

To put this into context, in 2010, the population of the US was 308 million [26], roughly 158,620,000 of whom were female.[27]

If 1.3 million of them were raped in 2010 – that is 1 out of 122 women in the US, raped per year.

According to the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics [28] – in 2009 the rate of rape was 125,910 rapes and sexual assaults in a population of 158,105,000 women. This works out to 1 out of 1256 women in the US, raped per year. For readers unaware of rigor in statistical analysis and its importance, the BJS enjoys an established reputation as the gold standard as a reliable source. The CDCs report claims a jump in victimization rates of more than an order of magnitude.

If we are to believe the CDC’s survey, then the rate of rape occurring in the United States is comparable to Rwanda or the Congo during each respective nation’s recent civil wars. This is an absurd claim, and the CDC’s study represents the zenith of corrupt, ideologically driven advocacy research.

For years, opponents of big feminism have been citing peer reviewed research and statistics in opposition of the ideologically driven domestic policies of a feminist-controlled society. Human rights organizations have pushed for a rational approach to policy based on legitimate data and research. In answer, the established proponents of big box feminism now act to corrupt and pervert the bodies and organizations collecting and analyzing generated statistics.

A rational approach to domestic policy is rendered impossible by the co-opting of the organs of justice, data collection and public research.

After a multi-year campaign of lobbying and activism by the feminist driven Women’s Law Centre, the FBI also expanded the scope of the definition of rape to include consensual sex which occurs while a woman is under influence of alcohol or drugs.

Ideologically driven policy, based in unsupportable assumptions is rendered “valid” by the perversion of these previously reliable institutions like the BJS and the CDC.
In the emerging marriage between the various arms of national government and ideological radical feminism, we’re witnessing the collapse of the concept of human rights being a foundation of law in the West. This has been painfully evident as the Bush administration and following Bush, the Obama administration, have discarded, dismantled, and ignored almost every one of the ten amendments which constitute the American Bill of Rights.

The move towards a totalitarian state is unmistakable and not a matter of debate without a willful denial of observable reality. However, correlation between this observed phenomenon and the social and political primacy of radical feminism remains an area of deep public denial, due in part to the highly successful promotion by feminists of their agenda as if it is humanist or egalitarian.

“Feminism is the radical notion that women are people”

This puerile nugget of unsavory and false martyrdom has the explicit purpose of pretending women are now, or have been regarded as if they were owned possessions, inanimate objects devoid of humanity. This is a falsehood of surprising depth and utility, as it implies a moral justification for the most overt bigotry and censure of anyone outside the approved victim demographic. This claimed victimhood, demanding of special consideration is the misdirecting cloak of the tyrant.

For individuals concerned about the rapid erosion of human rights in the US and elsewhere, the elephant in the room is the undeniable connection between economic, industrial, and political elites and the ideological actors of feminism, who by placement in academia and the non-profit public sector are themselves social elites. The public mythology promoted by feminism’s adherents holds this movement to be a grass-roots social movement driven by public conscience. This story, still accepted by most people, is the polar opposite of the truth. Feminism is a constructed social movement, conceived and sold to the public by society’s economic and political elites, through a fabricated narrative, flattering and exploiting women and men ready to set reason aside for social approval.

Prior to his death, documentary film producer Aaron Russo disclosed the content of a conversation with his friend Nicolas Rockefeller of the Rockefeller family. What follows is a transcription of an interview shown in full in Russo’s documentary “America, Freedom to Fascism”.

“We were at the house one night, and we were talking and he [Nicolas Rockefeller] started laughing.

Aaron, what do you think women’s liberation was all about? And, I said, I had pretty conventional thinking about it at that point, and I said I think it’s about women having the right to work – get equal pay with men, just like they won the right to vote.

You know, and he started to laugh, and he said you’re an idiot, and I said why am I an idiot? He said let me tell you what that was about. We the Rockefellers, funded that. We funded women’s lib. You know, and we’re the ones who got it all over the newspapers and television, the Rockefeller Foundation. He says…you wanna know why? There were two primary reasons. And they were one reason was: we couldn’t tax half the population before women’s lib. And the second reason was: now we get the kids in school at an early age, we can indoctrinate the kids how to think.

This way it breaks up their family. The kids start looking at the state as the family. At the school, at the officials, as their family. Not at their parents teaching them. And so, those are the two primary reasons for women’s lib, which I thought up to that point was a noble thing. You know, when I saw their intentions behind it, where they were coming from and they created it and the thought of it, I saw, I saw the evil behind what I thought was a noble venture.”

Taken alone, this revelation from Russo might be dismissed, and indeed, although its veracity has never been seriously challenged, it is ignored by the entirety of mainstream media.

It is not a coincidence that organized feminism has persistently attacked the family and the institution of marriage for the fast five decades.

  • “The nuclear family must be destroyed…Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.”
    ~Linda Gordon
  • “We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.”
    ~Robin Morgan
  • “Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.” ~Sheila Cronin

In addition, much of second wave feminist literature specifically opposed marriage:

  • Kate Millett, Sexual Politics (1969)
  • Germaine Greer, The Female Eunuch (1970)
  • Marilyn French, The Women’s Room (1977)
  • Jessie Bernard, The Future of Marriage (1972)
  • Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (1970)

This opposition has significantly abated in the current narrative of Big Feminism, due to two factors. Through changes to family law and the widespread advent of no fault divorce, marriage provides men with a number of major disincentives and onerous obligations without compensatory benefits. Also, because of decades of affirmative action in education, women are rapidly overtaking men in lifetime earnings expectations, de-motivating females from partnering with men of lesser earning power than themselves. Female hypergamy, the evolutionarily driven tendency to always cultivate financial and social relationships with higher position men combines with the changed economic landscape to create, for women, a perception of no suitable male partners.

This becomes comical when social conservative women’s organizations publicly campaign; exhorting men to step up, earn and provide, even as men are economically sidelined by decades of feminist affirmative action in higher education.

There is a glaringly obvious divergence between the public claims of organized feminism, that social or legal equality is any feminist actor’s goal, and the observable outcomes – the legal marginalization of men and an increasingly defunct social contract between men and women.

This is the contract in which men and women not only have understandable social roles, but also complement and cooperate with each other to mutual benefit. By more than a half century of continuous attack on men by a fully feminized culture, social cohesion and mutuality of respect, affection and cooperation are irreparably damaged.

Women are told and trained through all channels of mainstream media that they’re victims of an all encompassing system keeping them down, raping them, making them victims. The goal of this narrative is to cultivate anger, resentment, and justify ongoing removal of human rights from the “guilty” half of the human race.

The factual falsehood of this narrative does not matter, and no recitation of collected statistics or peer reviewed studies can trump the emotional appeal of the unimpeachable power of victimhood. In addition, as the disenfranchisement of men and boys becomes more pronounced, rather than women taking notice or acting out of ethical concern to correct this, another rationalization is manifested.

For women in a highly feminized society – one which suspends accountability and affords privilege, correction of such a system would require surrender of privilege and embrace of accountability. In a consumer culture driven by corporations and relying on women – who control more than 65% of discretionary spending, no pressure exists to do anything except continue telling women they are entitled, victims, and superior humans. This manifests as a cheerful willingness to manipulate and exploit men, as well as an absence of empathy toward men and a disregard for male targeting violence.

As this social system continues eroding men’s human rights while escalating pressure to perform, provide, and die for the benefit of women and elites, an increasing disaffection is building.

In addition to overt hostility and derision aimed at men in mainstream media, men are becoming increasingly aware of a number of metrics of social inequity. Some of these are mentioned, with cited sources in the first few paragraphs of this article.

The persistent denial of these facts, and the continued insistence of feminism’s proponents of false claims of oppression of women illustrate that feminism constitutes a belief system as rigid in its denial of reality as the most radical religious denials of demonstrable fact.

The Earth, for example – is not the center of the solar system. Galileo was summoned to Rome to stand trial for his reputed support of Copernicus’ heliocentric model in 1616, and was sentenced to permanent house arrest. A decree of the Congregation of the Index was issued, declaring that the ideas that the Sun stood still and that the Earth moved were “false” and “altogether contrary to Holy Scripture”, and suspending Copernicus’s De Revolutionibus until it could be corrected. [29]

Currently, some American Christian sects pursue a campaign to deny the scientific theory at the heart of modern biology. Interestingly, this reactionary denial of modern science is only 50 years old, and not shared by most European Christians, or by the Vatican.

However, the denial by feminists of the increasing dominance by feminism of Western culture and the commensurate social, legal and economic disenfranchisement of men has every character of intractable religious faith.

The real and ongoing damage done by occupation of the public zeitgeist by a doctrine ignoring the carnage of 90% of suicides being male, or 93% of workplace deaths being male, and pretending that further removal of male human rights will correct a nonexistent “patriarchy” indicates the need to identify this ideology as the vile, hateful, and anti-human cult it really is.

This ideology is a tool, created and funded by elites, and used to divide people against each other, to destroy the integrity of human bonds of love and family. The destruction done to families, both as a unit in society and as the stable foundation of every person, means individuals are greatly weakened and isolated from one another. This has the effect of making society weaker and more pliable to top-down control by increasingly far reaching government, and allowing elites in control of central banks a far more overt grip on public policy for their own benefit at the expense of loss of individual human rights.

Feminism cannot be afforded the continued illusion of legitimacy as a humanist movement. Its produced damage and human suffering is so overt that under whatever banner its collected ideologies operate, it must be rejected and denied in the same way racism or racial supremacism has been in the past.

The alternative is an increasingly totalitarian world, an ever diminishing standard of human rights, and the acceptance of continuously escalated human damage for the benefit and power of elites.

“Reasonable, that is human [individuals], will always be capable of compromise, but those who have dehumanized themselves by becoming blind worshippers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions make them the enemies of life”. ~Alan Watts


  • AVFM seeks app writer volunteer

    Are you an MHRA? Can you write apps for iPhone and Android? Are you willing to do that for AVFM on a special project? Please contact us.

    A Voice for Men seeks a volunteer with solid app writing experience to help us develop an app that will be linked to the AVFM brand. If you have the qualifications and are serious about following through, we would love to hear from you. Your efforts could be of great assistance to this website and to our cause. Please contact Paul Elam at for more details...

  • Wikimasters, Editors, Translators, and Writers Wanted *Apply Now*

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! Add to and improve the AVfM Reference Wiki. Volunteers needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing. Some knowledge of the German language will be helpful but *not* required.

    Please create an account and then follow instructions here

  • CitizenD

    I really fuckin hate Eric Holder. Extremely important that you mention “undeniable connection between economic, industrial, and political elites and the ideological actors of feminism.” Armed with his feminist supplied stats, a sleaze like Holder will always “fight-the-good-fight” against the evil women bashers. Why? Besides the fact that Men are an easy, non-controversial target, it also diverts attention from the fact that he isn’t doing his job investigating Obama’s bankster friends, etc.

    Brings me to my next point. I would really like to see a concerted, multi-pronged, career- ending offensive by the MRM against a large, strategic target- Holder, Biden, some judge??? Time to bring someone down and send a message…

    • keyster

      “I would really like to see a concerted, multi-pronged, career- ending offensive…”

      That’s already happening.
      They call themselves Republicans.
      (The MRM has neither the resources or power to affect “bringing someone down”.)

      The “prong” that’s being utilized is the Fast and Furious debacle, and his cover up of what was known when.

  • Primal

    Goddess’ Jury: The Inquisition and the Making of the Post-Modern World? : When ‘virtue’ arms itself there is no limit to the horror that follows. ‘Virtue’ is well armed, well-funded and well supported (by white knights) today.

  • dejour

    Parts of this article were brilliant. Hammering home the idea that feminism is a web of big lies, I was with you 100%.

    The part I disagreed with was with Rockefeller conspiracy angle. Are there legitimate sources documenting this? It seems to come from an interview in which, among other things, Russo says that 9/11 and the War on Terror were hoaxes, and the Rockefeller’s ultimately plan to microchip the population. When I hear that, my instinct is to be quite skeptical and demand strong proof.

    Further, you don’t need to have a conspiracy to explain feminism. You just need a story that sounds plausible. (Women are oppressed. Well they didn’t have the vote, they make less money than men, so it passes the smell test if I don’t think too hard about it.) Then you have women acting in their own self-interest. And chivalry compels men to support feminism – or at least not protest too harshly. Then feminist school teachers teach feminist theories to youngsters. Then lies get repeated so often, they are perceived as true.

    • ghebert

      As much of a conspiracy as it is, one could assume that the Rockefellers didn’t leave any proof lying around which may just speak to the fact (or not) that the Rockefellers pulled one over on us and are getting away with it.

    • gwallan

      Do you carry a mobile phone around with you? If so you already have the equivalent of the implanted chip AND do so voluntarily.

    • blueface

      I agree. There’s no conspiracy. I think it’s the other way around.

      I think big business tries to woo women as they are their largest customer. They’re just jumping on the bandwagon.

      If they found out tomorrow that feminism was bad for business or they believed that men controlled the family purse strings then they would immediately stop offending men. Instead you’d see ads full of confident, wise men protecting their family by using some shampoo.

      Similarly with politicians, they are trying to woo the largest block of voters.

      The state control part is being done by the state. Again, it is simply a matter of bureaucrats following the trends so they have more secure jobs with bigger budgets. Whether it does the public (that they are supposed to be serving) any good or not is of secondary importance. Again, if misandric practices closed a department or two down, this shit would stop.

      No great conspiracy, just self-serving folk mindlessly following trends while trying to claim the credit for setting them.

      However, the fact that business, politicians and bureaucrats are on the bandwagon, furthers the feminist cause. More products, more adverts, more speeches, more laws, all to win female favour just leads to more of the same. All of this convinces them that they are all on the winning ticket, so it just keeps feeding itself.

      This is why the overall misandry is getting worse.

      The important thing for the MRM is that we are not up against a particularly clever movement. They are simply loud and persistent. That’s it. Nothing more. Orwell’s sheep.

      As JTO well documents here, there is no truth to their agenda, no facts, no honesty. All they have is perpetual bleating.

      If there are trend-setters or conspirators, it is in academia. It is here where it all began. It is here that the feminist lies are being taught as fact. It is here that lies are being generated as statistics.

    • Lucian Cross

      For your consideration, I offer the following:

      It is public knowledge, perhaps even fact, a certain ‘notable’ feminist named Gloria Steinem and her endeavors was in her “self-reliance” financially backed by the CIA. Why would a governmental intelligence group support feminist goals?

      Now I wouldn’t say it was with the express purpose of of “destroying” men or families. I would be confident in saying it was seen as being in the best interests of government, and obstensibly the public, to motivate half of a nation’s population to
      A) engage in the labor force thus generating tax revenue
      B) ‘empower’ them to increase their participation in marketplaces; especially those with high disposability products

      To me that isn’t a conspiracy at all. That’s ‘good’ economics and not necessarily moral or ethical… this is a civic accounting/financial management challenge.

  • Dr. F

    Thank you JTO.

    You won’t get any claps from the feministurd over this one. In fact, they’ll not like it all.

    With the solid research references included you have given them all the more reason to have some fists clenched out there. The femmos in anger and mine in the air with a “Yesss.”

    Also when you say, “…the elephant in the room is the undeniable connection between economic, industrial, and political elites and the ideological actors of feminism,..” I wonder how long they’ll be trying to ignore it.

    More and more people are seeing the elephant as feminism is getting to be a ‘bit on the nose’.

    Maybe because it keeps on raising it’s tail and bending it’s knees ?

  • Arvy

    I think it may be sufficient if it can be agreed that many aspects of the feminist agenda, especially some of its more destructive and disabling societal castration aspects, comport well with elite interests. If that weren’t so, and in the absence of elite complicity and promotion, it would never have progressed to the point that it has.

    It doesn’t really matter whether the Rockefeller family played the claimed role in its initiation. What does matter is that anyone fighting againts the rapidly evolving matriarchy is taking on some very powerful interests with enormous wealth and power at their disposal.

    Not all of feminism’s male proponents are motivated by chivalry or anything remotely like it.

    If the women themselves ever figure out who their real exploiters are (which seems unlikely as matters stand) there may really be hell to pay. Males, even including MRAs, are meek little pussycats by comparison.

    • Arvy

      PS: On a somewhat related subject, the Canadian web site has posted an interesting article in which Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, talks about an ‘ambition gap’ between men and women. It corresponds well with some of JtO’s commentary.


      • Steve_85

        Comments section makes me puke. Actually so does the article.

        • John the Other

          Thank you for that substantive and well argued rebuttal.
          If emesis persists, be sure to replace fluids and electrolytes, and consult a physician.

          • Steve_85

            I replied to Arvy. The article he linked is typical rubbish.

            If I had issues with your article, I would put a bit more effort into it.

          • BeijaFlor

            Same advice still fits, Steve. I read the “” article too and I’m having the same problem. It’s quite efficiently emetic.

            Gotta go out for a few gallons of Gatorade myself, and I hope I can keep it down. I just wish I were puking directly on the author of that “YourMoney” article.

  • John the Other

    my mistake, carry on then

    • Lucian Cross

      John. I think it’s good advice just the same.
      In fact it shows, as a man, you are capable of human compassion. This goes against the partyline of men being hyper-sexual base monsters!


  • Keoni Galt

    Excellent piece, JtO.

    For those who doubt the influence of the Rockefeller’s in promoting feminism, simply do what Henry Makow suggested years ago, google “rockefeller foundation AND “women’s studies”

    You’ll find a host of links from a multitude of State Universities across the country, all Women’s Studies programs that are recipients of Rockefeller Foundation funding.

    Also, the Rockefeller Foundation gave a huge grant to fund Albert Kinsey’s sex research that became pivotal in mainstreaming sexual deviancy.

    Oh, and they also funded Margaret Sanger’s American Birth Control League and Planned Parenthood movement.

    For anyone left that still remains skeptical, you can always go right to the source:

    To deny the Rockefeller Foundation’s role in promulgating feminism is ludicrous.

    • Skeptic

      Thanks Keoni Galt,
      I follow the link you gave for the Rockerfeller foundation and come to some tabs.
      One of the tabs is entitled entitled “Who we are” so I click on it thinking “Well, let’s see who these people are these days rather than back in the time Aaron Russo discusses the foundation as mentioned earlier in this thread.
      Blow me down. This is what I come to –

      What I discover there are further chilling facts about the scope and reach of what I call global corporate feminism.
      For the penny drops that whilst the hugely wealthy Bill and Mellissa Gates foundation is sponsoring 28,000,000 African brothers getting sexually mutilated – a horror euphemistically sanitized linguistically as being ‘circumcised’, the Rockerfeller Foundation is sponsoring education for girls in the third world whilst beating down on their parents for prioritizing boys education – so the boys can become breadwinners for extended families.
      Now I don’t have a problem with women getting educated for employment resulting in them sharing more work related stress and men are able to wind back somewhat and enjoy the longevity women do.
      So if females get pushed educationally to achieve that end all well and good.
      However, I’m afraid examples abound showing recent female educational advancement from a feminist perspective just seems to end up with femalist gloating with the sexist bigoted sense of their supremacy rather than compassion and support for males too.
      I rather get the strong impression that these corporate feminist entities couldn’t care less about specific male issues but simply unwittingly seek to export feminist barriers result in cloning the current underachievement of males in western education to these other places.
      If I’m right about that and as a result millions of males get marginalized in modernizing societies around the world over the next few decades then I really fear the consequences.

    • keyster

      Most don’t know that the Rockefellers own a large estate off the southern coast of Chile, with fueled and ready to scramble Lear jets in NY. Should any insurrection look like a probability, they have a genuine Bug-Out of America plan.

  • HanleyNixon

    Dear John the Bother–er–Other,
    Thank you for your astute and mercilessly thorough observations. I no longer anticipate any need for Unisom in this lifetime. I shall simply pull up your article when insomnia strikes and I am sure to be fast asleep within the first, oh,10K words or so.
    I confess I was not able to finish this piece (sometimes there just aren’t enough hours in the day!) but I did read far enough to surmise some clarification is in order.

    The fact that “female porn actors” make 6x more than their male counterparts hardly proves that porn is not oppressive to women. High-paid female porn stars are not a comprehensive example of the general female population. Sorry, guys.
    These women are paid such disproportionately high wages because, as you stated yourself, “…porn’s audience is mostly male.” Which means, by and large, they wanna see women–LOTSA WOMEN–gettin freaky. The presence of a man in a porno, to the primary consumer, is nearly superfluous.
    As a woman, I like me some porn now and again. But the clear objectification of women in many porn films can justifiably be viewed as oppressive. There are as many types of porn as there are stars in the heavens. The fact that the Jenna Jamesons are makin bank over the Ron Jeremys is because the (primarily male) consumers of porn like it that way.
    In general though, I doubt it matters much. Any man who expects real women to behave like porn stars is, to use your words, “…damaged beyond any possible salvage.” So by all means, indulge in some self-love as you enjoy your pornography. Don’t let the occasional objectification of other humans stand in your way.

    • John the Other

      “But the clear objectification of women in many porn films can justifiably be viewed as oppressive.”

      In what particular is it oppressive?

    • Sheldon Walker

      Looks like solipsism is rearing it’s ugly head again.

      Please enlighten us as to how the author is incorrect in his assertions.

      All you’ve done is attempt to shame and coerce others into accepting your (faulty)world view without any evidence other than your own (invalid)conviction.

      If you’re going to rebut the author and attempt to prove him wrong you’re going to need more than emotionalism and literary blandishment to sway people here.

      That may work on the sycophants in your daily life, but it won’t work here.

      • Bombay

        “All you’ve done is attempt to shame…”

        This is a quality that seems to be pervasive with many women and manginas. It makes a person laugh out loud as soon as you hear/read the shaming.

        • scatmaster

          It usually arrives in the first two sentences.
          It can’t help itself.

      • HanleyNixon

        Not attempting to shame or coerce people. Nor is my emotionalism or literary blandishment intended to sway anyone. Anywhere. Least of all here.
        My observations are my own. As are yours.
        Besides, I thought I got rid ‘o my literary blandishment a long time ago. Sold it in a garage sale, I think.
        My emotionalism, though…yeah. I guess I’m stuck with that.

        Btw, what exactly is the “world view” I am attempting to coerce others to accept? I suppose I should do some research on it, if I intend to coerce others into accepting it. Especially without any evidence (other than my own[invalid] conviction, of course.)

        Johnny Boy wasn’t thrilled with my comments. I could tell. But at least he didn’t come across like a seething psycho. Wearing your rage so openly severely affects your credibility. If you intend to be taken seriously, perhaps you should consider your own advice.

    • Dr. F

      HanleyNixon Please ignore these MRA pricks here. I am not wanting you to be banned and here’s why.

      I copied all your posts here a text to speech reader and listened to them on my Iphone.

      Unexpectedly your posts about porn genuinely aroused me and I surrendered to the sexual volcano inside.

      I grabbed a pair of rubber coated tweezers and a humming bird feather and polished myself off right here in the “MRA’s are Most Silly” section of my local library.

      Presently I am being processed at the cop station but it will be a while I fear. I am waiting for the duty officers to return with their paperwork but right now they all in the toilets here listening to the ‘evidence’ on my Ipod.

      Suffice to say you have made a splash on this site, and speaking of which, the library has just issued me an exorbitant cleaning bill.

      Please Paul – I urge you to ‘unban’ this woman.

      P l e a s e .

    • Dennis

      I don’t watch porn to objectify their bodies. I watch to admire their beautiful minds! Every feminist out there thinks they know all about about men. How we think. Who and what we are. How our minds work (or don’t). They think they know all about our intentions as men. In reality they don’t know shit about men because they continuously wallow in the sewer of feminist hate ideology that obfuscates and distorts the nature of men. That’s why we all need to directly confront the feminist movement for the lie it is and we must refuse to let them define who we are as human beings. They are bigots, liars and deceivers.

      Many young men are ill at ease with their sexuality. The Tantra of sexual pleasure and tension that entwines men and women together has been severely compromised and in its place lies a vapid feminist inculcated politic of imposed legal, psychological and social mores devoid of joy and spontaneity. Together they construct a politically contrived aberration of sexual dictum that codifys sexual encounter, when initiated by men, as an act of domination and aggression. And the power of the woman over the man must therefore be preserved at all cost and to her satisfaction. Yet while women are free in today’s society to display just about any image of sexuality they like, men’s sexuality is repressed by the feminist inculcation of socially inflicted guilt.

      I heartily agree with JTO that the power elite is behind feminism as well and exactly for the reasons he lays out in his writing. Ask yourself, how could such a malignant, hatefully ugly and twisted notion of male humanity get any traction in our society unless great power and money to control and manipulate the media is behind it? Any other explanation is completely implausible to a reasonable, rational human being.

  • Rocking Mr. E

    Outstanding article JtO. I’ll link to it in my latest video. For a while I’ve been thinking that a complete reference of this calibre would be very useful when combatting feminism.

  • HanleyNixon

    You (and your readers, I hope) will forgive me, but, I must quote a decidedly vague excerpt here, in hopes that you might be so kind as to translate it for me:

    “The hypothesis that actors in the feminist camp exploit the existence of a narrative of women’s rights as a cover for personal indulgence in malicious harm to an acceptable enemy has, I believe, signifigant weight.”

    WHEW!! That there’s alotta words in one sentence, Johnny Boy! Lemme peel my nose skin off the pages of my thesaurus while I finish painting my nails and preparing gluten-free snacks for my (as yet intact) nuclear family.

    One more thing: Fancy-schmancy words are all impressive-looking and junk, but you’ll never get your womenarethescourgeoftheearth point across if you lose your reader halfway through. I mean, what is a “factual falsehood” anyway? Isn’t that a contradiction of terms?

    And the proposed “scientific theory at the heart of modern biology” that some “American Christian sects” deny today? You never clarify what this “theory” is. Unless you meant to refer to the previous paragraph, which mentions the refusal of the Catholic church to acknowlege Gallileo’s theory of Heliocentrism.
    Heliocentrism is neither “theory” (not now anyway, since it has been validated as fact) nor is it the “heart of modern biology.” The heart of modern science, maybe. I guess I could give ya that one. But not the heart of biology, be it modern or otherwise. Certainly not. I could explain why, but I fear I have already risked making my long-winded comments as tiresome as your long-winded articles.

    • Skeptic

      The fact that you don’t understand something as simple as JtO’s statement –

      “The hypothesis that actors in the feminist camp exploit the existence of a narrative of women’s rights as a cover for personal indulgence in malicious harm to an acceptable enemy has, I believe, significant weight.”

      and that you critique him as writing an article that’s too long for YOU and therefore soporific is entirely unsurprising.

      Here’s a primer for you –

      • HanleyNixon

        ‘splain it to me then, Kleptic–uh,Skeptic–in your own, oh-so-eloquent manner. I haven’t learned a damn thing all day.

        • Paul Elam

          I have a much better idea. It involves you shutting the fuck up, regrouping, and coming back here with an argument and without a chip on your shoulder.

          I will explain this to you in the same way I do to every pinhead who comes in here with an opinion and an attitude.

          MAKE YOUR FUCKING CASE, or just bugger off.

          If you don’t have a case, which you likely don’t, then keep reading till you learn something. Quite trolling this website and make a sound argument of some kind, or I will ban you.

        • BeijaFlor

          I’m sure you haven’t learned a damn thing from this article, dearie, simply because it goes against every self-righteous indignant “victimized” gluten-free notion you’ve imbibed in Feminist Studies.

          Oh, and speaking of objectification, dearie … what are you wearing? Low-cut, I hope? Short skirt? Slinky … c’mon, now, work with me on this fantasy … oh, never mind.

    • John the Other

      “you’ll never get your womenarethescourgeoftheearth point across if you lose your reader halfway through”

      womenarethescourgeoftheearth is not now, and never has been my point. You are implying my very clearly stated opposition to the ideology of feminism is coequal with hatred of, or opposition to women. This mistake is as common as it is stupid and lazy. Women are people, feminism is an ideology, they’re easy to tell apart, they’re even spelled differently.

      Also, in your complaint that heliocentrism is not at the heart of biology – can you really be as foolish as you appear?

      Mention of modern religious opposition to the theory at biology’s foundation refers to evolutionary theory. That is why this claim occurs in a new, separate paragraph from the previous discussion of heliocentrism. I assumed readers on this site possessed at minimum the literacy and acumen that “the theory at the heart of biology” did not need to be explicitly spelled out, so they wouldn’t confuse that with copernican cosmology.

      You made a collection of other false assumptions and misreadings, but I’m not going to correct you, as its clear you aren’t posting replies with honest intent. However, your earlier claim of oppression through the entertainment medium of pom still waits for an answer.

      “But the clear objectification of women in many porn films can justifiably be viewed as oppressive.”

      In what particular is it oppressive?

      • HanleyNixon

        womenarethescourgeoftheearth is sarcasm, Johnny Boy. Perhaps you might run down to the Sense of Humor Store and buy yourself one.
        I am at a loss to understand how its possible for me to “appear” foolish to someone who has never seen me, but I believe I understand what you meant. I am a bit of a stickler for proper syntax and such (I’m surprised you are not more so, since your bio reads that you are an ‘editor’ of sorts. Is English your native language?)

        There is likely a valid point buried somewhere within your (poorly edited) article, beneath all the rage and pedantic misuse of words which I’m convinced you must not fully understand. If you did, I am certain you would find a more effective way to convey your thoughts and convictions. In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

        You should never “assume” a reader’s understanding, even when he or she possesses the superior literacy and acumen which I’m sure your readers do. This is especially unwise given your odd writing style and penchant for obscure, expensive vocabulary. Not only was your point never “explicitly spelled out,” it was never even touched on. This is a recipe for confusion and misunderstanding. Any introductory writing class at any community college could teach you that.

        I’m further confused as to why you feel I am not “posting replies with honest intent.” I hope it’s not assumed that simply because I cannot agree with you in this instance, that alone makes me dishonest. I came to this forum to learn more about the principles and ideology behind this movement. I was willing to take it seriously, while most men and women outside your group tend to dismiss your principles and beliefs as a bunch of whining from dudes who’ve been dumped one too many times, and are likely living in their moms’ basements.
        As yet, I have learned very little to justify my open-mindedness.

        If I have made “false assumptions or misreadings,” by your account, please, set me straight. I have my thesaurus in hand, Johhny Boy. Enlighten me.

        As I stated before, there are innumerable forms of pornography. Surely you can understand that what constitutes filth in one person’s mind is simply entertainment in another. Its all in how you look at it. Some people just can’t get past it, no matter how ‘vanilla’ the sex is in a porno. To someone who holds such views, any example of adult entertainment might be seen as oppressive to women. If you have truly never seen an adult video that objectifies a woman(i.e., regarding or using her as merely an instrument for the purpose of sexual gratification, without regard for her thoughts/feelings or humanity in any way, and often in a degrading, demeaning, or otherwise de-humanizing manner) then I assure you, such examples are out there. A simple internet search is all it takes, and you are likely to find sexual objectification of men as well. Or even animals. Or even–God Forbid–children. I hope this answers your question as to why I believe “many porn films can justifiably be viewed as oppressive.”
        Not just for women. For anyone portrayed in this way.

        • Primal

          To even respond to this kind of ridiculing ‘oppression’ Cunt is to respect her.

          That said, for the rest of us, real women regularly behave like porn stars…you see slightly less overt porn stars on every street corner in America. The nonsense that the women who so casually sell sex for porn or for more common forms of whoredom (eg. marriage) are ‘oppressed’ is just what brainwashed boobs the world over have been indoctrinated to believe. Unless women ARE the infantile idiots that feminists say they are, there is no reason to believe that freely choosing to sell one’s sexual assets/performances is the least bit oppressive….although it may be stupid, objectifying and ugly.

        • JinnBottle

          “I am a bit of a stickler for proper syntax and such (I’m surprised you are not more so, since your bio reads that you are an ‘editor’ of sorts. Is English your native language?)”

          Well, you aren’t a stickler for the basics. Your first sentence lacks an end-punctuation.

          Stickle *that*.

        • Carlos

          Will someone please ban this bag of flatulence? I just read some 1000 words that amounted to a miss-mash of shaming language, snark, condescension and pedantic poo without a single substantive claim of any kind to be found it.

          I can put up with narcissistic writers, who are too fond of reading their own words, for only so long before they have to actually say something worthwhile. In this case though, the ratio of shit to substance feels like wading through sewage trying to find some small morsel of… something, anything, to justify the time I just wasted reading those comments…

    • Sheldon Walker

      “What is factual falsehood, Isn’t that a contradiction of terms?”

      At this point I knew you were just trolling for reactions, I know no one in the modern world legitimately possesses the level of idiocy displayed in that sentence.

      That could just be my wishful thinking though.

      “Lemme peel my nose skin off the pages of my thesaurus while I finish painting my nails and preparing gluten-free snacks for my (as yet intact) nuclear family”

      You’re not fooling anyone here.

      A discarded spinster masquerading as a family woman trolling on a men’s forum…

      Your desire for male attention has reduced you to trolling, and living vicariously through the internet. What a sad chain of events that must have lead to this…

      You have my pity… I’m sure you’ll get all the male attention you need trolling various MRA sites.

      Better luck next time.

      • HanleyNixon

        A thing is either factual, or its falsehood. It cannot be both. Look it up.

        Thank you for your pity. Yes, male attention is so damn hard to come by. And the charming examples of the male species I have encountered here reinforce every stereotype about losers that ever existed.
        So thank you, once again. I think I hear your Mom calling down from upstairs–she says your Spagettios are getting cold, Shel. Run along now.

        • John the Other

          Oh Hanley, what fun we had, in our short time together. I’m so sad it’s over. Paul, you see has banned your IP and that means you won’t be able to continue instructing us on our inferiority.

          However, in parting, I’ll leave you with just these few notes.

          First this: ” I hear your Mom calling down..”
          Seriously? have we all be transported back to grade 4 in the schoolyard? I am disappointed HanleyNixon, I expected higher calibre trolling from you. Perhaps you’d simply tired yourself out and it was time for your nap. We understand.

          As for your attempt at explaining how porn oppresses women, you failed. I’m confident you imagine your non-explanation counts, but that merely indicates your own solipsism, seeing yourself in the actors being paid to depict a scene you find distasteful.

          I’d also like to thank you for your persistent attempt to cultivate ire by colloquializing my name. Too forced, darling, be subtler next time. In addition, if you’re going to claim superior grammar, diction and composition skills while implying failure in the target of your critique, it really does help to be right. Perhaps some evening courses could help you with that. Despite my proclivity to employment of fancy vocabulary, a failing, I know, Ive never had any difficulty making myself understood, or conveying a mistaken meaning. The inability to grasp meaning plainly stated is sadly your own.

          Bye bye, you ignorant trolling skunk.
          As you’ve also complained of fancy and shmancy – its obvious you’ve earned a send off in verse.

          Take your need for attention, and impaired comprehension
          and hustle your self off the boards

          see, your imagined airs, and coveted glares
          give appearance of a street level whore

          of course we all know that’s not you, a malevolent shrew
          but fuck off, and put avfm behind ya

          though your opinions are shallow, you imagine high value
          sadly based on your dusty vagina

          • scatmaster

            Take your need for attention, and impaired comprehension
            and hustle your self off the boards

            see, your imagined airs, and coveted glares
            give appearance of a street level whore

            of course we all know that’s not you, a malevolent shrew
            but fuck off, and put avfm behind ya

            though your opinions are shallow, you imagine high value
            sadly based on your dusty vagina

            I am so stealing that.
            Not for commercial purposes of course and author will be noted.

            As we are soon to be upon Emotional Blackmail Day
            I send our troll of with my best wishes.



          • keyster

            Obviously what the online men’s movement needs today is snarky critiques of literary style.

            Actually challenging the substance might validate it; assuming it can be challenged in the first place.

          • Primal

            To add to keyster’s telling observation:

            There are three things involved in every interaction; the content, the context, and the process.

            Feminists cannot cope with or create credible content. To engage in content oriented issues is suicide for them. You’ll notice our protagonist pretended to be too tired to read JtO’s content so that she had no need to address it…conclusively that is.

            Since anti-feminist content is usually impossible to challenge, they try to twist the context so that content can be mis-construed in their favor. Thus our protagonist tried to play the oppression fiddle here. After JtO called that racket…the only card left to play is process.

            Since women, the world over, prefer fashion over function, desperate feminists who play the process card tend to focus on form not function. This is precisely what our protagonist did before she was banned….banned that is for being dis-functional. Most of her ridicule was aimed at JtO’s ‘poorly edited’, ‘odd’, ‘obscure’, ‘confusing’, ‘implicit’ and ‘expensive’ style. These kind of easy cheap shots tend to work well in the female world where to be cool is to be king or queen.

            Bottom line: there is good reason to look more deeply into the cold-blooded feminist manipulation of context and the filthy perversion of process. These tactics must be fairly powerful in order to so successfully conceal totally bankrupt content for so long. Therefore, we will benefit from understanding/responding directly/responding instantly to the most popular ploys feminists prefer in terms of context or process.

          • andybob

            There goes another one. Pointless, meandering, indulgent and tweenishly immature. Ms Nixon demonstrates, yet again, that it is impossible to have a meaningful conversation with a feminist. She’s armed with her thesaurus, standard-issue shaming language, and that easy-to-spot assumption that simply ‘being’ a feminist woman makes her ‘right’.

            BTW, something can be factually false, making it a ‘factual falsehood’ – grammatically unfamiliar, but entirely correct. So there.

            Excellent article, Mr JTO. Your rhetoric enlightens MRA’s and bamboozles feminists – just as nature intended.

        • Stu

          And by the way…….eat shit

        • Darryl X

          Isn’t that the feminist way. When they can’t challenge an idea with objective analysis of facts and data (which is almost always), they challenge the delivery. To them, the package matters more than the content. That is the problem with our entire culture of feminism today. It’s a thin veneer over a very bad problem. Since feminists have no capacity or aptitude for actually understanding and solving problems, they try to make it look good. But the problem is still there. That’s the difference between scholar and solipsism.

    • Tom Snark

      “Fancy-schmancy words are all impressive-looking and junk …”

      He didn’t use any ‘fancy’ words.

      I am sorry this level of discourse is beyond you.

    • JinnBottle

      “Factual falsehood” is redundant, maybe, but not a contradiction in terms.

      This section of the article focusses on the so-far almost totally neglected issue of women’s capacity for, and actings-out, of sadism. As women get increasingly financially independent – ie no longer have to act nicey-nice to humor their breadwinner – we have observed in Western culture this rising phenomenon of female sadism that at very *least* goes as low as any sadistic male fantasies.

      The question is becoming: What percentage of women will *choose* good-will and a basically life-supporting attitude, now that they no longer “have” to?

    • by_the_sword

      I don’t think of you as the ‘scourge of the Earth’ but rather as a spoiled child who is given all the toys and candy she could desire and wonders why the other children don’t want to play with her.

      Enjoy all the free stuff while you can dear.

    • Otter

      “One more thing: Fancy-schmancy words are all impressive-looking and junk…”

      Is this the part where the feminist plays dumb when she’s confronted with facts?

      Nah I read on and realized she wasn’t playing.

  • Tawil

    Wow, that is some catalogue. Nice round up JTO!

    I would like to add one small challenge to JTO and readers regarding the oft-repeated claim “The modern Western world runs on an unambiguously and increasingly feminist zeitgeist.” While this is completely true i think it’s time we had a discussion about whether the feminist zeitgeist is now global -both east and west- rather than a problem for westerners alone. I have had a few exchanges with men and men’s groups in countries like China, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, Thailand (etc) describing a powerful feminist influence through most levels of society, much of which is the result of United Nations mandates. Women in China are treated like spoilt princesses, women in Pakistan make up 75-90% of Uni graduates in Karachi and elsewhere. In Zimbabwe the laws are oppressively feminist, with a culture of oppression against men and boys. In Thailand (and pakistan) the media makes fools of males every day, treats them like buffoons, the laughing-stock. Now, i don’t know that much about the situation in all eastern countries but I know enough to suggest we should consider dropping that phrase “the Western world is run by feminists”… instead we can say, “The world runs on a feminist zeitgeist”.

    I’ll go further and ask the question, is it not feminists who have brainwashed us MRAs with the idea that all eastern, or far-flung nations are non-feminist patriarchal strongholds in need of saving? I wager thats where we might be getting this narrative- from feminists.

    The United Nations has held some big mutherfucker international feminist conferences in China since at least the 1980s with the express objective of getting China to sign up to the feminist program. One of the reasons we are not aware of how far feminism has infiltrated into these countries is due to the language barriers, the feminist strife happening in those countries is not reaching us… I hope AvFM can help break down this barrier somehow and eventually have males from far-flung nations approach us and tell their story of how feminist idiology has taken root in thier cultures, and join our ranks in solidarity.

    • Tawil

      Example of feminist idiology being taken to China by the UN: Report of the Fourth World Conference on Women Beijing, 4-15 September 1995

    • JinnBottle

      Thanx, Tawil. Another good read is “The Gender Agenda” by Dale O’Leary. She’s a fairly conservative Catholic, so be forewarned. That aside, it’s an excellent report from the non-feminist side of the Wimmunz Conference in Beijing (and Cairo before that).

      • Tawil

        Thanks for the tip, I’ll definitely be taking a look at The Gender Agenda. A brief scan of the www reveals numerous articles about feminism in China…. I’m sure we could find similar articles revealing a strong feminist influence in Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore etc.

  • Ray

    # “A catalog of feminist lies and cruelty”

    Make that, “A library full of feminist lies and cruelty.” A catalog, or encyclopedia, would be way too small to hold them all.

    # “A catalog of feminist lies and cruelty”

    or, A mental institution full of feminist ideologues, otherwise know as the Democrat party. :-/

  • Ray

    And from Ms. magazine and the Feminist Majority,

  • Stu

    I can always hear your voice in my head when I read your articles John. Sounds just like your avfm radio rants, and videos lol.

    I find the story of Rockefeller’s interview believable. Of course that doesn’t mean it happened, but it’s perfectly believable. I do think that feminism, has become a hate movement……maybe it was one all along……for a reason…and that reason is……to enable the transfer of money, assets, and labor….from men……to women. This is done in a variety of ways. Through family courts, via divorce, etc… using children as the excuse to squeeze blood from a stone….via taxes appropriated and diverted to women only services etc……and by creating tens of thousands of un-needed government paid jobs…..creating a virtual high performance welfare system for women…..hidden under a veneer of employment. And the reason for this is……business and government…..want women to control every cent possible…..and the reason for that is that they will spend it…..all of it…..on rubbish.

    Endless consumer goods. Endless consumption….and easy sales. Just pump out the mindless ads…..and wait for the women to turn up with their credit cards to buy up all that shit your selling.

    The fact of the matter is that woman as a group, produce very little of the worlds physical goods, and consume most of it. It doesn’t matter even if the wage gap bullshit was true…..they get the benefit of most of the worlds dollars no matter who earns them…….they spend them……or they are spent on them…..they are the primary beneficiaries of most of the world’s income. This also means that most of the worlds rubbish, is generated by women, most of the worlds coal, oil, gas, and other fuels etc, used to power industry, and transportation, is indirectly used by women, every new consumer on our overpopulated planet…..every rubbish producing, sewage producing person in existence, was also produced by a woman.

    Betcha they lay 100% of the blame for the depletion of the worlds finite resources, climate change, global warming…….and the coming energy crisis, and all the other unavoidable catastrophes that are just around the corner..and a direct result of this ridiculous consumer lifestyle that THEY have created.

    Yep, it’s all because of testosterone. Which has some truth in it actually….without our libidos….us men wouldn’t be providing all this for women.

    • by_the_sword

      I heard his voice as well. I also hear the music from his AVFMRadio rants. Kinda catchy actually.

  • Dazza

    Great article JtO. You have revealed the truth and exposed the feminist lies inextricably.

    I think your prediction of the future is accurate, unless some other movement arises which rains on their parade. I think there are enough men out there who are becoming wise to the lies.

    Of course there are also many ‘mangina princesses’ out there and perhaps there always will be. But ‘mangina princesses’ are weak, and when it comes down to it, so is feminism. It is a weak ideology made strong by those in power who could benefit from it.

    The numbers are strong however, for those men out there who are not benefitting from this ‘feminism soaked’ society and whose lives are being ruined by it. It is only a matter of time before those men fight back for their rights- ‘conservation of momentum’.

  • JFinn

    Politicians are the employees of the voters, yes. Other female avenues of power:

    – The corporations serve the consumers, the vast majority of which are women.

    – Television serves the viewers(mostly women,) but it especially serves advertising agencies, which of course serves the consumers again.

    – Socializing: Women speak twice as many words as men. Women have a far more power hegemony than men. Women are not chivalrous towards men while men are chivalrous towards women. Female values are obviously promoted more.

    • JFinn

      And about the politicians: it isn’t just that they have to stay true to their promises after being elected, or be mindful of the next election. They constantly poll their constituency to get a feel of all their sensibilities on every single issue. They’re far more micromanaged than one would think. Now consider how much more difficult it is to not offend women than to not offend men … yeah.

  • JinnBottle

    Pornshops will soon take exception to that name, if they aren’t already: As everywhere else, Corporate Porn (e.g. Amazing Adult Video) is slowly but surely taking over from your local Momenpop place downtown.

    One big change: Having become semi-respectable, adult entertainment stores are now attracting more & more lesbians – and even straight women (albeit Professionals, mostly, so far) – not only women customers, but women employees. One positive result of this is that the stores treat their customers with a modicum <-!?) of civility, unlike yesteryear's "DON'T EVEN THINK OF STEALING ANYTHING, SCUMBAG!" noticed-filled places. (Hey, if female chauvinism can work FOR us in an interim way, why not let it?)

  • keyster

    I think the Rockefeller’s theory was that (like Lenin), wifery and motherhood was a waste of potential labor that might be better used to produce within the industrial machine. This was right after child labor laws were passed, as well.

    This is why Marxism/Feminism are hand-in-glove. It “frees” women from domestic slavery, motherhood and most importantly dependence on individual MEN.

    Once you own the hearts and minds of women, you own the worker who votes. Then you start to infiltrate Encorpera, with government “standards” and “investments”.

    If you want to topple a regime (or an ideological construct), you do it slowly from the inside out…by appealing to and indocrinating it’s female populace. There will be men who’ll protest, but just ridicule and shame them into silence.

    Welcome to the Age of Woman.

  • Mr. J

    All this and more going on while most men see fit to do little besides watch other (grown)men play “games”.


  • Primal

    Speaking of porn: The Booby Trap is interesting:

  • Jean Valjean

    Great article JTO.

    It touches on a point I’ve been making for a very long time. That women, as a group, have never been oppressed.

    In order to determine the condition of this group you must compare it to the “other” group. Feminists have never made a comprehensive comparison but instead have hand picked issues which prima faci look bad but when you explore further turn out to be quite the opposite.

    In fact, in every age and epoch, women have fared better than the men of their time. At no time have women as a group ever suffered more violence or violent death, had less to eat, or been poorer than the men of their time because their fortunes have always been linked to and funded by men.

    Because women make the babies, to do anything other than provide “more” for women would result in the decline of the species.

    It defies logic to propose that a species numbering 7 billion would have achieved that number by shortchanging or beating down the sex which represents the essential reproductive bottleneck. The very logistics of making a baby require that a female consume more food in order to create another life. It requires protection, shelter from the elements, and a certain degree of comfort. All of which has been provided at the expense of men.

    It defies logic to accuse men of widespread rape. Rape is the least efficient method of reproduction. The violence required to perpetrate a rape (real rape–not the construct of date rape) against a woman who does not consent actually shuts down the reproductive system–an evolutionary safeguard that prevents assholes from reproducing.

    Therefore, because rape rarely results in reproduction, it cannot be said that men are inherently prone to rape because those “raper genes” aren’t passed on. Rape is an aberration in male behavior that is committed by less than 1% of men. To judge all men by the actions of 1% is the very definition of bigotry.

    I’m glad JTO didn’t make the mistake of apologizing for “injustice” of the past. In fact, there is nothing to apologize for. There is and never was a patriarchy that was created to oppress women. Women made choices throughout history and they should be held responsible for those choices.

  • Truyardy

    “Do I hear somebody claiming most the top politicians are male? Be quiet, idiot. The electorate putting those alpha male politicians into power is decidedly female”

    Not only that John. Also, the overwhelming majority of people who pursue a career in politics are men. So ofcourse we’re not gonna have an even amount of elected male and female politician.


  • Jay

    Just want to thank you JTO. What you are doing is probably the most noble work in the world. A world where if anyone criticises feminism, they are branded a misogynist. I would like to see all Gender Studies courses around the world have a required subject on everything you have mentioned in this post. From the falsehood of the patriarchy, to the way feminism dehumanises male heterosexuality and views it as evil.
    Massive, massive, massive thanks to the work you are doing. Please keep on continuing.


    Great article. Sorry I only saw it today. Well documented. Clear. Devastating to feminism, to Eric Holder etc.

    How come both the New York Times and Fox News don’t cite the evidence to lay feminist claims to rest?

    How come politicians don’t read this and seriously change ill gotten laws and funds to fraudulent organisations?

    Why can’t the truth prevail?


    I am glad to see you defend both father’s and family rights and freedom for pornography.

    These topics seriously divide the men’s movement, where many conservative family men side with feminist and religious right’s sexual repression policy.

  • Mickey

    Hi all.

    About Eastern countries, I’m from the Philippines,and it’s getting a bit bad here. If I don’t quote figures, it’s because what I’ve seen is easy to observe but really elusive to quantify. Nonetheless, a couple of observations on the situation:

    — Nearly every college and university has readily available (free of charge, in some cases) courses in “women’s studies,” while virtually none offer anything on “men’s studies.” In the cases where it’s free, I really wonder where all the money comes from.

    — Increasingly, feminists and princesses don’t even pretend to be different from each other anymore. A feminist openly expects to be a princess as well. You see them breeze into any place, and “rule-the-roost” drips from every word, movement and gesture. Sometimes they don’t even refer to their white knights (as all of you so aptly term these “men”) as “manginas” anymore, but simply as “vaginas.” The white knights really suck it up.

    Now, there is hope:

    — It’s still refreshingly common here, for a man with marital problems, to say “Hey, I married the woman I thought I saw and knew, and I expect to get the same consideration from her.” And they say this in an assertive spirit, as someone who doesn’t settle for anything less than a fair deal.

    — Divorce as such isn’t legal here yet. I actually favor making it legal, but the upside of our situation as I see it, is that at least when it does come, its rules and guidelines can still be debated and negotiated, thereby fairness is still very possible. We do have things like “legal separation” and “annulment.” Explained (not so) briefly, legal separation is actually just physical separation imposed by law (usually in response to petition by one or both parties) in certain types of situation, chiefly infidelity and/or abuse, whether unilateral or mutual. Kind of like a mutual restraining order. Property may or may not be divided. If kept conjugal, its use by either party can be constrained or limited by law. Financial abuse by either party can carry legal penalties. Annulment is sort of divorce by another name. Upside: the only absolute stipulation under the law is equal (50 – 50) division of marital property. Court-assessed cost of house/s is always factored in, ergo if one party gets the house, the other gets a mathematically larger share of the bank account/s. Downsides: in cases where annulment is actually “without fault” (meaning no accusations or evidence of abuse either way) and the reason stated in the petition is simply a mutual loss of love, it’s virtually guaranteed that minor children go to the woman. It’s a cultural bias that feminists here are certainly attuned to. Upside to the downside: a father’s access to his children is just as virtually guaranteed.

    That’s all the data I’ve got for now. I’ll do my best to gather the actual full texts of the relevant laws and share them here, and hopefully we’ll all make better sense of them, and know for sure what to do.

    Whew! Lo-o-o-ong comment. Please bear with me, just a bit more typing.

    To just get back to where I started, what I’m seeing over here is that the feminists are aggressively taking society, but haven’t made as much progress yet in terms of the law. But they’re lobbying, and I fear the day might arrive that there won’t be enough men to draw the proverbial line.

    Thanks to all.

    • Paul Elam

      A hearty welcome, Mickey. It sure looks like you landed in the right place.

      • Mickey

        Thanks, Paul. I’m glad to be here, and I’ll be here as much as I can. I need to listen and learn.

  • Brett

    The war on porn, as I see it, is a way to limit men’s sexuality and stimuli, attempting to subject him to further oppression by women who withhold sex as a punishment/incentive. And, given the poor sexual education most boys receive, where would they be without porn?