question stone

Excuse Me, What Is So Wrong With Being Anti-Feminist?

If you haven’t seen Dean Esmay’s interview on Fox 2 News Detroit, watch it. It’s great and after you watch it about five times (you won’t be able to help yourself), watch it again, only this time, turn off the volume. Watch the eyes. Watch the expressions. Note the subtle changes in body posture. Read the hateful tweets displayed at the bottom of the screen throughout.

There is so much going on in this interview. Many of the deeper issues at play here almost instantly come to the surface. For example, there is an obvious fundamental disregard, on the part of the two females, towards the very concept that men are equal to women. There’s the rush towards shaming tactics. There’s the drive to blame men as individuals for a legal system that has been gamed for decades by the feminist lobby.

There’s one thing in particular that Dr. Heather Delaway, the feminist representative said, that bears particular scrutiny. It’s simply incredible that she said it, kind of like Jack Nicholson’s character in, ‘A Few Good Men,’ shouting, “You’re goddamn right I gave that order!”

Her main argument for condemning the International Men’s Conference, was, in her words:

“I think it’s not the actual conference program that’s the problem. If you look at the conference program, it’s not an issue. It’s all of the social media that’s very anti-feminist, it’s the messages that are begin sent by the group.”

On the surface, from a certain point of view, that statement has some validity, because on the surface of our thoughts, the knee jerk, unprocessed, reactive side of thinking, Anti-Feminist = Anti-Women. To be Anti-Women is obviously sexist and to outright oppose the existence of more than half of the population of the planet is extreme at the least, insane at most. Right?

The problem is that Feminism does not equal Women. Feminism is a political movement. Even when Lollipop Feminists, the brand churned out by freshman gender studies classes the likes of which Dr. Delaway undoubtedly teach, exclaim, “Feminism just wants equality for men and women,” it takes exactly one question to reveal the political nature of what is being said.

When you say equality, do you mean anything having to do with legislation, the courts or the manner in which government and the citizenry interact?

Lollipop feminist replies: No, we just want men and women to be treated equally…


Well, there should be laws…


And colleges should….


And businesses should be made to pay women…


If it involves a law, a college (most of which get all of their funding through loans for tuition made possible by government), the workplace, how rape is defined (you know, so that the legal definition makes it impossible for anyone other than a man to commit rape), the types of judges put on the bench in family courts, it’s POLITICS.

Any large-scale group activity shy of open discourse that does not intend to change laws or public policy is a political matter and if it is a political matter, the core concept of a free democratic people is that every view can be expressed. You don’t have to like them. You can shove your fingers in your ears and go, “LA LA LA LA LA!!!” But they still get to be said.

When this professor says that her problem with an International Men’s Conference is that there are Anti-Feminist messages, that is no different from a Republican trying to shut down the Democratic National Convention because they are expressing Anti-Conservative messages. Of course they are!!!

And this is the problem. Feminists do not believe that they should have to explain themselves or argue their positions or even engage in the political game. They want no opposition, no counter point, no alternative views to their own, yet they still pursue the passage of laws that are directly aimed at giving women preference in the legal system, stripping men of their personal and parental rights and turning all men, legally, into second class citizens.

Watch Dean Esmay’s interview and turn off the sound. This is what you see. In that professor’s sideways glances, in the slump, in that cocky smile, in the way she almost always faces the other female in the conversation (the only other person there she feels it is necessary to speak with), the way she places her palms up, hands at chest level (body language to show this has become a personal plea), she shows that the argument is not about men’s rights. At least not to her. She’s amazed she even has to make an argument. What are these silly people thinking?

Her only argument, visible in body language throughout, explicitly in words towards the end, is that the man sitting next to her and all of the people that he was there to represent, have no right to engage in a political discussion that is contrary to the political position that she and other feminists have taken.

So when that Lollipop Feminist says, ‘We just want equality,’ how can this be taken seriously when feminists believe that (most) men are so far beneath them that they should not be permitted to gather and discuss their positions. They don’t think you have a right to speak.

And she said it.

Good shit.

Addendum: There was a tweet below in the interview that read something like, “If men have any of those problems this man just listed that is a YOU PROBLEM, not a gender problem.” To the person who sent that message or agrees with it, I beg you to attend the conference and find one man (there will be more than that there) who has had a family court give full custody of his children to his wife when he did absolutely nothing wrong. No domestic violence. He paid whatever she asked and still she did everything she could to poison the relationship he had with his children for no other reason than to punish him for not doing exactly what the professor in this video was outright expressing.

To certain women, men do not have a right to disagree with what they declare. The courts, by way of the feminist lobby, have been overtaken with this idea that if a man does not do what a woman wants, he should suffer, his children should suffer and to even disagree with this calls for instant shame that it is the failure of the man. The only failure that a man can have in this situation, the only, ‘YOU PROBLEM,’ that a man has in this situation is to NOT stand up and call this for what it is. If you don’t like men, that’s fine, but children have a right to a relationship with both parents even if a woman doesn’t like it.

About Jack Goodfellow

Jack Goodfellow was born and resides in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Armchair philosopher and author, his focus in the Men's Rights Movement is in reversing the impact that political feminists have had on the erosion of civil rights for men and women. More of his work can be found at his blog,

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Paul Johnson

    Well said. Thank you, Jack, for this interpretation of that interview.

  • Dennis Markham

    Saying anyone who attacks feminism hates women is like saying anyone who attacks Communism hates the poor.

    • Javier Gonel

      Not the poor but the working class. You can be a capitalist and poor too :)

      • RubberPunch

        Nah, you can’t. Capitalist is a social position of ownership, of means of production, and capital in general, i.e. money in an order where they stop representing consumption, and begin being power to assign how other people should spend their time.

        But poor people can support Capitalism of course, even as their are not capitalists themselves. If that is what you meant?

    • Tom Golden

      Well, turnabout is fair play and anyone who attacks MHRA’s must hate men!

    • Mark Wharton

      If you hate Nazis you must hate Aryans. If you hate the KKK you must hate whites.

  • gwallan

    “If men have any of those problems this man just listed that is a YOU PROBLEM, not a gender problem.”

    Men are actors. Women are acted upon. Thus men – and boys too – are wholly responsible for everything they do and everything that is done to them.

    • LikkiCurry

      Meaning that women aren’t equal to men. Wait, what? ;o

      • Man Alive

        Many feminists I’ve met over the years appear to want to see women as men’s equal AND superior to men also in the fact that women can give birth whilst men can’t. It’s a con IMO.

      • Fatherless

        I think gwallan was stating a common misconception, not what gwallan thinks.

        • gwallan


      • Bewildered

        Playing the feminists’ favorite sport —— semantics game—— that seek to make them look like oracles.

    • Darryl Jewett

      If this is true, then why are women allowed to vote?

  • Mike Hunt

    On a related note the blogger that’s been libelling AVFM on her manboobz copycat blog, “mancheeze” is Diana Boston, an mentally unhinged origami artist/welfare case that lets wild mice roam her apartment.

    She also seems to have a habit of harassing other feminists who disagree with

    • rorschached

      Had a look at the mancheeze website articles and comments … it’s a constant stream of abuse, insults, calling the female MRAs whores .. and all the time claiming that anyone who supports men’s rights just hates women.

      Why don’t they do an interview with these feminist groups and post up the tweets and comments these women are writing if they really want to see some hate in action?

      • Flo

        Hypocrisy is a thick skin.

    • Shamednomore

      The link provided leads to a page that states the blog does not exist. Perhaps it was shut down?

      • Mike Hunt

        Certainly looks that way. That was fast. And odd.

        • Abel Dada

          Love it!
          “a mentally unhinged origami artist/welfare case that lets wild mice roam her apartment”

          • Mike Hunt

            Looks like she’s watching this thread, haha!


            What a freak-show.

          • Shamednomore

            Hopefully she just watches, I’ve not seen anything useful in one of her exchanges to date. Pretty ugly hit and run, shaming and nonsense attacks.

          • Mike Hunt

            I think she’s extremely entertaining.

          • Shamednomore

            She can liven up a party for sure?

          • Draigo Luther

            Actually, I believe the tweet was in response to Diana Davidson (or somebody using the that handle who posted on her blog.

            Diana Davison says :June 10, 2014 at 1:14 AM

            Diana Boston,

            You are so full of shit. Do you actually believe the crap you spew? Or are your aware that it is crap?

            Another way to ask the same question: are you aware you are libelling people, or are you crazy enough to believe your own words?

            So sad that you can’t suck David Futrelle’s cock for real, when it is clear that you desperately want to.

          • Kimski

            Hey, even the feminists can’t stand “Joy” these days.

    • mythago

      I’m pretty positive Diana boston is also hera whose posted here, along with mancheeze and joyintorah. I’d lay a bet she’s got more sock puppets also. The hate and hypocrisy on her blog is incredible. Her (and her followers) lack of insight is also quite telling. Thank god she banned me lol!

      • Mike Hunt

        She most certainly is all of the above.

  • Josh O’Brien

    An interesting point about the “it’s not a men problem it’s a you problem” from a comment someone wrote on my channel, and I’m paraphrasing here.
    “You can see an endless succession of men crushed by these issues through no fault of their own and each time you can see it fresh and say ‘that’s just you’ because by the time your eyes leave man #135 you’ve already erased him in your mind.”
    and to add my own point, if you actually talk to men and women, they are all aware of these double standards that the MRM complains about, but because they rarely experience multiple at once, and they never look deeply into their beliefs, they can’t see how they are all connected into one coherent cultural idea, instead they are just scattered. That’s why it takes a movement or a life event to force these together into one proper idea.

  • Kimski

    “in the way she almost always faces the other female in the conversation
    (the only other person there she feels it is necessary to speak with)”

    She is looking for the validation she’s absolutely certain will come from the other woman. There’s a huge amount of herd mentality at play between the two here. The way she continously tries to avoid looking at the men, and even openly mocks Dean’s listing of male problems by raising her eyebrows and making a ‘boo-hoo’-expression with her mouth, speaks of a tremendous amount of arrogance and feelings of superiority, when you add that little cocky smile.

    It’s a shame that we’re not able to see the female interviewers facial expressions, because I’ve got a C-note here saying, that the feminist receives exactly the signals she looking for from >u> her .

    Those two know exactly where they’ve got eachother from the get go, and the verdict is the same “dismissal, ridicule and obfuscate”, as it is every single time any man on this planet tries to discuss these issues with more than one woman. They just need the “secret hand signal” and you’d be right back in 5th grade immediately, that’s how infantile that sort of behavior is, when it is this clearly displayed by allegedly grown up women. It is also pathetic enough to make you want to puke, to be honest.

    Another fine example of this herd mentality playing out is portrayed by Naomi Wolfe in the recent panel discussion “Do We Need Feminism?” with GWW/Karen Straughan, only in a lot more inefficient way, simply because the feminist hypocrite is discussing these issues with another woman.

    I’m not even going to include the other two women in this example, because the one on the far right is quite obviously a complete moron, while the woman next to her at least tries to stay unbiased as the discussion progresses. Eventually she utterly fails even at this simple task, as the need for validation from the majority/herd surpercedes her personal agenda and choices.

    Absolutely nothing new there. I witnessed this as a 10 y/o, and, amazingly, the exact same behavior is on wide display every single day in my surroundings and the media, and I’m 50 now.

    Naomi Wolfe starts the discussion with a body language that signals: ‘We’re just a bunch of girls, discussing a female related issue here, so I can afford to include the other members in the discussion equally’. That quickly comes to an abrupt end when she is corrected and openly challenged by Karen.

    45 minutes into the discussion, Wolfe is practically hunched over the other two participants, while trying to pressure them into agreeing with her fallacies. It is actually funny to watch as it progresses, if it wasn’t so utterly pathetic and childish at the same time. She has completely turned her back on GWW at this point and effectively shut her out of the herd, for not staying in line and doing what she’s supposed to do, in order to keep the herd intact.

    So we’re basically dealing with children here, incapable of handling dissent from ANYONE, be it within the herd or outside, because the learned rules of behavior from early childhood, when it comes to keeping the protection from the herd intact, still kicks into overdrive when they start feeling vulnerable. -The kind of vulnerability that springs directly from the lack of validation or “being liked/appreciated”, which seems to be the alpha and omega to the majority of them.

    And don’t make the mistake of thinking they won’t do absolutely ANYTHING, use any means necessary or any shaming tactics, outright lie straight to your face or violently attack you, to keep that “feeling-good-about-myself”-feeling intact.

    You can only come to one conclusion in light of this: You simply refuse to discuss any related issue with them, and you demand the respect and rights you deserve as a human being, just like you would do it with children.
    They may mature earlier than men, but in an overwhelming amount of cases, that seems to be all nature could afford them in that regard.

    • Phil McCracken

    • TarzanWannaBe

      Exactly, Kimski. Karen S. has stated elswhere (something like this…) that the only value in arguing with these types is for the benefit of the others that may be listening in. It helps others learn the ‘logic’. haha

      You wrote above “…to keep that “feeling-good-about-myself”-feeling intact.” I do not find a link, but recall an older writing by Scott Peck where he describes narcissism as ‘evil’, that a healthy individual considers their most important attribute to be their very self, while the narcissist (‘evil’) values how they *feel* about themselves as the most important. I’ve always sensed that a seductive element to an ideology (in this case, feminism) is it’s narcissistic appeal. If one buys into the *ism, they get a cosmos, themselves at the righteous center, with all questions answered, all mystery explained and all problems attributable to the “other”. I see Naomi W. as a poster-child for this. Here’s a Peck link that describes her (and her body language you’ve noted above) quite readily:

      That’s how I see it… but then I could be blinded by my ‘privilege’. lol

    • Darryl Jewett

      “…by raising her eyebrows and making a ‘boo-hoo’-expression with her mouth, speaks of a tremendous amount of arrogance and feelings of superiority, when you add that little cocky smile.”
      This behavior is referred to as glib and is one of many characteristics of psychopathy. The women participating in this interview are psychopaths. Lacking in analytical skills, logic, sense, reason or empathy. Parasitic, opportunistic, manipulative and deceitful. Dishonest, glib, solipsistic, disrespectful and petulant. Irresponsible, self-serving and hypocritical. Remorseless, shameless and guiltless. They blame others for the consequences of their own behavior. They regard appeal to or complaint about their irresponsible and criminal behavior as evidence for their success oppressing others and encourages them to impose even more. Simply put, they are evil. Psychopathy is not a mental illness. It is a condition which reflects the aggregate of choices a person makes throughout their lives. The longer they behave this way, the harder it is to turn back.

    • Cylux

      The most annoying part about Naomi in that vid is how often she devolves into ego-stroking of the audience. Talking about the issues she wasn’t overly keen on.

    • Stu

      If you ask me, I reckon Wolfe was intimidated by Karen. I think she knows Karen can tear strips of her and all she has is a whole pile of “sound good, feel good” emotionally driven drivel to shield herself with. She knows who the intellectual giant is in that group, and she knows a lot of people can see it, anybody who is not emotionally invested in feminism in fact.

      • Kimski

        I agree, Stu: Her attempts at shutting down Karen in that way were also based in self-defense. She would have been wiped out, had she engaged in an honest discussion with GWW. But Naomi’s got 5 or 6 books of emotional drivel she needs to sell, so that’s just not going to happen.

      • John Narayan

        Agreed. I watched with the audio off and the body language confirm this.

    • markis1

      IMO she displayed an appalling lack of empathy .

      • DukeLax

        Many of todays gender-studies professors have based their whole careers on Inflaming the public with manufactured statistics, and mass hysteria.

  • PlainOldTruth

    Wayne State University needs to hire a few dozen professors who understand just how fallacious feminism, critical theory, and “social constructionist” dogma. Then the esteemed Professor of Princess Studies can learn from her colleagues why being anti-feminist is praiseworthy (as praiseworthy as anti-slavery, anti-Lysenkoism, anti-gulag, anti-genocide). In fact, all educational institutions legally are in violation of Title IX by not hiring representative samples from all diverse positions. They are all fraudulent enterprises if they have no articulately anti-feminist professors.

    • Darryl Jewett

      I dunno. I’m not anti-gulag. I think there’s room for lotsa feminists in them.

  • Tom Golden

    Well done Jack Goodfellow! Great idea to watch it without sound. So much going on. At least this one seemed to have looked at the conference schedule and seen the speakers are not talking about women. None of the others seem to have even done that much.

  • Kimski
  • earth one

    You are so right! Watched it with the sound off. There is so much going on in this video, especially with Ms. Fem Prof.

    She smiled and smirked through the entire beginning of the video, and most often looked to the female interviewer with that knowing look that says “isn’t this funny?” When she is actually addressing any questions, especially from the male interviewer, she spends much of her time avoiding eye contact, then smiling to get agreement.

    At 4:27 pm the YouTube version, she’s looking away and her eyes are darting around, avoiding the attention of the rest of the participants.

    • Man Alive

      Thanks Earth 1,
      The two side by side gives a classic comparison.
      He looks steadfast, defiant, determined.
      She looks lost, bewildered, afraid.

      • Kimski

        Don’t let it fool you.

        That is a classic ‘Damsel in Distress’-look. 😉

        • TheBibo Sez

          “Help me, Obi Wan Kenobi; you’re my only hope.”

          • Christian Chiasson

            Based on her arguments during the segment I would have to say Obi Wan Kenobi’s Jedi Mind Trick really is the only thing that can help her.

          • Kimski

            Kenobi would never help a Shit..sorry..Sith.. of the Dark Side.

          • Darryl Jewett

            That or a lobotomy.

      • Darryl Jewett

        “She looks lost, bewildered, afraid.”
        I agree if this description is a euphemism for she looks like an idiot who just shit her pants on TV.

  • TarnishedSophia

    The reason so many are against anti-feminist ideologies is because the general populace believes it to mean a return to older times, rather than just being against the modern use of feminism.

    Anti-feminism, in a typical citizen’s mind, brings forth images of women denied the ability to work outside the home, being paid less for the same job and qualifications, being denied access to higher education, abortion being made completely illegal, taking away a woman’s right to vote, etc. And indeed, there are some who call themselves anti-feminists who *do* want to see these things pass (although sort of an extreme catastrophic event, they never will and even then I wouldn’t hold my breath). What the mrm would benefit from is sending out the definition of anti-feminism that they hold, and defending this.

    Perhaps then everyone will be on the same page, and true egalitarian conversation can be had by all.

    • Darryl Jewett

      “The reason so many are against anti-feminist ideologies is because the general populace believes it to mean a return to older times…”
      The reason so many are against anti-feminist ideologies (or support feminism) is because they profit excessively from the systematic and institutionalized persecution, enslavement, impoverishment, imprisonment and extermination of men.

  • Bryant Suiskens

    Feminists don’t understand their own stupidity.

    Egalitarianism is the belief in equality, not feminism. feminism is the political movement that has as aim to inject egalitarianism into society using certain methods (or at least, claim they want egalitarianism, but they leave out one party and play the blame game all day long, and only empower the use of labels). and there is anti-feminism: It is not about hating equality, it is about having issues with the methods that feminism is using to inject them into society. that goes for both MRA and feminism: we are not the representatives of equality, no, we are a political movement that tries to inject it. what feminism is doing is a utterly self-defeating act; the means justify the end, not the other way around, and when you try to take the means, which are disgusted by many, and try to make everyone believe that the means and the ends are the same thing, you only risk making the ends a topic of disgust and muddying the waters.

    • Darryl Jewett

      Feminists don’t understand anything.

      • Shamednomore

        Perhaps some of them somewhere are beginning to understand the jig is up.

      • Bryant Suiskens

        they understand women’s studies

  • Flo

    Good one

  • Andybob

    The male host reads the quote about some women enjoying date rape from a piece of paper that I’ll hazard a guess was shoved into his hands by a feminist staff researcher who chose to delete the crucial detail that it was satire written in response to something else. When Dean Esmay enlightened him about this fact, it robbed the host of what he had probably assumed to be his gotcha moment of the day. It also made him look like an ill-prepared hack, which I doubt he appreciated terribly much.
    The body language of the feminist professor is, as Mr Goodfellow suggests, deeply revealing. She tilts her head to the side and tries – we’ll never know if she succeeded – to engage the female host with a fixed-stared grimace in the hope of sharing an, “OMG, do you believe that we have to sit and listen to this?” moment of silently suffering sisterhood. It is obvious that she finds the very idea of being asked to participate in a discussion about men’s rights utterly ludicrous. As Mr Goodfellow puts it, “What are these silly people thinking?”
    After Dean Esmay states some of the key issues that necessitate the existence of a MHRM, it is difficult to prevent one’s jaw from dropping when the female host turns to the feminist professor and asks, “And how do you feel about all this?” Anyone looking for an example of modern women’s ridiculously inflated sense of self-importance and entitlement need look no further than this pair parading their assumptions that their feelings are in any way relevant to whether or not issues that affect the rights and welfare of men and boys should be either acknowledged or addressed.
    The most telling aspect of the entire discussion was the fact that the death threats – no-one dared to even suggest feminist culpability – were fleetingly mentioned in the introduction, then tossed aside and forgotten. Let’s just say that the panel’s concern for the safety and welfare of the conference-goers was, to put it mildly, underwhelming.
    If death threats had been made in order to derail a feminist conference, the response would have been very, very, different. For one thing, the threats would have been the whole story, not merely thrown away during the introduction. You can rest assured that no MHRA would have been allowed anywhere near the panel of frightened and harassed feminists who would be pointing accusing fingers directly at the MHRM. White knights would be rigid with outrage, jostling to protect the teary maidens while fumbling for their wallets to cover security costs.
    Thanks to Jack Goodfellow for raising so many important points. Thanks also to Dean Esamy for representing AVfM with such distinction. He looked like a lion calmly discussing serious issues with a bunch of cackling hyenas undeserving of his attention.

    • Mark Wharton

      Logic ends where her feelings begin

    • Darryl Jewett

      “And how do you feel about all this?” Solipsism. The primary symptom of the most severe and dangerous mental illnesses including personality disorders, bi-polar disorder and many others. of course I don’t believe in all these imaginary diagnoses. Instead it’s a primary symptom or evidence of psychopathy. Otherwise known as evil. Funny how it’s the first thing she could think of saying. The response was automatic. No thought. Just automatic manipulation. No analysis or objective evaluation or assessment. Just portrays the objection by others to her abuse as an emotional problem of others she is abusing to distract everyone from her abuse. Typical psychopath.

    • Xbillion

      Insightful post.

  • guber

    They won’t listen anyway. It is hopeless. We are telling it to each other and to other people out there who are on the fence.

  • Chris Dagostino

    A female family friend of mine recently informed me that she would be blocking my daily feed on Facebook because she was tired of reading about the things that I “hate.” An anti-Islamic statement I’d made was apparently the last straw, but the bulk of my scorn is naturally directed at Feminism; I’m inclined to think it was the latter that was making her simmer. She said that she didn’t wanna argue about it, which is usually Leftist for, “I’m right and you’re not, so don’t bother responding.”

    Another one recently told me that the 15-year-old boy who was raped–oh, excuse me, seduced–by Kylie Henry knew what he was getting into. I asked her if she’d feel the same way if the genders were reversed; suffice to say, I never got a reply.

    No, not all women are Feminists, but a lot more of them are and they just don’t realize it.

    • Lucian Vâlsan

      Meh… if I had 10€ for every individual like this who blocked me on Facebook for the politically incorrect statements that I make, I’d be able to donate 2000€/day to AVFM and still be able to have a more than plentiful living :))

  • Vương Vi-Nhuyễn – 王微軟

    Feminism made the gender equality field like a one-party state, radical Feminists are like the ”TEA party” within the Republican party, it’s like you’re trying to talk to someone who only speaks Zulu and wants you to speak Zulu, but if you don’t speak to them back in Zulu they’ll call you racist (even if you can’t speak Zulu), it’s so stupid and monopolistic that I can hardly find a legitimate example of anything else that did something similar, it’s uniquely stupid. (–_–) Oké, that was just an ad feminam but I can barely see the ‘;”logic” behind what’s getting said, and all this misandry is making me so mad that I can’t think, I need a breathe of fresh air. *haist*

  • OldandNavy

    Spot on, Jack! Well stated and well illustrated. Hating feminism and it’s toxic agenda is absolutely not hating of women.

    The women in my life taught me to love women. The feminists in my life taught me to hate their ideology – and I do, deeply. I don’t hate them as women! I hate the slimy ideals they espouse.

  • Adam McPhee

    I hadn’t even noticed the twitter feed the first two times I watched it.

  • Heisenberg

    Ugghh … I felt a little bad for Dean. Both he and the professor looked less than comfortable in the interview setting. Dean missed a great opportunity to filet her when she started with the gender wage gap claptrap … can anyone say if there will be video from the conference. I can’t see someone not taking some video.

    • codebusters

      yes I heard that… I actually heard her reference that “”77 cents in the dollar” claptrap the first time ’round. wtf or what?

    • Andybob

      It seems to me that the main purpose of Mr Esamy’s appearance was to introduce the MHRM and its key issues to an audience comprised mainly of people who know nothing about us.

      I think it would have been a mistake for Mr Esmay to stomp on all of the feminist professor’s idiotic claims. There were so many of them, he would have come across as a bombastic dogmatist hell bent on silencing the womenfolk. This just wasn’t the time or the place to rip apart deeply entrenched feminist myths. It was, however, exactly the right time and place to present MHRAs as reasonable people who have every right to congregate in peace to discuss valid issues – and Mr Esmay succeeded wildly in this endeavor.

      Dean Esmay is a very, very smart cookie who acquitted himself admirably – and wisely. He knows exactly what he’s doing.

      • Shamednomore

        I Agree with your thoughts Andybob. This segment was first and foremost a promotion for the Men’s Conference. If Dean wasted time debunking a wage myth that anyone with a computer could look up for themselves, he never would of got all the great points in that he did. And after watching the video a few times, its really quite amazing how much info he conveyed in a very short interview and with three other people talking as well.

  • Darryl Jewett

    Excellent review, Jack. My only objection to Dean’s appearance on Fox is his tie. There’s nothing wrong with being anti-feminist. Feminism is a hate movement responsible for the systematic and institutionalized persecution, enslavement, impoverishment, imprisonment and extermination of men. Feminism reflects a primitive and uncivilized form of social organizing exemplified during the Stone-Age. Women manipulate the public with the spectacle of their chronic victimhood and governments acquiesce by persecuting, enslaving, impoverishing, imprisoning and exterminating innocent, responsible and hard-working men in exchange for votes and absolute power. This goal is often but not always achieved by weaponizing children against men. There is no legal recourse for men because (at least in the United States) women represent a growing majority of the population and electorate and rare is a judge who will decide against the majority on which his/her occupation of a bench depends.

  • Reason

    The interview had a predetermined outcome and Dean represented MRA’s as best as anyone could under the circumstance. At no point was the professor asked to prove her statements, or called to the floor for her childish demeanor. Indeed, anti-feminist is being treated as synonymous with misogyny. But if that is taken as truth, then it should naturally be fair game to equate feminism with misandry. And, with media bias like this, we know THAT will never happen.

  • Ohone

    I’d love to see that interview acted out with the genders reversed.

    • Nunya Bidness

      Women account for more than 80% of spending in western countries. You’re right on the money. It doesn’t matter if you make less when you control two incomes.

      • Ohone

        “Women account for more than 80% of spending in western countries.”

        Well we don’t know that for sure because its a factoid. I tried to trace the source for the claim a few years ago …

        “You’re right on the money. It doesn’t matter if you make less when you control two incomes.”

        I don’t think the wives control the entirety of the two incomes … but to get the actual gap, you would have to subtract what men share with their wives, child support and alimony and all other relationship transfers from the male total and add it to the female.

        I suspect if you did that the gap would is strongly in womens favor.

        • Darryl Jewett

          Actually it’s a factoid backed up by huge volumes of data which have been gathered and analyzed objectively by many organizations including the US Bureau of Labor Statistics and myriad marketing studies by so many industries that they can’t all be named in a single book. The number I’ve arrived at from my analyses is approximately eighty-five percent of resources are consumed by women. That translates into a comparable amount of wealth / dollars controlled or spent by women on themselves.

          • Ohone

            Have you got a citation? Because as far as I know we don’t have proof of the claim published anywhere.

            All there seems be are links to the claims of marketing companies, and when you go to their cited source (I think its Merrill lynch) it doesn’t actually say that.

          • Nunya Bidness

            I did a google search, selected the 5th or 6th item down and found the 80% figure. Below are the studies / items they cited as the source for the entire doc. I’m sure you’ll say there is something wrong with that, as it was incredibly easy to find these sources (I found those in less than 2 minutes) and your goal is by no means to find them in the first place. Best of luck.

            “Six Types of Women Who Use the Net.” Nua Internet Surveys. 2001. Downloaded Nov. 13, 2001.
            Naomi Klein. No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies. Toronto: Knopf Canada, 2000.
            Jean Kilbourne. Still Killing me Softly. Video recording. 1987.
            Charkiewicz, Eva, et al. Transitions to Sustainable Production and Consumption: Concepts, Policies and Actions. The Netherlands: Shaker Publishing, 2001.
            Xavier, Irene. ‘Clean’ but Not Safe: Working Conditions of Electronics Workers in Malaysia. 1994. And Behind the Chip: Chee Heng Leng Ed. Safety and Health in Electronics Conference. Malaysia. December 1992.
            UNDP Human Development Report 1998. Figures are in 1995 dollars.
            Charkiewicz, Eva, et al. Transitions to Sustainable Production and Consumption: Concepts, Policies and Actions. The Netherlands: Shaker Publishing, 2001.

          • Ohone

            So in less than two mins you didn’t find any source for your claim and made a copy and paste that includes a song title, that doesn’t back up your claim.

          • Nunya Bidness


            Another article showing where those figures come from

          • Ohone

            Yes I know where the factoid came from, and if you follow the claim back for there, it goes to a source that doesn’t say what they say that its says.

          • Darryl Jewett

            As I’ve written before on pages of this and many other sites, I am not writing a PhD dissertation for you or anyone else about the disparity in resource consumption between men and women. Data are abundant and for those so inclined and with the appropriate aptitude, they can ascertain, compile, collate, check, double check, triple check, reference, cross reference, analyze, interpret and conclude themselves. I will not do it for them. There is no single citation. To suggest such a thing given the large volumes of data and their sources is profoundly ignorant. Go consult the data yourself. If you do not have the proper education, math skills or any other necessary qualifications, then I can do it for you. If you want me to do it for you, the current going rate for such labor is approximately $1,500 an hour. The job will take a year or two, forty hours a week. You’re looking in the ball-park of six-million dollars for that kind of work. Half up front. I’d give you my bank routing number but I only accept payment in lower denomination notes of a non-American currency AND gold bullion. Otherwise, there are plenty of other sources beside myself (although none of them as good as me) and you can consult them yourself. Stop bullying me and anyone else into doing the heavy lifting for you just because you are too lazy and/or unable to do it yourself.

          • Ohone

            I just asked you for a source, not a PHD.

            Interesting how my suggestion that use good sources is whats deemed bad here, while none of you challenged the regular and in fact came to defended him from the suggestion that his claim that married women control both wages was absurd and that when citing a stat. its better to use a stat. than a factoid.

        • Nunya Bidness

          Here’s one:

          Google it to find 1,000,000+ more. Billions are spent every year trying to figure out who spends money and what they spend on it. This is the foundation of Big Data.

          In the end, the woman does have influence over every dollar that comes into a house because she has preference in divorce. If he doesn’t give it willingly, she can call her thug lover government and he’ll come take it by force.

          • Ohone

            That’s a marketing blurb repeating the factoid that was initially attributed to Merrill lynch (I think) but when you check the source, its not say that.

  • Carchamp1

    The conflation between “feminism” and “women” is quite understandable. After all, the “feminist” and “women’s” movement has been interchangeable. For all intents and purposes there is no difference. It is not surprising that people, especially women, become offended over anti-feminist rhetoric.

    To be clear, assaults on our “family” courts, “child” support, alimony, marriage, rape definitions, the dear colleague letter, or any other institution of feminine privilege IS an attack on women. As Paul Elam himself noted, equality is a step down for women.

    And do NOT expect women to go down quietly in this fight. So much is at stake. Robert Franklin wrote on his blog very correctly that our “family” courts are really only part of the problem for fathers and their children. The main problem is WOMEN. Every separating or divorcing woman in America can choose shared parenting RIGHT NOW. But very few do!

    “To certain women, men do not have a right to disagree with what they declare…”
    My ass! I’ll fix that for you “To almost all women,…” If there’s one problem with this MR movement it’s the blind spot men have to female opposition of reform.

    • Darryl Jewett

      Exactly. Stop blaming courts, judges, governments. laws, mental illness, hormones, stress, attorneys, etc… to excuse women from their irresponsible and criminal behavior. No one holds a gun to the heads of women and forces them to do what they do. They have agency, responsibilities, obligations and choices. they are ultimately responsible for this mess.

      • Mark Wharton

        Not to mention when a court sentences a woman even close to what a man would get feminists try to get the judge fired, and have the power to do it.

  • James Gillett

    Dean was brilliant in this video. Kept his cool. Respect.

  • Mike Hunt

    BEHOLD! AVFM’s greatest enemy! The crazy mouse lady!

    • Shamednomore

      She appears amazingly respectful and tolerant of mice. I wonder if its because she has total control over their very existence ie. she could just put out rat poison and have them gone forever if she wanted. Men on the other hand, are too difficult to control. Mice are much easier.

  • Szebran

    Feminism is an ideology of sexism toward men. Every law or guideline they advocate has the intended purpose to harm or hinder men in some way.
    Feminist are never going to advocate that men should be treated the same as women within the judicial system. If this is what you are waiting for, you will be waiting in vain.

    • David A

      Er.. they already have, have you ever heard about Christina Hoff Sommers? that woman has been fighting against injustice from everyone, including feminists.

      • Daniel Kulkarni

        She is ONE feminist in a sea of hateful ideologues, and even she has made comments such as that men are naturally inclined to boorish behavior. You simply cannot be equality-minded if you identify as a feminist. The entire reason Sommers clings to the feminist title is because she mistakenly believes a feminist movement was once needed. This couldn’t be further from the truth.

        • David A

          This comment was going to be a lot longer, but anyway… I really believe the terms “feminist” and “anti-feminist” are merely arbitrary, at least that’s what it seems nowadays. I think that’s enough for you to figure out what my response to the rest of your comment would be, and would save me time from looking for my tinfoil hat.

          • Daniel Kulkarni

            Perhaps, but I think it’s very telling if someone chooses to identify as feminist when they believe in equality of opportunity. Feminism is clearly focused on advocacy for women’s rights and there’s no reason to romanticize the word “feminist” if you’re familiar with the actual history of feminism rather than the revisionist history we’re expected to swallow of all women being oppressed by all men.

  • codebusters

    Feminism is a hate movement. There is nothing wrong with hating a hate movement.

    • David A

      Except it isn’t. Yes, many feminists are nasty misandrist women, but generalizing like that seems lazy and unfair to me, it’s like saying Muslims are all terrorists. I am conscious that many of the feminists who are in a powerful position are idiotic people, but many others aren’t, and just because they are not as loud and obnoxious as these nasty “feminists” doesn’t mean they’re not there.

      • driversuz

        Sorry Junior, if they subscribe to the idea that women as a class are oppressed
        by men as a class, they’re as hateful and bigoted as Andrea Dworkin. They just don’t know it or won’t admit it. Do what your feminist overladies command – “Educate Yourself!”

        • David A

          Wow, if you could get off your high horse a bit… Anyway, it’s not that women are “oppressed as a class”, is that women have it harder in a social context, and to ignore inequality both for men and women is lazy. And no, it’s not just in third world countries if that’s what you’re thinking, equality isn’t a reality anywhere in the world, neither for men nor women.

          • driversuz

            “is that women have it harder in a social context, ”

            No, it’s that Western women have been trained to believe they have it harder, in spite of natural gynocentrism and every possible government and social advantage.

  • Mike Hunt

    This is an absolute must watch. @dean_esmay:disqus can you post this for everyone to see?

    Dave Foley talks about his divorce, and the Ontario “Family responsibility office” driving men to suicide.

  • FireBits

    Well, we keep fighting. We take back our human rights slowly but surely. It probably gets worse before it gets better, but that how human society works. History will always repeat itself. Only thing we can do is to steer it towards less violent direction and try to save ourselves.

  • Shamednomore

    It was rather telling when for the duration of the interview the female host was challenging Dean on men being the cause of there own problems. When the male host supported Dean’s point by saying “there are more female family court judges” The female host reacted with shock and amazement and said “Charlie…that’s a gift”. She clearly was put off that her partner took another side and abandoned her. It would appear the issues are secondary to the side your on.

  • DukeLax

    “Lolli-pop feminists”….LOL

  • Mike Hunt
  • Mark Grieger

    Turn off volume, Dean does’nt look like a FOOL! Gotcha!

  • Astrokid

    Here’s the tweet referenced in this article. The guy is a sports reporter. Looks like a couple of MRAs argued with him, and he blocked them pretty soon.

  • Gavin Grant

    Men not living up to expectations? Well, thanks feminism for tearing down gender roles… not!

  • TG

    Logic and reason seeks truth, emotions like displayed by feminist ideology seeks merely to be right. When I say right I do not mean they seek to be correct, use facts, or seek a truth… is only about appearing and “feeling” they were right.

  • MrSonicAdvance

    You nailed it! Great article.

  • Abby Shaun Isaac

    This article has some good points, but I can tell from the analysis of the interview, the feminists were very radical and seek to become the dominant gender. They seem to want men to know how it feels to be the second-rate citizens. I’m proudly a feminist, and I think male oppression is just as wrong as female oppression is. It’s not fair or productive to fight fire with fire. Reading the comments below, I see that many of you believe feminists hate men. RADICAL feminists hate men. Its not fair that men who are abused physically, emotionally, sexually, etc. are treated like they’re weak and their trauma is invalid. It’s not fair that men who have done no wrong by their children get no custody during a divorce.

    HOWEVER. I really wish you all would understand that women who wish to oppress men are only the small minority of feminists. Just because they get publicity doesn’t mean they represent the intentions of the majority of feminists. Just because the Taliban is violent and radical doesn’t mean all muslims will shot young girls in the face for trying to go to school. Just because some men truly do hate women doesn’t mean all men want to be paid more for the same amount of work.

    To those of you who believe feminism must mean man-hating: just because the word has the same structure as racism and classism and other isms, remember that the term feminism was coined over a hundred years ago when women could not vote or have money or property or custody of her children or any type of legal security. A more suiting term for the TRUE and GOOD beliefs of non-radical feminists is egalitarianism.

    There are many discrepancies in this article as well. First it says,”There’s the drive to blame men as individuals for a legal system that has been gamed for decades by the feminist lobby.” But then it says,”Feminists do not believe that they should have to explain themselves or argue their positions or even engage in the political game” Are we gaming the political system, or are we not engaging?

    “feminists believe that (most) men are so far beneath them that they should not be permitted to gather and discuss their positions. They don’t think you have a right to speak.” This is bullshit. We’re supposed to be EQUAL. Society depends equally on men and women, so why in the hell would one be so low that they don’t even deserve the right to speak or gather or discuss their positions? What feminist (who was not trying to oppress men) said that men don’t deserve to congregate and discuss their ideas? Are ALL feminists parallel to slaveowners now?

    Not only that, but it’s just as unfair to categorize ALL feminists into one obnoxious, bullshit group that is screaming, “down with men” as it is to assume ALL anti-feminists are misogynists. Of course there are misogynistic anti-feminists. But are all of you misogynists? No. The author was quick to debunk this in the article. Did it not cross his mind that he was doing the same thing to feminists that many people do to anti-feminists? Does he realize that we ALSO feel like it’s REALLY ANNOYING WHEN PEOPLE GET THE WRONG IDEA OF WHAT WE’RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH AND THEN JUDGE US USING THEIR SKEWED VISION OF THE TRUTH?

    • driversuz

      You’re trolling the wrong article, Ms. Seagull. Here:

      Now take your perpetually offended feminist FEELZ, and your Caps Lock key, and eat them.

    • driversuz

      Strike 1: This is a friendly warning that you may need to re-read our Comment Policy, in particular the bits about trolling. [Ref: 2730]

      Additional remarks:

      Seagull crapping feelz all over the beach.

    • Nunya Bidness

      “But then it says,”Feminists do not believe that they should have to explain themselves or argue their positions or even engage in the political game” Are we gaming the political system, or are we not engaging?”

      The political ‘game,’ is one of compromise. No, feminists do not compromise. They demonize and take a billions a year in federal dollars for no good purpose other than to buy more power. These are not radicals as you call them. These are dead center institutional feminists who hate men, women who do not hate men and most everyone else as well.