Real Victim

Feminism and the disposable male

The #1 video on YouTube on the subject of feminism for more than a year has been “Feminism and the Disposable Male” by A Voice for Men Contributing Editor Karen Straughan, also known as Girl Writes What. Unlike most videos that “go viral,” it has seen not an explosion of views but steadily increasing views. It has ignited a firestorm of hatred against its author. People have put up pictures of her face battered and bloodied to show their hatred for her. She’s called a right-wing extremist, a “back to the kitchen” traditionalist, a misogynist, a traitor to her vagina–she’s even been called the “Tokyo Rose of feminism.” Much of this is rather amusing since she’s a bisexual atheist who writes erotica professionally, and often doesn’t even vote–not because she thinks women shouldn’t vote, but because, like Penn Jilett, she thinks it’s a waste of time. Amusingly, she’s also often been called a “feminist extremist” (often laced with many more vulgar epithets).

The fact of the matter is that and many others have thought these things for many years. And we’re used to being shouted down and told to shut up for saying them things. But it appears to be even worse when a woman says them. Is it because they fear that if a woman says them, they can’t dismiss her as a “whiny loser” like they do to men who say these things? I suspect so.

A number of readers of have complained that they can’t stand listening to Karen (Girl Writes What) talk for 15 minutes. I do not understand this complaint at all, I’ve always found her speaking style compelling, but there’s no accounting for tastes. So I asked Karen for a transcript, and when she said she’d lost it, I transcribed it for her. And so, here I present, proudly, my friend Karen’s “Feminism and the Disposable Male.” I hope you like it as much as I do. –DE

Not too long ago I had it out with a feminist who had come into a male-safe space from a feminist blog just to scoff at the idea of male disposability. She basically said that the entire concept was a myth, that men’s lived experiences were completely wrong, and that they were just a bunch of whiners who were complaining over nothing.

That got me thinking about the concept of male disposability and how that interacts with the feminist movement. Male disposability has been around since the dawn of time, and it’s based on one very very straightforward dynamic: when it comes to the well-being of others, women come first, men come last. This is just the way it has always been. Seats in lifeboats, being rescued from burning buildings, who gets to eat: really, society places men dead last every time, and, society expects men to place themselves dead last every time.

Humans have always had a dynamic of “women and children first” and that has not changed at all. The 93% workplace death gap has to be evidence of this, if only because there’s nobody with any kind of importance or power who’s interested in changing it at all. In fact I remember reading an article in a British Columbia paper not long ago that described the increasing proportion of female injuries on the job as a huge problem, and the insane thing was the change reflected a decrease in male injuries rather than an increase in female ones. Men’s injuries on the job had gone down because the economic downturn had put so many men out of work in the resource sector that there just weren’t as many trees or pieces of heavy equipment falling on men as there had been before. And yet, this was framed as a huge problem for women that required immediate action to solve. It’s like if men aren’t dying at work that 20 times the rate that women are, we must be doing something wrong as a society.

Back when we were still living in caves that attitude was necessary for human survival. Nature is a really harsh mistress, especially when you think of all the animals that never get to die of old age. Things were a lot different for humans through most of our history on this planet than they are now. Life was dangerous, human settlements were small, isolated from each other, and one big disaster that took out a lot of women pretty much meant the end of the entire shebang for that group of people. So really, the level of importance that a human settlement placed on the well-being of women and children reflected almost always how successful that settlement was. And that can be expanded to encompass entire societies.

I keep hearing from the feminist camp that femaleness has always been undervalued by society and that maleness is preferred. But I’ve always contended that it’s the exact opposite: the feminine is intrinsically and individually valuable, simply because females are the limited factor in reproduction. When it comes to producing babies, every woman counts, whereas biologically one very happy man could probably do the work of hundreds in that regard. So the level of instinctive importance we humans place on the safety and provisioning of women and their children is one of the main reasons why we’ve been able to be so successful that we’ve come to dominate this planet.

While I will concede that this drive to keep women safe from all harm has often resulted in extreme limits being placed on women’s mobility, their agency, their power of decision to direct their own lives, all through history and many cultures, and in many cultures even today, I think it’s telling that those cultures tend to be the most backward. When you consider the restrictions placed on women in places like Afghanistan, and then you consider that if we “bombed them into the stone age” it might be progress, I think you could conclude that the most successful societies had a good balance between allowing women freedom and the ability to choose and direct their own paths in life, and the need to protect them and provide for them.

However, feminists will insist that these kinds of restrictions being placed on women in those kinds of societies are the ultimate form of objectification. You lock up your possessions to make sure they will never be lost or stolen or harmed. Honestly, if I were a guy on a battlefield I might appreciate being objectified in that way. I think if I was going to be an object, I’d rather be a sexual one or somebody’s prized possession than an object that can simply be thrown in the trash or smashed into pieces in the service of somebody else’s purpose.

Feminists also have a very simplistic idea that our willingness to absolve women of their crimes, slap them on the wrist, spare them punishment, comes from a deep disrespect society has for women’s person-hood—not seeing them as full human beings capable of looking after themselves, that we see them as children who don’t know any better. And while there are parallels there in our desire to protect both women and children from not only their own poor decisions but the full consequences of their shitty behavior, it’s really not as simple as they try to make it out to be.

Seriously, even today—even today in 2011!–we fully expect that if it comes down to a man and a woman in a burning building and you can only save one, the expectation is that you choose the woman every single time. So honestly, whose humanity are we placing above whose here? We’re not talking about going to work, we’re not talking about getting an education, we’re not talking about freedom to decide what you want to be in life. We’re not talking about getting to take Tae Kwon Do. We’re talking seats in lifeboats here. The person in the lifeboat is going to survive, no matter how capable or incapable they are of managing their own life, and the person going down with the ship is going to die, no mater how independent, self-sufficient and awesome he is. That’s the equation: one life, more valuable than another, and the woman wins every time.

So honestly, is there any argument, anywhere, that women’s humanity has always been held in higher regard by society than men’s? To be important to society, a woman merely has to be; a man has to do in order for his life to have any meaning to anyone other than himself. I think it was ManWomanMyth who said our society reduces men from human beings to human doings. I really think that’s an apt analogy. We measure a man’s worthiness to wear the title of “man” and therefore the title of “human,” through how useful he is, either to society or to women, and one of the most useful things a man can do even now in the eyes of society is to put women and children before himself.

While I think there is plenty of argument that this attitude is at least partly innate—the way most survival traits are, even collective ones—if it starts in the chromosomes we really do everything we can as a society to reinforce this dynamic. Studies have shown that even though baby boys tend to cry and fuss more than baby girls, parents are quicker to attend to or console a baby girl than they are a baby boy. Even just the level of acceptance of infant male circumcision in our culture, when female genital mutilation was banned pretty much the first afternoon we all heard it existed, really says a lot about the differing expectations we have for males and females. Speaking as a mother, the last thing I would ever have wanted was to hear my child cry, especially when they’re at an age when they’re completely helpless, completely at the mercy of outside forces, and utterly dependent on the adults in their lives for every last thing, and yet even knowing how painful that cut is, we expect baby boys only days old to just suck that up.

Just think about what these very first interactions and experiences, these differences in how we nurture our babies depending on what gender they are, what this teaches them: What do we teach baby girls when we attend to their crying so quickly? We teach them to ask for help because their needs are important. We teach them to let us know when they’re afraid or in pain because it’s important for us to know when they’re sick or in danger or hurt, so we can do something about it. We teach them that when they’re sad or lonely to summon comfort and comfort will be there. We teach them that they’re important. Their needs and well-being, both emotional and physical, are important just because.

And what are we teaching baby boys when we leave them to cry? We teach them that there’s not much point in seeking help because it will be grudgingly given if at all We teach them that they should become self-contained in their ability to deal with emotions like fear, helplessness, loneliness, sadness, pain, distress: we teach them stoicism. We teach them to suck it up. We teach them that their fear and their pain are things that are best ignored. We teach them that their emotional and physical well-being are just not as important as other things.

Given all that, is it any wonder it’s like pulling teeth to get a man to go to the doctor when he’s sick?

What we’re teaching that baby boy is all the things a man needs to know and feel and believe about himself if he’s going to stand in front of a cabin with a rifle while his wife and kids hide inside. We’re preparing him for the day he has to fix a bayonet to a rifle and charge a hill under enemy fire, and we’re preparing him to make a decision to resign himself to an icy fate while women and children escape in the lifeboats. We are teaching him to internalize his own disposability.

And baby girls? By attending to her crying so quickly, by letting her know that she’s inherently important to us, we’re preparing her for the day she has to think of her own safety first, even if it means the man she loves is left standing alone with a rifle in front of a cabin. We’re preparing her to take that seat in the lifeboat. We’re training her to not allow guilt or empathy or acknowledgment of a man’s humanity, or any sense that he might deserve it more, to convince her give her seat to him. Because for millenia, the human species absolutely depended on her feeling 100% entitled to that seat.

And that brings me to feminism. You know, the patriarchy smashers? Those righteous avengers of equality? Dogged dismantlers of every single gender role? What exactly is feminism doing to dismantle this traditional role of the disposable male?

Feminism’s greatest victories have only reinforced in everyone that society still owes women provision, protection, help and support just because they’re women. In its collective dismissal and abandonment of male victims of domestic violence, it only reinforces in men that it’s pointless to ask for help, because men’s needs are of no relevance, and their fear and pain don’t mean anything to anyone. Feminism teaches us to put women’s need at the forefront of every single issue, political or social. Whether that issue is domestic violence law, sexual assault law, institutional sexism, social safety net, education funding, homeless shelters, government funding for shovel-ready jobs—jobs that didn’t stay shovel-ready once women got wind of them.

Everywhere you look—everywhere you look!–there are feminists pushing their way to the front of the line demanding women’s “fair share” of all of the goodies, the good stuff, the loot, the booty, the cookies. Even if women don’t need it. Even if women don’t deserve it. And even if somebody else needs it and deserves it more.

And they get it, because we give it to them.

Feminism has done nothing but exploit this dynamic of the expectation on men to put everybody else before themselves. Especially women. Women’s safety and support, women’s well-being, and women’s emotional needs, always come first. This is the most stunning piece of society-wide manipulative psychology I think I have ever come across. Feminism has been down with old-school chivalry right from the start. They might seem like strange bedfellows, but they’re not. Because both concepts are built on a firm foundation of female self-interest.

We made our way as humans through a really harsh history and we became the dominant force on this planet. One of the reasons we were so successful is because we have consistently put women’s basic needs first. Their need for safety, support, and provision. It was in humanity’s best interest for women to be essentially self-interested, and for men to be essentially self-sacrificing. But we don’t need that dynamic anymore. Our species is in no danger of extinction. We’re 7 billion people clogging up the works here!

What’s the worst that could happen if we all just collectively decided that men were no more disposable than women, and women were no more valuable than men? In fact the greatest danger I see to us right now is that in our desperation to bend over and give women everything they want and everything they say they need, we’ve unbalanced society to the point where we’re in danger of seriously toppling over.

And really? The only difference I see between the traditional role and the new one for men with respect to disposability is that maleness, manhood: it used to be celebrated, it used to be admired, and it used to be rewarded, because it was really necessary, and because the personal cost of it to individual men was so incredibly high.

But now? Now, we still expect men to put women first, and we still expect society to put women first, and we still expect men to not complain about coming in dead last every damn time. But men don’t even get our admiration anymore. All they get in return is to hear about what assholes they are. Is there any wonder why they’re starting to get pissed off?

–Karen (AKA Girl Writes What)

This article updated slightly in February 2013. Karen Straughan’s YouTube channel can be found here and her blog can be found here. I am enormously proud to call her my friend, and while at first the hatred and irrationality directed at her sickened me, I now view that as to be expected: people who question society’s most basic assumptions are often hated, ostracized, and demonized.–DE

About Karen Straughan (aka GirlWritesWhat)

AVfM Contributing Editor Karen Straughan "Girl Writes What" is a middle-aged divorced mother of three who enjoys talking about herself in the third person. Her writing and videography on gender issues features in classrooms in high schools and universities on three continents. But she still has time for the little people, like Paul, and those other guys.

Main Website
View All Posts

Support us by becoming a member

AVFM depends on readers like you to help us pay expenses related to operations and activism. If you support our mission, please subscribe today.

Join or donate

Sponsored links

  • Robert St. Estephe

    Dean Esmay understands that disciplined work, such as transcribing a crucial long text that, is a necessary activity in any movement that hopes to succeed. It is heartening to see such maturity and discipline increasingly taking hold. It is to be hoped that many others will make commitments to such well-considered and time-consuming projects so that the MRM will be able form a canonical base of liberation literature that is properly preserved and distributed. No movement can succeed without accomplishing this foundational task.

  • Zerbu

    A former friend who is a white knight once told me that the female MRAs on the radio show were actually men using voice changers. I told him about the videos from them, and he said that they were the same men but the clips were animated frame-by-frame. Whoa! Whoever managed to animate something that looks like real life must be the best animator on the planet.

    • kiwihelen

      Lol! If we are animated can I be 15 years younger, 10cm taller and 5kg lighter please?

      • Arvy

        Not if I’m doing your part you can’t, especially not the 5kg lighter. That would require animation skills far beyond my poor abilities. I can only do characters resembling my overweight self. Sorry about your also being nearly bald. :)

        • kiwihelen

          If I need to be nearly bald, can my hair be purple? Please!

        • externalangst

          Welcome back Arvy

    • Dean Esmay

      I confess, I am Girl Writes What. My mad CGI skillz allow me to look and sound just like that with a few mouse clicks.

      (Please oh please let someone on some other site repeat that and take it seriously.)

      • Bret Vanders

        I ‘ve no doubt that this is the truth, “Mr” Esmay. No true wombyn could think in this fashion. One needs only listen to the voice to tell it is electronically altered. You brainwashed sheep may believe these cheap special effects but I for one am not!

      • August Løvenskiolds

        Hey, Dean – just completed the animation for our new fempuppet. I reduced the age, lengthened the hair and perked up the boobs a bit. Check it out:

    • Robert St. Estephe

      I’m glad you wrote this. Every time I learn something new about White Knights a light bulb goes off in my head and I realize they are people who are far, far more deluded than I can even imagine. No wonder they are so amazingly cruel and cold to other men and are ready to embrace any moronic lie they hear with every fiber of their being (as long as it is expressed in a high pitch). These guys are totally PC-whipped.

  • JFinn

    OT: Obama losing women.

    Though I both like and despise both the right and the left, I can’t help but giggle that Obama is losing women at the same time the “war against women” BS is at its loudest(republicans want to control women’s bodies and rape them!!!)

    Hopefully one day we will have a party that stands against paranoid warmongering, fights against the torture of caged men, and distributes an equal amount of social services to men and women. Neither party is remotely adequate on either of these issues. At least sub-consciously, every male feels the anxiety from society not attempting to give him a basic safety net to protect him from horrors or crushing hard labor.

    As for Libertarianism, which seems to be somewhat popular here, I must remain agnostic since we’ve never tried anything close to it, and also apathetic since it’ll never happen as long as non-rich people are allowed to vote.

    • Robert St. Estephe

      Libertarianism should not be seen as a panacea, but the Bill of Rights is indeed Libertarian. Slavery was, of course, not, but that was hotly contested and compromised on for the sake of “union.” The Republocrats are trying to finish off the Bill of Rights as we speak. Freedom of the Press may not have much longer to live.

      TV-watchers believe whatever the box tells their team to believe, based on whether they are on the Right team or Left team (based on personality more than genuine politics).

    • tallwheel

      I’m not surprised. Women can be some of the most hard-core right wingers and pro-lifers. If Obama thought being pro-choice, and being for govt. sponsored birth control would win all women to his side, he can think again. There is no ‘war on women’, but maybe a war on abortion, or a war on completely unregulated reproductive freedom.

  • Kimski

    “She basically said that the entire concept was a myth, that men’s lived experiences were completely wrong..”

    Always trust a woman to tell a man what his life is all about.
    It just never fails to happen.

    • Theseus

      I am always amazed at the denial about the absolute fact of male disposability in society. It’s like saying up is down and black is white. Next to religious fundamentalists/extremists, these feminist dipshits are the most irrational people that I have ever met in my life. One can’t have a five minute debate with them without saying “wtf that made no fucking sense” several times.

      Y’know I must have been a latent MRA ( like mutant powers) ever since I was a little kid. It’s too bad it remained in dormancy for so long though. I remember at about eight years old I saw a syndicated rerun of the old “Daniel Boone” show. A guy was talking to Daniel ( maybe it was Forrest Tucker) about his concern that he was going to lose too many men in coming conflict. Daniel said, “I don’t care about men. I’m talking about protecting women and children”. Wow. Even at eight that struck me as somehow being completely wrong and unfair. My mom’s answer to me when I brought it up to her? She said “that’s what a man is supposed to do”. Wow. Just…wow.

      • Kimski

        “One can’t have a five minute debate with them without saying “wtf that made no fucking sense” several times.”

        You said it, bro’.
        And if you actually bother picking their arguments apart, one after another, and point out the contradictions and complete lack of rationality, it is still completely impossible to make them see it for themselves, without some sort of mental breakdown on their behalf.
        Or as it happened for me once, a suicide threat if I didn’t stop pointing out how little sense she made.

        So, to use GWW’s own words:
        If it comes down to a man and a woman in a burning building and you can only save one, then do yourself a huge favour and save the man. You won’t have to go through a lengthy discussion to convince him to help you save whatever is left of the building. There also won’t be any need for time consuming consolation, and it will most likely be a lot more appreciated, beyond the next possible thing to bitch about.

  • Adam

    And yet we see new developments in recent events. The Costa Concordia had feminists and manginas alike in a rage over the nerve of men out to save their own skin first.

    We might not have much longer to wait for the disposability mentality to go from participants. But then we always have the commentators or governments able to compel men to fill the role or face sanctions such as financial penalties and even imprisonment. In this regard Australia doesn’t have conscription unlike what I’ve heard about the Selective Service ‘enrollment’ of the USA.
    I am sympathetic to the men who are forced into armed services because they have no viable alternatives. They become the government’s thug-for-hire in the recent wars against brown people as JtO has put it who we no longer have any quarrel with.

    Slightly offtopic:
    Aus news channels talk about servicemen dying in Afghanistan, with our Department of Defence celebrating their sacrifice. Leaving aside the disposability aspect, we have our military trying to pull wool over our eyes by claiming a defensive role in a war that is not formally classified a war.
    In reality, our forces are the aggressor, killed by Afghani patriots. Maybe guerrillas but not insurgents.
    USA military forces claim prisoners but yet they are not ‘prisoners of war’ but enemy combatants, imprisoned for undetermined periods.
    It makes me feel sick when I dwell on this for too long.

    Stellar work from Dean and Karen for the brilliant articulation of so many issues.

    • Fidel Johnson

      yes, stellar work from Dean and Karen.

      Adam, in 1982 I got drafted to fight a war on the border of a country next to South Africa. ( not even on our own border ). Only white South African males got drafted. No deferment. No excuses. Even chronical medical cases became clerks, etc.
      In basic training, between running and drilling and all that sh*t, we got occasional ‘discussion groups’, that were when our instructor gave us propaganda.
      We were told that we had to defend the country because that is what it costs to have the vote. The floor was open to comments :
      I didn’t think of it, not one of my comrades brought it up, ‘ but what about the white wimmenz?’
      That is how effective our self-disposability is drummed into our psyche.
      After the red pill, it’s a different story.

      PS. Growing up in apartheid SA, I acknowledge all the undeserved white privilege I have had all my life. That is there. It is concrete. It is non-hogwash. I have seen it and understand it. It is wrong.
      But I have seen and experienced no male privilege, only the opposite.

      • Adam

        Thank you for that post.
        Historical contexts are often overlooked during propaganda campaigns especially so in former colonies such as SA and the pre-federation Australia.

      • MarkofWisdom

        Indeed, if feminists had any sense of perspective then by their own “logic” as long as women are exempt from the draft or conscription then any and all problems of theirs are superseded by the plight of men who are forced by law to die “for their country” and would be ignored until either men aren’t forced into the draft or women are also forced into the draft and get assigned equal combat roles on the front lines

      • Thanda

        “PS. Growing up in apartheid SA, I acknowledge all the undeserved white privilege I have had all my life. That is there. It is concrete. It is non-hogwash. I have seen it and understand it. It is wrong.”

        I am a black South African. Thank for that, I have NEVER heard such an unqualified admission from ANY white person before. It was good to finally hear.

    • feeriker

      In this regard Australia doesn’t have conscription unlike what I’ve heard about the Selective Service ‘enrollment’ of the USA. I am sympathetic to the men who are forced into armed services because they have no viable alternatives.

      Just to be clear here, the Selective Service system isn’t actual conscription (there is no conscription [draft] here in the U.S. either – yet). It’s merely a databasing of the names of eligible males of what has traditionally been considered “military service age” to draw upon in the event the draft is ever reinstated.

      But yes, the point is well taken about its basic unfairness (not to mention its totalitarian implications) in terms of its exclusion of women. All American men between the ages of 18 and 25 are required by law to register with the system. Penalties for not doing so include being denied federally-guaranteed student loans (a blessing in disguise, but that’s for another rant elsewhere), drivers licenses, and other benefits. That woman of the same age group are unencumbered with the same obligation to make themselves potential cannon fodder for a politician’s future misadventure is all the more galling.

      Oh, and in closing, here’s an example of the sheer idiocy behind the process. When I retired years ago from twenty years of active military service (don’t ever try that at home, folks), I was required to provide proof that I had registered with the Selective Service all those years earlier as a teenage kid. And people ask me why I drink.

  • dejour

    I think GWW is brilliant. I think her speaking style is great – she comes across as reasoned, thoughtful and principled. She speaks slowly and her thoughts are always very clear.

    That said, I just prefer to read an essay rather than watch a video. Doesn’t matter who is speaking. Since a lot of Fidelbogen and GWW’s content is in video form, I miss a lot of what they have to say.

    Thanks for transcribing this.

    • JFinn

      I believe you can transcribe youtube videos for free

  • andybob

    Another great contribution by Mr Esmay.

    Of course feminists despise Ms GWW. Their wheezy collection of slogans and and bigotry are no match for the masterfully-gathered insights and observations of one of our most eloquent truth-sayers.

    Ms GWW’s most powerful weapon is her gift of being disarmingly reasonable. She never fails to infuse every monologue with balance and perspective, extending the benefit of the doubt at every opportunity.

    What makes Ms GWW such a pleasure to listen to (and now read) is that she assumes that her listeners are as reasonable, intelligent and informed as she is. It is not surprising that feminists have reacted to her with belligerent confusion.

    • Arvy

      Let us not forget, however, that “refusing to recognize the gods recognized by the state” and “corrupting the youth” are heinous crimes regardless of any logical insights that might be put forth. Socrates’ jurors found him guilty by a vote of 280 to 220 and also voted that his penalty should be death. Telling people unwelcome truths has always been a hazardous endeavour — the more so as the truth teller gains a following.

    • brk2108

      She is a beacon of truth, but since she doesn’t toe the party line she isn’t a real advocate for women. All women are equal, but some are more equal than others.

  • Zerbu

    OT: The postering campaign made it to a news site, and the site actually isn’t spreading propaganda:–posters-in-support-of-men-s-rights-ripped-down-in-vancouver

  • Paul Elam

    OT: Don’t look now, but some fearless (and nameless) someone in the mainstream media may actually know how to be a journalist.–posters-in-support-of-men-s-rights-ripped-down-in-vancouver

  • quolls

    Gillard reveals Australia complained to Moscow over jailing of Pussy Riot band members
    Kids are being killed in Syria; Julia Gillard and her priorities just makes you want to puke.
    Please asks Julia Gillard to give us her position regarding kids being killed by the Bashar Assad regime in Syria?

    • Tawil

      The interesting thing about Gillard is she doesn’t promote gynocentrism from the feminist stance but more from a chivalrist one. IMO she’s a White Knight!

      She’s one of those women who appear to like men a lot, loves her own father, but wants to impose traditional male disposability and female priviledge like most other male politicians do…. not as a feminist but as a very traditionalist white knight promoting/reinforcing the good-ol-days by making the big decisions. Typical feminists are more inclined to convince white knights (ie. Julia) to enact thier schemes for them rather than doing it themselves.

      Funny thing is we don’t have a term for females who enact the white knight pattern. Maybe we should coin one here- White Dames.

      She is behaving gallantly….. we should refer to her as Julia Gallard. 😉

      • Dean Esmay

        As someone who grew up in a conservative, traditionalist household that was BOTH stridenly anti-feminist AND deeply misandrist, and having had some extremely negative and abusive experiences with “anti-feminist” women, I have always flinched a little at all the feminist-bashing because, bluntly, it gives me flashbacks to people who hurt me and, I think, “god damn it am I the only one who sees more than one enemy here?”

        I recognize my reaction as more visceral than anything, so forgive me, but at times it’s tough.

        I’ve also had one or two people in my life who saved my bacon who were self-described feminists. Not intellectually, but in the shallow “feminism is about equality” way of those who put no thought into it, did no reading on the matter, knew very little about its intellectual roots, couldn’t name a single feminist author they’d read, and I flinch, because those were good people who helped me. Sort of like your average Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street person who really understands very little of politics in depth, for them it’s more a “feeling” than anything.

        They don’t see or know the ugly side of it. Now I get it: after 20 years of caring about men’s issues, I see the ones who are the most overtly hateful, and they are frequently feminists, and they talk about equality but they often lie; their bigotry toward males is often overwhelming. Misandry and chivalry both are buried deep in intellectual feminist roots, and their furious denials (rather than intellectual engagement on the question) makes it all the more damning for them. But they latched onto something, I argue, that was already there.

        The deep misandry that informs virtually all academic feminism, and all those in government, needs exposure. So, [sigh] one enemy at a time I guess.

        I also still strongly suspect there is something different in the Middle American experience from the typical Canadian, Australian, or UK experience. There are broad swaths of my country where people laugh at feminists and yet cling heavily to female hypoagency and male hyperagency as a Way Of Life. These are people who are so oblivious that to them the word “feminist” might as well mean “some girl who wears too much makeup.” Seriously. It’s a cultural difference that’s hard to explain if you haven’t seen it.


        • Raven01

          “I think, “god damn it am I the only one who sees more than one enemy here?””
          You could not be more right if you tried.
          But, feminism is the most most visible and potent opponent of men having any reproductive rights or even equal healthcare.
          We have no choice but to wipe out that hateful ideology and its’ compliment whiteknighting.
          We would be very disappointed that misandry was still rampant after feminism is destroyed if we did not guard vigilantly against the misandry of the right as well.

        • Tawil

          Dean @ “I think, “god damn it am I the only one who sees more than one enemy here?””

          I think we give a healthy lashing to White knights and manginas too.

          “…the ones who are the most overtly hateful, and they are frequently feminists…”

          I have noticed you struggling with the unequivocal demonisation of feminists. Part of that struggle is because you’ve got a very nuanced mind that doesn’t see in black and white, that plus the mixed experiences you had growing up.

          I think you caught the reason for the fixation on feminists in your above statement, they are the most overtly hateful. A movement like this needs to ‘make an example’ of the worst offenders. This is no different to targetting the Nazis’ persecution of the jews over other social forces that may have also been anti-jewish…. the nazis were clearly the worst offenders, so we hold them up to the sunlight over and over to make the point about hatred of Jews. In the same spirit, feminists will continue to get a hammering from the MRM.

          On the subject of the feminists who showed you compassion and understanding, perhaps you had a bad experience that they identified with and could therefore support you (one of the few they could identify with?). But what would have happened if you had gone to the same women telling them you got into a physical fight with a girl which came to blows, but that she had started the violence and you were protecting yourself when you busted her lip? Or, what if you had asked those feminists to help you regain some contact with your father after he had been unfairly accused of something and court-ordered to stay away from you, his son…. how much assistance do you think would these feminist women have given you and your father? Was thier support a one-issue rarity?

          One suggestion I don’t buy is that feminists are often naieve. Even the dumbest most uneducated among us in the Western world is totally saturated in feminist culture, and we have all internalised the malevolent meaning and purpose of feminism on some level – an internalisation separate from and deeper than the cliche’d message that feminism is simply about equality. On some level everyone knows its an anti-male, pro female priviledge force. Anyone self identifying as feminist is willfully aligning with misandry on some level, despite thier decoying protestations. The same would be absolutely true of someone who chose to call themselves a Nazi today… no matter how uneducated they would be aware of the hatred of Jews.

          Hope you don’t mind me throwing those thoughts out…. its a reaction to your struggle with the question of whether feminists are always misandric on some level, or only some.

          • Dean Esmay

            In the one case, she’s dead now so I can’t ask her, but she was pretty apolitical and mostly concerned with helping anyone who needed help (KiwiHelen reminds me of her). Still, I try to honor her memory: she saved my life.

            The other, I’d say it’s someone who’s just believed the Patriarchy Lie her whole life because it’s always been taught to her and no one’s questioned it directly. Carefully crushed bits of the red pill mixed with a little peanut butter and chocolate appear to be the only effective treatment, rather than ramming it down her throat.

            I don’t know what to do about the reality that, in my part of America, “men oppressed women for thousands of years” is just sort of an unstated assumption everyone is raised with. It’s like blaming someone who from childhood was fed Stalinist Propaganda for believing Stalinist Propaganda. Verbally slapping them around for it isn’t always the best choice (although it may sometimes be necessary).

            I do know I’ve finally resolved myself to the reality that Paul’s identified: 20-30 years of being nice about it hasn’t gotten us squat besides head-patting and contemptuous dismissal.

            But I’ll probably always be the one ready to extend an olive branch to any self-described feminist who shows signs of serious willingness to engage on the issues in an honest, non-hateful, intellectually rigorous level, and to welcome anyone who’s ready to change their ways.

            By the way, I knew some kids who grew up as Neo-Nazis and Neo-Nazi sympathizers–I grew up on the South Side of Chicago near the headquarters of the Illinois Nazi Party (the very same ones portrayed in the classic Blues Brothers film). Most of them grew out of it, some gradually and some from a sudden realization.

            Maybe it’s my Christian outlook, but I believe no one is beyond redemption, although for some the odds are a lot lower than others.

            Maybe I’ll write a front page article about this. I already wrote one and wound up canning it because it was too incoherent. I may try again. It may generate useful discussion.

          • kiwihelen

            @ Dean, thank you, I hope more than anything my compassion for all humans (and most creatures) comes across – so your words are immensely validating.

            I wrestle with the demonising of the feminists in my family and friendship circles, because I believe they were legitimately seeking gender equality. Gt Grandmother Aimee was a doctor, and wanted votes for women, but I’ve recently learned her father was imprisoned for fraud when she was in her teens, and I suspect her motive to succeed may have been to avoid the need to be financially dependent. I’m trying to find some evidence for this, but don’t know if any relevant papers survive.
            My maternal Grandmother promoted her daughters receiving education, because she had to return home to parents with three small children when her husband was declared MIA, as she had no marketable skills to support herself. She was adamant that her daughters could be self sufficient.
            Mum was keen to see that women could chose to work or stay at home and promoted communication skills in relationships working for a relationship charity. My big sister needed the anger of the third wave to overcome her eating disorder, and what I have seen of her 30 year partnership with the father of her children, she has love and respect for him, and she has shown the flexibility to be in both the caregiving and the care receiving roles as their needs changed. My best friend from childhood has used the political and activism skills learned in feminist circles to undertake community leadership in her local Transition community, taking it through a natural disaster and on to new community in a city being rebuilt.

            I could go on, and I’m going to go out on a limb here:

            I see the MRM as an equality movement. I believe this is what thinking zeta type women are seeking, so I hope they will take the red pill and join us.
            I went no contact with my beloved 9 years ago, because I believed that his STBX deserved a chance to rekindle their relationship, and his daughters needed their father. It never even occurred to me he was abused. I failed as a blue piller to connect what I knew of the signs and symptoms of abuse with a man and his actions. I regret this, and we paid the price for that choice.

            I guess I am saying that there is room for atonement but the women who chose the label feminism need to take responsibility for their failures and the damage done.

          • MrStodern

            @Dean: I can appreciate your position. You have no delusions about what kind of people we’re typically dealing with, but feel more positive than most about how redeemable a number of feminists are.

            I put feminists under two basic categories: Conditioned From The Cradle, and Genuinely Hateful. I do believe a good number of the former are redeemable, though I advise caution in dealing with them, as their motives for leaving the movement need to be the right ones. They need to be opening their eyes to the harm feminism has done, not be jumping from a sinking ship.

            The latter kind, I look forward to leaving behind as we create a much bright future than they would have, for everyone.

        • tallwheel

          Feminist? Traditionalist? Conservative? Liberal? Hell, it doesn’t even matter. They all see women as valuable, men as disposable. That dynamic is hardwired in our biology. It’s taken for granted. Making men even more disposable is sold to the public as ‘radical’ policy. To go against that is far too radical a stance for any group other than the MRM at this time.

        • louise h

          So, I think I might be like those people you mention who call themselves a feminist but have not read the literature and ignore the uglier side. I know it exists, and I despise it. But I am stuck on what to identify as. I believe in equal rights and opportunities. I think I should have the same rights and opportunities as my male friends, and they should have the same rights and opportunities as me. I think in current society neither sex is winning. In some areas women are still discriminated against for exactly the same reasons as we have the disposable male phenomenon. I want men to have the same parental rights as women; I want more awareness about domestic violence against men; I want men to be able to be openly emotional without being belittled for it; I dislike that the phrase ‘man up’ is synonymous with ‘toughen up’ because why should men have to act tough? Likewise I don’t want to be labelled an evil bitch for displaying characteristics that are highly valued in men; I want the same opportunity to fight for my country that men do; I want not be judged by society for not wanting children; I don’t want my value as a person to be connected to what goes on in my uterus.

          To you does this seem like feminism? Or am I something else? If so is there a word for it? Because I don’t want to use the word feminist if it gives people the impression I am in any way against men. I’d really appreciate you input Dean. Thanks

  • ChrisD

    It is absolutely true we need female MRA’s. I believe they offer a different and refreshing insight. That is not to say men don’t offer insight, only that we are often coming at things from a slightly different angle.

    However the other reason as mentioned in this article and by others is the fact that male MRA’s can be easily written off. We can say the same things as GWW and Typhonblue but we can be dismissed as sexists, angry, bitter either from rejection or divorce, traditionalists, losers, neckbeards and all of those other easily disprovable accusations. It’s a very effective way to silence us because no matter how you come back to disprove it, half of the people listening will have already switched off.

    Faced with female MRAs, people have to stop and actually listen to the message. They cannot dismiss them easily and they start to question their beliefs and critically examine what is being said. It’s a sad fact that as men we are automatically not worth listening to on these issues, but that is the reality.

  • Ray

    “But it appears to be even worse when a woman says them. Perhaps that’s because those opposed to what she says particularly hate it when a woman says them?”

    …or, it’s just that she’s so adept at penetrating the hypocrisies of the gender feminist propagandists that she gets under their skin as no other erudite critic ever has before. She lays waste to feminist fallacies with her words like an Alexander and his army marching through savage barbarian lands.

    Feminist Dragon Slayer GWW extinguishes the flaming devastation of feminist firebrands with cool precision and calculated wit. Her face should be Photoshopped onto an image of Sir George, with foot on top a dragon’s throat, whilst holding a sword aloft in victory.

  • Dazza

    Thanks Dean. It’s great to see that this video by Girl Writes What is getting so many views (and so many ‘likes’) and thank you for transcribing it. She presents her observations and the facts so logically and articulately. This is a ten out of ten red pill video.

  • Charral Izhiman

    This article is really interesting and got me thinking.
    Here we go…I’m not a feminist. I believe in women and in men too. But I acknowledge that in some parts of the world it’s still a man’s world and women are second rate. Defending women and demanding their rights is a sometimes right. Taking men for granted and putting them last is wrong. The article only represents the most sophisticated of societies in the world. It’s not the full picture. It’s an imbalanced perspective. Maleness is still preferred in a large part of the world. Women being objectified is as bad as men being sent to war. We both, men and women would need to walk a mile in each other’s shoes.
    The mothering referred to in the article is an act of smothering. Did you know that mothers in the East smother their sons with the attention you’re accusing the girls of receiving and in the end the boys aka men turn out soft and with a tremendous feeling of entitlement just because they are men. The defect is in the upbringing smothering and protecting a child from the real world. I know of many families where the girls are keeping their families and the boys are off living their lives with no care but their own lives. The problem is the imbalance. Its’ not who should be doing what, men or women, it’s that the balance has tipped too much. Just because feminism has gone too far in some parts of the world, doesn’t mean the counter-action has to as well. Will there be no lessons learned from history.
    Getting a fair share of all the goodies is a definition of greed not feminism. It’s being called feminism because we’re talking about women. But it’s just greedy women. Mind you before you all jump at me, divorce settlements are whole other discussion and very individualistic.
    The dynamic of women being self-interested and men sacrificing is a correct analogy of human history. But it goes back a long time ago and yes times have changed. But what is missing in this point of view is that the world hasn’t progressed equally. What is no longer acceptable in the west is still partially needed in the east in different degrees.
    The most unattractive aspect in feminism is its aggression against men. It’s supposed to be about women getting on alongside of men who in the past were ahead in many aspects of life. What didn’t happen and has been made clear in this article is men making changes to the evolution, expressing their needs and desires as well. When a man makes a point of not lifting a heavy object that I am attempting to carry that would obviously be easier for him to carry, I find it petty that he’s thinking you women asked for equality. When a woman thinks she should be kept for her life because it’s a man’s role to provide I think she’s selfish. Both sides need to change the way they think. As simple as it sounds, men and women need to genuinely like each other and stop competing. Mutual respect brings a man and a woman back to human beings. I’ve worked in many male oriented environments and religious at that, where I was the most liberal. And I asserted myself as a person not a woman and it worked. Of course I will always be a woman and represent women but I’m also a person first.

    • Paul Elam

      There is so, so much horribly wrong with this comment that I won’t take the time. I trust others will dissect it, though. But I do wish it there were enough substance to it that it would at least require a sharp knife.

      Such is life.

      • Raven01

        Sigh, I`ll start.
        We can do it piecemeal, each MRA smacking down one erroneous statement.

        @Charral Izhiman When you say, “Women being objectified is as bad as men being sent to war. We both, men and women would need to walk a mile in each other’s shoes.”
        I MUST point out that someone saying, “Nice tits hun” while staring at your chest (objectifying you in feminist terminology, just socially inept and possibly rude depending on the situation in normal-speak) “is as bad as men being sent to war”?
        Where people are trying daily to fucking KILL you?
        I have to ask….. Did you manage to type that bit with a straight face or are you just completely unaware of your own sexism in suggesting that “being objectified” is as bad as being killed, if the target of objectification is female and the dead body is male?

        • louise h

          I think Charral meant objectification in the sense of cases like where women are used like objects to settle family feuds and honour violence. I these cases women are often raped, violently assaulted and/or killed. Of course this does not apply in Western culture. But I just wanted to point out that I highly doubt Charral meant what you have inferred (especially given that the post was largely referring to developing economies).

    • Tawil

      I agree there is far too much wrong with this post to take the time to address it, sorry Charral.

      I can summarise the problem generally; you have absorbed a bucketload of feminist memes and drivel, perhaps unconsciously, without having really thought about the ‘other half’ of the human race- men and boys. In fact judging by your post I doub’t you have thought independently about any member of the human race. The discussion here revolves around all of humanity, and humanitarianism generally, about which your post is clearly lopsided and ignorant.

      If you bother to read a substantial number of the articles on this site you will be in a better position to consider the issues and be taken seriously…. only then might others consider responding to your thoughts – perhaps your first ever independent thoughts about men and women.

      Until then you will be dismissed as a lazy thinker who can do nothing more than absorb a hegemonic discourse, and regurgitate same. If you don’t feel like educating yourself I recommend you not waste your time and ours, and instead go join feminist discussion forums and show them how much of thier propaganda you have absorbed. They might even give you a pat on the head.

    • andybob

      Feminists have adopted a new tactic intended to silence MRAs. It is cropping up everywhere from mainstream news blogs, to the Monash University Women’s Department blog.

      It goes like this: men in wealthy western countries can’t criticise feminism because some women in third world countries are still struggling for equal rights.

      This is a laughably transparent attempt to shame men – let’s call it Code Puce – into thinking that they are not entitled to fundamental rights in their own countries because of what happens elsewhere in the world.

      This tactic has the kind of tortured and convoluted logic typical of feminist idealogues – Betty Mclellan springs to mind. It is the ultimate appeal to the white knight they have long surmised lurks in most men. It has the inisdious built-in accusation that you somehow support (or are ignorant of, or indifferent to) things like honour killings, FGM and sex trafficking of young girls.

      Invoking Code Puce means that you have concluded that putting a burka on some Afghan woman somehow entitles the Tiffany Smiths of the world to run amok unchallenged. It means that you have the kind of jaw-dropping moral ineptitiude of a typical feminist.

      This kind of dodge-and-weave tactic only proves how thoroughly we have feminists on the run. Just another shoddy ploy that looks as desperate from the sidelines as it does on the field.

      • Arvy

        Not only that, but code puce has also been adopted as another great “justification” (one among many) for sending more men off to “die for their country” in distant lands.

        Ain’t it great how they can take away all your rights at home while demanding your sacrifice in promoting and furthering their feminist agenda at the point of a gun abroad. Why any man would want to do that is beyond me.

        • andybob

          Excellent point, Mt Arvy.

          These women are denying the fact of male disposibility while demanding that we march across the globe to our doom to help the siserhood. Massive hypocrisy and entitlement.

          Let’s confront them with the fact that misandry at home has become such a problem, that all of our energies are needed here. Ladies in other parts of the world will have to sort out their own problems.

          Unless of course, western feminists are prepared to boot-up and risk their lives for females they claim to care so uch about. No? Didn’t think so.

          • Arvy

            I may be wrong, but I kinda suspect that, if anyone actually asked those foreign ladies, they’d probably prefer handling it themselves in their own ways. In fact, they might decline quite vociferously the high honour of being “liberated” by foreign troops (male or female) armed with cluster bombs, drones, depleted uranium, white phosphorous and all those other neat military toys.

            That form of “liberation” tends to be very hard on the kids as well as the women themselves. But no crusading liberator ever asks their permission, of course. Western feminists just know that armed intervention is what those poor ignorant foreign women need, just as they know what’s best for everybody else.

          • Fidel Johnson


            Ya, I remember reading, shortly after the ‘liberation’ of Afghanistan, of feminists going crazy because they still saw footage of some Afghani women in burkas.

            It was beyond them that, yes, the women could legally appear in public without them on, that those women may have THEIR OWN STRONG RELIGIOUS BELIEFS and keep wearing burkas in line with their prophet’s teachings.

            Remember, it’s all about choice for women.

          • feeriker

            These women are denying the fact of male disposibility while demanding that we march across the globe to our doom to help the siserhood. Massive hypocrisy and entitlement.

            Or much more simply, any cynic might say, just a convenient way of disposing of more men.

    • Dean Esmay

      Charral: I’ll go ahead and be the “white knight” of the bunch and try to help you a little. I give you props for trying, which is more than a lot of women do. On the other hand, I will also note that no one here has insulted you or called you names, just argued with you. Bear that in mind as you read the following:

      You are here in a men’s forum where men are actively and openly engaged in advocating for men’s rights. We are concerned with men’s rights primarily where we live (the English-speaking world) but are fully in support of men’s rights everywhere in the world. You have, I think, been the victim of a lot of lopsided information through your life. The lives of men in third-world countries is often quite horrible. Most of what Girl Writes What describes in her article has been going on for many thousands of years and still goes on in cultures across the globe. (Indeed, I’m the annoying voice who keeps telling the group that concentrating on “feminism” is at best a short-term strategy, and that’s for the precise reason that most of what we face has been going on for thousands of years and globally, much of it going on even in places in America where people barely even know what a feminist IS but male disposability is still a fact of life. I GREW UP in an environment that was both strongly anti-feminist and abusive towards boys. But I digress.)

      I would suggest that if you are going to participate in this forum, you do as others have suggested and do some more reading of some more of the articles here. Ask questions. Check your assumptions at the door. Do some reading. Heck, reach out to some of the other women here and ask them for help.

      Women really are welcome here. In fact, you might want to consider that as much as you just got a lot of disagreement thrown at you, again, no one called you any names or threw you out of here. You actually got a type of respect that people rarely get on the internet: you said something, and you got people to read it and respond to it rationally. You may not have agreed with the responses, but everyone had respect enough for you TO answer rationally and not just say stupid shit like “fuck off stupid bitch” or anything else. You got taken seriously: not ignored, not thrown out, and not even name-called. Just told you were off-base.

      I for one hope you’ll stick around. But only if you do the diligent work of reading some of the other materials here, and learning.

      And one thing you’ll learn is that we’re doing a damned sight more than just bitching here. A whole lot more.

    • tallwheel

      Even in the Eastern Countries where women have the least freedom (the Middle East), the same dynamic of women valued and protected/men the disposable defenders is still at work. If anything, that dynamic is even more obvious, with women sometimes hardly even allowed to leave home (for their safety). I’m not saying that the women in these countries necessarily have it ‘good'; certainly a society which is as sexually egalitarian as possible is the most desirable. I’m just saying that the underlying dynamic of male disposability is actually the same in both Eastern and Western nations.

    • Thanda

      I must say Charral. I agree with you to some degree. You are right that not all the rights women in the west enjoy are being enjoyed by their counterparts in the developing world.

      However it is also important to understand that while women have it tough in those parts of the world, their men also have it tough. For example: A women in Afghanistan is probably forced to wear a burkah, forced to cook and clean for her family and forced to listen to her husband. However at the same time her husband is forced work in probably unsafe (by western standard) working conditions, to fight in whatever war the local chief decides to fight and so forth.

      What I’m trying to Charral is that while women may be having hard in some parts of the world, its probably only happening because their men are also having it hard. In other words life in those parts of the world is quite simply tough – for everyone.

      So it would be wrong of us to jump into Afghanistan and pledge to improve the lives of women as if the lives of their men is simply a breeze. If one truly cared about the women in afghanistan they would also have to care about the men of afghanistan. If you want to improve the lives of the women you would have to also improve the lives of the men.

      Remember Maslov hierarchy of needs. First a person needs to have their basic needs met and then they can start exploring their higher needs like their desire to help others. If the men of Afghanistan’s lives were easier, they would probably have more time to think about how hard their women lives are. Right now everyone in Afghanistan, men and women, are just trying to survive.

  • quolls
    • tallwheel

      Why does ‘spreading the message’ that violence against women is happening even count as activism anymore? In Western nations, you’d have to be living in a cave to not have already heard the message that there is an ‘epidemic’ of violence against women happening all around us. It’s been beaten into our heads for decades. I’d might as well start a grassroots campaign to promote Coca-Cola. I’m sure there are tons of Americans who are still not aware of this refreshing beverage. Something must be done!

      • MrStodern

        You have to remember that all true feminists are women (men can’t actually join their ranks, they’re just tools), and if there’s anything women in general are good at, it’s beating a dead horse. No one can harp on something until the end of a time like a woman can. Sorry, but it’s true. There are men who exhibit this trait, but, because they’re men, people will eventually tell them to shut the fuck up. Unless they’re a black guy harping on how racist white people are. At times, skin color gets you a pass just like a vagina does.

        • feeriker

          At times, skin color gets you a pass just like a vagina does.

          Then there are the situations where BOTH get you a free pass (let’s just say that I speak from LOTS of personal experience here).

      • Bombay

        Because men are still disagreeing with women. Every time I disagree with my X she tells me that she does not appreciate being abused. All the setup for if and when she can get government to agree with her. The female control game and the spreading of all their messages never stops and never sleeps.

  • Rick Westlake

    Thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU DEAN! It is a blessing, for me, to be able to read a text file rather than have to wait through the burbles and delays and, pardon my early Anglo-Saxon, digital fuckoffs that my (ought to be fast) (still too slow) DSL connection imposes on a video file.

    I am quite accustomed to being ‘disposable’ as regards any genetic contribution I might be able to pass forward. I recognized, twenty-plus years ago, that my own bloodline had been refused entry into the gene pool. A moment, a day, a life-from-now-forwards of disappointment, of saudades, but still … a life.

    At age 58, an age where I’ve heard virile WEALTHY men castigated for having defective sperm (despite their utter value of being able to pay to spoil the absolute hell out of their child brides), I am more than two decades past the acceptance that I, as a father, had been judged ‘way past my best-by date.’ Oh well.

  • Primal

    Off topic but possibly helpful for those who write or read posts like GWW’s. Lust, liberty and the pursuit of misery at Yale: The shameless ironies and poisonous paradoxes therein are fascinating.

    • Dean Esmay

      That book’s a classic. It made me consider myself a conservative for a while. I don’t anymore, but I consider myself to have learned a great deal from conservative intellectuals, and grown a respect for them that I did not have when I was younger. Much of what it says is still applicable today.

      • Primal

        Like how you are willing to learn from those who are currently banned but I copied the wrong book by mistake above: Sex and God at Yale is the one I was talking about: Sorry for confusing anyone.

        • Dean Esmay

          Oops. Well I haven’t read that one. 😉

  • Europa Phoenix

    I’m proud of myself when I read this transcript. I did the same thing 2 weeks ago, and I can see no mistakes when I compare my transcript to this one.
    My English is improving!

    Now, I’m going to translate it.

  • MenDiscontinued

    She’s putting her name out there now? Just wondering…

    • Dean Esmay

      Last I checked Karen isn’t putting her last name public, no. Although there have been attempts to doxx her and undoubtedly will continue to be. The hatred for her is visceral. Elly Tams too. There’s a reason I think, and it has to do with not wanting to hear intelligent, educated, thoughtful women who dissent from their orthodoxy.

      • MrStodern

        Feminists don’t want women like GWW spreading truth because they know men are more likely to hear it that way, and turn red pill, possibly without getting stabbed in the back first. And the more MRAs we have that don’t carry stab wounds, the harder it is to dismiss us as nothing more than a gang of bitter divorcees.

      • MenDiscontinued

        The reason I asked is because the author had her name in the article.

  • Charral Izhiman

    I sigh back at you gentlemen. To say you all disagree with everything I said and shouldn’t bother acknowledging, you’re all on here responding never the less.

    First point to make is that equating female objectification to men going to war, I agree is off balance. It wasn’t my intention to belittle the efforts of men and soldiers going to war. The point I was making is that they are both bad. You obviously don’t know much about the women being objects and I’m not referring to sexual harassment. I’m talking about the third world dominant male disorder. But that’s another story we don’t need to get into.

    I think if you’re going to insist on calling me a feminist which is your opinion, you need to acknowledge that I see anti-feminists in you. Are you just an opposing party or do you really want men to get equal rights like the right to be saved on a life boat alongside women and children? I agree that men come dead last in today’s world and they shouldn’t. That’s why I responded to the article. I’m not concerned with what the movement of equality should be called; so I’ll refer to it as gender parity. Call it what you want.

    And here is what I have to say to you men… don’t you want your opinions to be heard by women? Is Karen really enough? Don’t you want more women to agree men deserve more? I am a woman listening to you and willing to have this discussion. If you can’t handle a woman like me on a blog and I’m just an anonymous person, you have no chance of convincing the rest of the world who are very feminist.
    Now in reply to anybod.., “men in wealthy western countries can’t criticise feminism because some women in third world countries are still struggling for equal rights aka code Puce. Now, I’m not suggesting that men forfeit their fundamental rights in their own countries because of the rest of the world. Hell no!
    The idea of men internalizing their own disposability is disturbing. I doubt me as a woman can do much to change that at least not alone. But like women did years ago through the feminists act, what and how are you going to get your rights? Or is it just a bitching session!

    In response to Paul Elam, is it not fair to say that the only sharp knife of life you know is your experience and your observations of those around you. Surely you’re intelligent enough to know your world isn’t the only world the rest of the world lives in. while I’ve made no attempt to patronize men or call them whiny losers you might want to accept that you just don’t know or understand what it’s like to be a woman whether that’s in the west or the east and how women deal with oppression. So rather than the remaining of this discussion flowing in the direction of men vs. women, why don’t you share your worldly wisdom on how men should tackle the disposable male phenomena.

    One last thought to add is that being angry with our governments for sending men to war that sometimes end up protecting women in suppressed countries is not the women’s fault. It’s our government’s decisions. Those women can hardly stand up for themselves in their own homes for reasons we don’t need to go in to now. The article has value if considered for the west but it’s just an opinion gone viral. It needs men to stand up and deal with male disposability without the aggression women used when they fought for their rights back in the day. I say that simply because men and women know better and should be learning from history’s mistakes.

    • The Observer

      Howdy folks! Let’s see if we can do a translation of this comment into something more recognisable, can we?

      “I sigh back at you gentlemen. To say you all disagree with everything I said and shouldn’t bother acknowledging, you’re all on here responding never the less.”

      Ah, yes. Trying to paint us as bullies in wanting to have the last word. Now let’s see the comments above: Mr. Elam and Tawil did not attempt to engage any of your points and merely told you to go and read up. Raven, who addressed one point, did not say anything of the sort. Andybob and Arvy weren’t even responding to you.

      And me, I’ve said nothing yet, and I’m doing this because I’ve got a bit of free time and there’s nothing better than learning by doing, and in the process provide a little amusement for my fellow MRAs.

      So, where are we being hypocritical, or is this just shaming language and name-calling?

      And if no one had responded, I’m sure that’d have been “evidence” of us being unable to support our points and hiding. Damned if we do, damned if we don’t.

      “First point to make is that equating female objectification to men going to war, I agree is off balance. It wasn’t my intention to belittle the efforts of men and soldiers going to war. The point I was making is that they are both bad.”

      Backpedalling. It doesn’t chage the fact that you were pressing home the idea. By the comparison of the two side by side, you’re equating them in severity.

      “You obviously don’t know much about the women being objects and I’m not referring to sexual harassment. I’m talking about the third world dominant male disorder. But that’s another story we don’t need to get into.”

      If you’d even so much as glanced through the articles here, you’d drop this line of reasoning immediately, but your ignorance continues to show.

      So, where in the East are these smothered men and hard-working women happening? Got any links? Any citations? China, where women in the cities have their pick of bachelors and are demanding men with cars, high-paying jobs all sort of material goods before they’ll even consider dating? India, which AVFM has covered where the government encourages wives to beat their husbands and suggests that they’ll be paid for it? How about Japan and the grass-eating youths, also covered by AVFM, in a response to male disposability and the work culture and misandric utility objectification in that society?

      Or maybe if you’d bothered to do a cursory look through the current front page of AVFM, you’d have noticed an article about men being mobbed in the street and being forcibly circumcised in Africa. Or GWW’s channel, where she points out misandry in supposed “patriarchal” socities. Guess “patriarchy” is so wonderful in the third world, that so many men are benefiting from it, are they?

      Yep, ignorance.

      “I think if you’re going to insist on calling me a feminist which is your opinion, you need to acknowledge that I see anti-feminists in you.”

      Yes, I think I can speak for most of us here when I say we are anti-feminist, considering that they leveraged as much out of male disposability and excerbated misandry for their own agendas. Or maybe the article up on the front page with the cover of a leaf with “feminism is a hate movement” should have tipped you off?

      You seem adamant in the belief that feminism is actually benefiting society, which is why you use “anti-feminist” as a derogatory label. However, has been proven by the various articles on the website, it’s rotten to the core since at least the second wave.

      “I’m not concerned with what the movement of equality should be called; so I’ll refer to it as gender parity. Call it what you want.

      And here is what I have to say to you men… don’t you want your opinions to be heard by women? Is Karen really enough? Don’t you want more women to agree men deserve more? I am a woman listening to you and willing to have this discussion. If you can’t handle a woman like me on a blog and I’m just an anonymous person, you have no chance of convincing the rest of the world who are very feminist.”

      And so here the name-calling and true intentions reveal themselves. Oh no! We’ve got to cater to women’s emotions! They might feel uncomfortable at what we say! We’ve got to bend over backwards to accommodate them, or else they might not lend us their support to us horrible misogynists! How terrible! I’m sure there’re a few GOOD men out there who will –

      I think I’ve made my point. And of course, if we don’t agree, we “can’t handle” a woman. Which is just more shaming language. Essentially, what the above is is simply the same thing Rebecca Watson was doing in her video, and it’s quite obvious.

      I’m going to echo another commentor on this website (Stu, I believe). The reason we have women like GWW, Typhonblue and Nurdy Dancing on this website is that we don’t budge an inch. We’re not white knights, we’re not going to fall over ourselves trying to please women like you, and we’re not going to let ourselves get co-opted the way Atheism+ recently did. We’re MRAs, and again, slipping in terms like “gender parity”? AVFM here for men’s issues, thank you very much, no co-opting please.

      The red pill is not meant to be sugar coated, and it is a bitter one for men and women alike. We are not here to appeal to emotions and feel-goodism. We present the facts and attract people who are attracted to the facts and honesty – in short, the likes of the ladies who write articles for us. Sugar-coating the red pill turns it into the blue pill, because the sugar is the essence of the blue pill.

      “Now, I’m not suggesting that men forfeit their fundamental rights in their own countries because of the rest of the world. Hell no!”

      But you just did. You attempted to argue that very point in your first comment, and it is up there for all to see. Backpedal much?

      “But like women did years ago through the feminists act, what and how are you going to get your rights? Or is it just a bitching session!”

      Again, I note that you’re equating feminism to anything but the hate movement that they are. And if you so much as bothered to look at the front page of AVFM, you’d see a long list of activism efforts as well as articles that have been written about our successes, or perhaps even listened to the recent radio show where these successes were discussed. But no, we’re just bitching on the internet – and as Angry Harry proves, even bitching on the internet and spreading awareness is activism. I think it was Mr. Elam who in the most recent radio show encouraged men to go out and spread the word on men-related internet forums.

      “Surely you’re intelligent enough to know your world isn’t the only world the rest of the world lives in. while I’ve made no attempt to patronize men or call them whiny losers you might want to accept that you just don’t know or understand what it’s like to be a woman whether that’s in the west or the east and how women deal with oppression.”

      But you have.

      You’ve just discounted the disposability of men in your first comment. You’ve called our efforts an internet bitching session, and accused us of being “unable to handle you”, which smells distinctly like the often trotted-out accusation of being “afraid of a strong woman”.

      Whether you did this consciously or not I can’t tell over the internet, but it just goes to show what attitudes you truly have, as opposed to say, Kiwihelen on this site, who has never trotted out any shaming language even with those she disagrees with.

      And the second part…oh, that’s a doozy. Plenty of women take it upon themselves to redefine masculinity every other day, telling us to “man up”, “be a good man”, suggesting men have small penises or can’t get laid just because of the fact that we don’t agree with them. Shaming language, y’know. It doesn’t work here.

      And even if we didn’t know what it’s like to be a woman (never mind that we have women here informing us on that fact, even if vicarious experience was impossible), what the heck does that matter? If you agree that the Code PUCE argument is invalid, then why are you even bringing this up? AVFM is a site about men’s issues. We’re not here to be co-opted, thank you very much.

      “So rather than the remaining of this discussion flowing in the direction of men vs. women, why don’t you share your worldly wisdom on how men should tackle the disposable male phenomena.”

      Again, you can’t be as interested as you claim to be, otherwise you’d have taken the time to educate yourself on the activism efforts.

      “One last thought to add is that being angry with our governments for sending men to war that sometimes end up protecting women in suppressed countries is not the women’s fault.”

      Did anyone anywhere say it’s the women’s fault? Nope, all I see is people commenting about feminists. Feminists =/= women, please don’t obfuscate the issue or try to put words into our mouths.

      “Those women can hardly stand up for themselves in their own homes for reasons we don’t need to go in to now.”

      Appeal to sympathy.

      “The article has value if considered for the west but it’s just an opinion gone viral.”

      And so everything that was just said about being concerned for male disposability was lip service. Japanese men dying at their desks – I’m sure that’s just opinions gone viral. Chinese men dying in unsafe, illegal coal mines to support their families – opinions gone viral.

      “It needs men to stand up and deal with male disposability without the aggression women used when they fought for their rights back in the day.”

      …Okay, I’m laughing now. Aggression. Aggression.

      When Mr. Elam has repeatedly called for non-violence at every turn. I take it JtO’s postering campaign is aggression, too. One balding man with a glue stick, that’s aggression, as opposed to the boxcutter-wielding mob he faced. GWW carefully reasoning out all of her videos, that’s aggression.

      All I’m hearing from that line is “sit down, shut up and pay up.”

      And so we have it. Hoisted by one’s own petard – all that lip service about being interested in male disposability and men’s rights, and can’t even be bothered to look at the headlines on this website. Usual shaming tactics, appeals to emotion, going back to the Code PUCE argument when one’s already agreed it’s invalid…

      I’ll say it again: we’re not here to be co-opted. Go and educate yourself, or go back to your feminist masters and mistresses and get a pat on the head.

      I hope I’ve entertained some people by writing this, and with that, I’m out of here.

      • Kimski

        Great comments, Observer.

        In the Old West there was a trick that could get any white man through the most savage apache camp, without any harm being done to them, whatsoever.

        You just had to act like a complete lunatic, ’cause the natives believed that if you just pretended that noone was there and went about your business, you wouldn’t get ‘infected’ with whatever was wrong with the crazy person.

        I’ll just let that stand as my reply to Charral Iznogood, and go about my business of not being ‘nice’.

      • Fidel Johnson


        I don’t want to create problems here, and if I’m wrong, will moderators please erase this comment.

        I put a ‘notify me of follow-ups’ of this thread, and the title I got in my e-mail to this was :

        “The Observer commented on Feminism and the disposable male.

        in response to AlekNovy:”

    • Arvy

      You ask whether we want our opinions to be heard by women. Some of us care about that. Others not so much.

      What matters most, however, is that they be heard by those in positions of influence as a clear warning that it would be in their own best interests to rebalance the scales somewhat — and without further delay.

      I could be wrong, but I think I’m beginning to see just a few early signs that that message is starting to get through where it actually counts, lack of your approval notwithstanding.

    • kiwihelen

      Can I make a suggestion Charral?
      I suggest you read about 4 months worth of articles here and then come over to Shrink 4 Men and read Dr Tara’s fine blog…all of it. It gives you a huge insight into the issues of the MRM.
      I will admit there are times I still write a response then cancel it as I hear my critical voice coming into it…and I’m aware this is a male space to which I am honoured to be allowed entry and participation.
      With regards to western vs. other cultures, I’m immensely careful to presume I can interpret the experience of anyone…I regularly receive assumption because of my white skin and native grasp of English, that I share the values of those who live in England where I live, which is not the case as my upbringing in NZ has given me a very marked perspective difference. Assuming what I want is what a Pahtoon woman or a Congalese woman wants would be me acting in a shamefully colonialist way.
      If you want to contribute after reading around, I suggest making posts that relate to your own knowledge and experience…it’s a good place to begin.

      • Dean Esmay

        Helen’s pointing the way for you, Charral. Stick around and do some more listening than talking for a bit and see if your perspective doesn’t change just a little.

        I give you points for trying. Now I suggest, try a little harder. Check your prejudices at the door and start to learn. You won’t find many opportunities in life to grow like this, I guarantee you. But you have to want it.

    • Raven01

      “If you can’t handle a woman like me on a blog and I’m just an anonymous person, you have no chance of convincing the rest of the world who are very feminist.”

      I had no problem “handling” you. You even had to concede that I was correct.

      So, I’ll do it yet again.
      “Now in reply to anybod.., “men in wealthy western countries can’t criticise feminism because some women in third world countries are still struggling for equal rights aka code Puce. Now, I’m not suggesting that men forfeit their fundamental rights in their own countries because of the rest of the world. Hell no!”

      You speak of feminism as if it is some religion in a theocracy, an intolerant one at that. Just like being a Christian in any -istan country or a Muslim in Isreal, I am an MRA and receive scorn and derision from feminists regularly for calling them out when they lie(you can tell they are lying very easily, it is when their lips are moving). I do not seek to return to the wests 1950’s family model or subjigate anyone at all. I simply insist that my humanity be respected aswell.
      I CAN criticise feminism and DO. It deserves it.

      You also fail to recognise that those same countries you mention when it really hits the fan the refugees are comprised almost entirely of “women and children”, boohoo, tug at heart strings, send money now. Nevermind, that those men with all those “rights” were left behind dead in a ditch, because they don’t count, even in countries like you mention. They are forced by their being born male to die for women. But, having to be chauffeured about instead of being able to drive yourself as inconvenient as it is, appears to be a more important topic than being killed essentially because of your sex.

  • The Observer

    I find it the huge blinkers people have on whenever someone says men have it huge in the third world. But great backpedalling when Raven and Tawil called it out. But just a few thoughts:

    Woman in Egypt protests has her blue bra caught on tape, worldwide outcry. Thousands of men brutalised by Egyptian security forces – no coment.

    Female Genital Mutiliation practiced in Africa, worldwide outcry. Men in Africa caught by mobs and forcibly circumcised in public – no comment.

    Women in Saudi Arabia stoned for not being dressed properly, worldwide outcry. Men in Saudi Arabia stoned for having emo haircuts – no comment.

    Women in Congo raped, worldwide outcry. Men in Congo raped by both male and female perpetrators – shunned and unable to speak out for fear of being jailed.

    And if we want to take it all the way to the most primitive tribes: men risking their lives in actual dangerous environments to provide for the women?

    Sounds more like people in power abusing it instead of any sort of gendered discrimination, because that third-world patriarchy sure is working well for men!


    “Those women can hardly stand up for themselves in their own homes for reasons we don’t need to go in to now.”

    Uh-huh. Define “standing up” and these nebulous “reasons”, because sympathy ploys aren’t working. We’re not white knights here, we’re not going to rush over and coddle you because you’re “afraid” or “uncomfortable”.

    “…without the aggression women used when they fought for their rights back in the day.”

    Because Mr. Elam and other MRAs have already pontificated at length on why “being nice” doesn’t work. Here’s a hint: we’re not here to be nice or make people feel comfortable. In fact, a lot of articles on this website are intended to make people feel UNcomfortable.

    If you claim to be so interested in men’s rights and being egalitarian, why don’t you bother reading the articles on this site, because it jolly well seems like you haven’t.

    • kiwihelen

      OT but interesting: I know a fair number of women from the middle east who still have family there. These women all comment that their female relatives tell them off for their poor grooming!
      The hijab and burka reduce the outwardly visible feminine but the women underneath their covers are truly feminine

  • andybob

    “Or is it just a bitching session!….bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla…I’ve made no attempt to patronize men or call them whiny losers” Charral Izhiman

    Bitching and whining are the same thing, Ms Izhiman.

    Your initial blog stated that you found the post interesting and that it got you thinking. Regular readers of AVFM are familiar with women like you – women who found their way here with a genuine curiosity about men’s rights. I have no reason to doubt that you are a fair-minded person with a commendable belief in fairness for all.

    Like many before you, your declaration of support for the advocacy of men’s rights hasn’t lasted the distance of a single thread. Why? Because you don’t like the manner or the tone we use to voice our many concerns. It’s too aggressive, too angry, it isn’t nice.

    I suspect that you are one of many women who have never really heard men speak about such issues – or indeed on any issue without feminist approval. It frightens you. Hence your need to admonish us with a schoolma’mish scolding.

    Dr Elam waved you along with a weary sigh because, like us, he’s heard it all before – right down to the ‘advice’ that women will never condsider our concerns unless we ask them nicely. You must be very, very new around here. That simply doesn’t work. It is either scorned or ignored.

    You ask what we intend to do about our disposability. This is it. Point to it, try to tell others about it and refuse to bow down to it. We can do all of these things without getting the approval of society, women, feminists or you. Look at the influence of Ms GWW’s monologue on this topic. It has scared a lot of people because it is powerful activism, and they know it.

    You are welcome to stay and hear the voices at AVFM. However, I can tell from your final blog that you will stomp off in a huff because the men here refused to let you set all of the parameters for the discussion. You may not think you’re a feminist, but you sure act like one. As I said, we’ve seen it all before.

    • limeywestlake

      If it walks like a feminist, talks like a feminist….

  • quolls

    Anyone notice a departure of femininity and feminism, feminism and equality?

  • quolls

    Thing is feminists or what ever they really are, are on the free ride like most women are except they go further taking full control. Like there on a cab ride telling everone what to do and where to go and demand you pay them for it.

  • Hope

    An interesting article, I’m happy that there are people out there who think the same way I do, and don’t have to result to vitriol or accusations but can instead bring up points that (while unpopular) are defensible and just.

  • feeriker

    Given all that, is it any wonder it’s like pulling teeth to get a man to go to the doctor when he’s sick?

    I know I don’t need to say it here, but it bears endless repeating.

    While they are incapable of admitting it, almost invariably the reason women get so concerned, even angry, when their men refuse to go see the doctor is that they fear losing their primary means of support. It is not the maintenance of the man’s health for his own sake and his well-being as a person deserving of life that they are concerned. It is the fear that any undiscovered and untreated illnesses will morph into something fatal, leaving them to fend for themselves.

    I have a cousin whose husband was diagnosed with ALS, one of the most heinous diseases imaginable. It slowly killed him over the course of three years and during most of that time, her anguish wasn’t over the pain and agony her husband was suffering, but over how she was going to carry on after he was gone. I can’t believe that she represents an isolated example of this behavior.

  • mstewart

    You know, I like your speaking style but I do understand how people get rubbed the wrong way by how someone talks, especially female listeners hearing a message they don’t like. If you’d like any of your other videos transcribed, I’ll offer to do it. I really enjoy these videos and find them educational and morally refreshing.

  • ruvald

    A few mistakes (I think) in the transcript. I know those are somewhat (very) insignificant and I hate being some sort of a grammar nazi, but if this article is the spear tip (and I think it’s an excellent spear tip) then I think it’s important to remove all possible ways it can be attacked. Even stupid bullshit insignificant ways.

    “aren’t dying at work that 20 times the rate” should be “aren’t dying at work at 20 times the rate”

    “simply because females are the limited factor in reproduction” should be “simply because females are the limiting factor in reproduction”

    “be grudgingly given if at all We teach them that they” should be “be grudgingly given if at all. We teach them that they”

    Thanks and keep up the good work!

  • Nirvava

    I think what Girl Writes What is saying is mostly true, however I don’t know what MRAs are really asking for. What role do they expect women to have in society? What role for men? I know some of the legislative wants of MRAs, but distorting facts to make women’s claims for equality seem frivolous is immature. I would love an answer to the first two questions.

    • August Løvenskiolds

      1. Roles for women: grow the fuck up, stop whining like spoiled children over every bullshit discomfort or annoyance, take responsibility for their own lives and mistakes, stop raping men’s wallets, and stop treating men like disposable slaves.

      2. Roles for men: break the chains of slavery to every woman’s whim.

  • Loy Finly


    Q1 – What role do MHRA’s expect women to have in society?
    A1 – They want our wimmin tethered to the bedpost with a patriarchal chain that reaches only to the kitchen. The steel links of which are forged from the fires of wimmin bones.

    Q2 – What role do MHRA’s expect males to have in society?
    A2 – They want their meat served to them on the bead-spread and they want it served on a sliver plate on the table-spread.

    If you want citation read the annals tucked away in the database of this hideous website that should be truthfully named “ Better still, my citation is everywhere you go and is in the very air you gulp.

    Loy Finly.
    Snr Wrongarian.
    World Chapter to Whit.

  • M&m28

    Thank you for writing it down. I couldnt follow her, because my school english is not good enough for her speaking speed and this is exactly what i searched for our society lessons in school where we are discussing feminism. its a often and very controverse discussed discussion in Germany too. (so many discussion in the last two lines :) )

  • Steff

    Again, another highly informative and instructive video from Girl Writes What. If it wasn’t for me finding this video on You Tube purely by chance, I wouldn’t even have heard of MHRAs of any kind and still ignore that feminism is really a destructive philosophy (actually it’s a bit more complicated than that, perhaps I’ll make my own video about that). Keep up the good work.

  • Borneonawind

    Ms GWW, just out of curiosity, what exactly do you mean by “LITTLE people, like Paul, and those other guys”

  • urbanviking

    Thank you.

  • Holmes

    Black Woman Think Tank/ Breukelen Bleu

    ^^^and the abuse and dominion over WOMEN,
    is the first mark of Patriarchy. Without that, men have no reason to exist. We
    are seeing that even with white men. Now that WW have the power to divorce,
    take the children, earn high pay, hold positions of power and legally seek
    recourse, WM are ENRAGED. This killing of women and shooting up of public
    spaces is some of that shit bubbling up. A study of history explains all of
    this easily. In feudal societies, everyday men were given dominion over women
    and children, as the consolation prize for having to submit to the MEN OF POWER
    in their lives. Every man got to be “King of his Castle’ – even if that
    castle was little more than a hovel with a woman and a few kids in it. The male
    was given SOMETHING do dominate (and protect; bloodlines thru sons) to keep him
    from RISING UP against the men who controlled their lives. They dare not take
    THE SYSTEM on, so they took out all that need for control, over women.

    when that incentive is removed, men start losing they minds. BW NEED TO
    UNDERSTAND THIS. Women CIVILIZE men. We temper their natural impulses. The
    desires to posses and control us, drives them to terrible action. But their
    ability to ‘keep’ and dominate us, keeps them in line. all need to exert
    external power is then funned through the family – NOT against THE SYSTEM.

    is sooo much more to this shit than BW realize. THAT is why STUDY is necessary.
    THAT is what we do in my Think Tank.…/angry-young-men…/284364/

    Mens GREATEST fear is of becoming obsolete.
    Its they’re most primal and visceral biological fear. WIth obsoletion- the
    inability to wield power and control through a natural or created dependence on
    what someone has to offer or provide – comes loss of power. When women are not
    FORCED into diminutive positions, we will DOMINATE. Is only natural. ALL LIFE
    COMES THRU US. So the sexuality, options, choices and abilities of women MUST
    be restricted, if men are to retain power. ALL SYSTEMS must work together to
    keep the female “in place’. If not, she will eventually rise to the top,
    just as cream does. The greatest need women have for men, is protection from
    OTHER MEN. Left to our own devices, without the treat of male violences, the
    human race will STILL go on, with women ALONE as the protectors of the species.
    Men know this, and this fear creates a visceral need to to control – to
    maintain POWER. With loss of the type of power men seek, comes Matriarchy. Its
    the DEFAULT – just like life itself, defaults to the feminine, unless
    interrupted in process to become masculine. Its why all zygotes are feminine
    the first few weeks of creation.

    suspect this to be true even if on a subconscious level, and THAT is their
    fear, because for the first 10’s of thousands of years of human existence, THAT
    was the way things were. The man werent ‘dominated’, but THEY were seen as the
    “help meet’ to women, which makes sense since WOMEN are what keeps the

    NOT reverse Patriarchy.

    you cant tell these men that. ESPECIALLY black men. SMDH. Under matriarchy, the
    men still wield power. Its just for the greater good of The Mother Principle.

    fear of women returning to that level of power, where FATHER RIGHT Is not the
    predominant determining factor of Power, scares the HELL of of these men. And
    THAT is why when you remove the incentives of Patriarchy, they start shooting
    shit up. The fear of obsoletion causes the need to inflict harm on levels that
    FORCE people to acknowledge your power. Remove the Father Right, and you get
    lots and losts of angry, disgruntled men.

    for BM, remove the ability to wield control THROUGH The Father Rite, (control
    of land, resources, wealth and MONEY) and you get what we see now. All the sons
    in the world dont matter if you have nothing to pass down to them. And THAT is
    why they have no problem abandoning the BC, leaving their black children to
    die, while they water down their gene pool with the offspring of non-black
    women. As far as BM are concerned – hell! as far as ALL Men are concerned,
    without Power, Land, Resources, Dominance and the ability to control women and
    achieve immortality through sons, there is NOTHING to stick around for.

    it all comes down to it, all this shit is about US.

    (Poor Breukelen Bleu/Black WomanThink Tank she appears to
    have no idea about external wombs nor the fact that eggs (female gametes can be
    harvested from aborted female fetuses) and with reproductive moving at an
    alarming rate it will soon be possible.)

    • Astrokid

      where did you come up with all this theory? Is this scholarly? Are there any references?