One of the foundational messages of organized feminism is that men are violent. In fact masculinity is a synonym for violence. If you’re male, or have male relatives, you’ll be aware that this doctrine doesn’t correspond to reality, but checking theories against evidence has never hindered the adoption of ideologically driven law and policy making, in education, the courts, law enforcement and government.
There is no evidence that men, as a class, are inherently violent. Nor is there any evidence to support the idea that male sexuality is oriented towards rape, violence, or oppression of women, as organized feminism seems so intent on projecting.
They employ dishonest tricks to suggest that research backs up a claim and then fail to provide direct citation of that research. When you read articles from the camp of radical feminism, I encourage you to watch for that trick. (Studies show that x, y and z, with never a specific mention of what studies) That trick is one of the ways you can tell when people are lying. Murray Straus, an internationally recognized expert on violence and outspoken critic of feminist methodological flaws, referred to this as evidence by citation.
But today, rather than provide further refutation of the feminist lie that masculinity is inherently violent, I’d like to point out something a lot of people seem to miss.
Feminism itself is an ideology of violence.
If you’re anything other than an MRA, that might sound outrageous; even hysterical. In demonstrating that I will not attempt prove that feminist ideology informs policy in the government, the courts, the family courts, direct law enforcement and in the educational system. If you’re unaware of this, then you’re too far behind to be usefully informed by this article, so I’d suggest an intro to men’s rights for you. (see here and here).
Domestic violence incidents in which the police are called, mandatory arrest laws overwhelmingly result in the arrest of men, this is due to the widely propagated myth that domestic violence is a sexually differentiated form of violence. In reality, hundreds of peer reviewed studies show that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. [1]
Individuals working within the women’s shelter industry as well as organizations addressing domestic violence have as much access to published, peer reviewed research demonstrating this as I do with a laptop and an internet connection, but produced media on the topic of domestic violence depicts men exclusively as the offenders, and women and children as the victims.
It does not seem reasonable to surmise that everyone working in the DV industry is simply incompetent, and that leaves two possibilities. One, the individuals in the women’s shelter industries producing “educational” media on the topic of DV are all, as individuals, maliciously dishonest. This is possible, but in my opinion, not likely.
The other possibility is that the prevalent ideology creates a cognitive blindness or bias towards men, and the assumption of innocence and victimhood of women.
This ideology also informs the behavior and decision making of subscribing men and women, and it renders acceptable violence against non subscribing men, as well as non subscribing women.
A very small fraction of this accepted violence is direct, such as women striking or slapping men, because both the women committing such violence, and the men in receipt of physical abuse are trapped in a cognitive illusion that women’s smaller size and lesser strength somehow justifies acts of violence done by them against men.
But direct violence, acceptable within the framework of feminism forms the smallest fraction of the pervasive violence justified by this ideology. Most of the violence promoted by, and enacted under the aegis of feminism is done on behalf of women, by proxy, at once or more removed from the instigator of the violence.
I am not playing word games, or being clever, I am being as clear as my vocabulary allows me to be. Women in domestic disputes – and I don’t mean violent disputes but simple arguments – can and do use the police as muscle to escalate a nonviolent disagreement to a violent altercation.
The violence in such a situation doesn’t directly touch the female aggressor who calls in state sponsored muscle in the form of police, but it cannot be disputed that forcible removal by armed enforcers is not an act of profound violence against theman who is removed.
That is one example. Another is the creation and enforcement of protection orders against men, by women. To be sure, in some cases protection orders are necessary and appropriate. Unfortunately, in many cases they are wholly frivolous, but still granted by the courts, without an evidentiary inquiry, simply based on the assertion of a woman that she “feels” threatened. Men have the same rights to protective orders, in law, but not in practice.
Enforcement of protective orders is again the once removed violence of police acting on the behalf of offended females.
Some indirect violence done under feminism’s aegis targets women, as well as men. Laws which de-legitimize and criminalize prostitution do nothing to reduce its prevalence – assuming for the moment that this would be a useful goal at all. But criminalizing prostitution means that women providing sexual services for money must do so as non legitimate practitioners, without the protection from abuse that workers in other jobs enjoy.
The criminalizing of any area of commerce leaves it ripe for exploitation by criminal elements who are free, in an illegal business, to employ brutal violence, as well as addictive drugs to control workers. The illegal nature of a business also makes it much more dangerous for the clients, who may be robbed, assaulted or otherwise injured by service providers. Escalated violence within a sphere of activity is a normal byproduct of rendering a human activity illegal. This is not unknown to proponents of organized feminism seeking to criminalize areas of human activity they ideologically (read: personally) despise.
According to Doctor Kate Shannon at the British Columbia centre for excellence in HIV/Aids research; “while there has been a growing body of qualitative evidence documenting the negative impacts of criminalization of prostitution on the health and safety of sex workers, our study demonstrates, empirically – a direct link between the criminalization of sex work and the increased odds of violence against female sex workers.” [2]
Indeed, escalated violence in prohibited activities is used for victim-assistance fund seeking, and as post facto justification for continued and expanded prohibitions under feminism’s so called “humanitarian mandate.”
Increased harm and human damage is the real product and the real goal of feminism’s abolitionist movements against porn and prostitution, because the harm makes a good story to secure funding and political power.
Bureau of Justice Statistics on violent crime show that for all types of violent crime men are overwhelmingly more likely to be the victims. [3] Despite this glaring fact, the United States enacted a set of laws providing extra protection for women, and shortcutting the track to conviction for men. Men, who you may note were already more likely to be subject to violence.
The reason for this apparent discontinuity between data and policy is that feminism is, as stated, a doctrine of violence. In the case of VAWA laws, it’s the pre-existing violent crime of which men are victims, compounded with the state enacting escalated violence against men through the police, the courts and the prison system.
To make sure I’m clearly understood, locking a human being in a cage is an act of violence. Enforcers armed with batons, guns, aerosols, and manacles enact violence by proxy on behalf of women under VAWA laws. Before VAWA, assault, battery, murder and rape were no less illegal than they are now, but VAWA, and the police policies that resulted from its enactment, is an escalation of violence against the group already most subject to it.
Every woman in a relationship with a man holds a metaphorical gun to his head, whether she chooses it or not. And every man in a relationship with a woman lives under her license until she chooses to exercise her power to destroy him. Recently, in Canada a woman who was in a violent relationship with a man chose to stab him to death while he slept. The courts, informed by a feminist ideology of women’s victimhood and innocence, acquitted her, even after her defense attorney admitted during the trial that she had options other than murder of the sleeping man.
The country’s national newspaper, The Post, published a front page article exonerating the murderer based on her drunken state and her violent history. This outcome is only bizarre when considered outside the light that feminism is in fact, a doctrine of violence.
I realize that to anyone other than a men’s rights advocate – what I’ve just said is going to be a bitter pill to swallow. In fact, I predict that a substantial fraction of the audience or readership of this article will reject what I’ve said here with a fit of outrage, indignation and will self righteously condemn me.
I’m accustomed to that, and I do not care.
Indeed, responses freighted with accusations of psychopathology, delusion, irrational hatred and other pathologies tell me and others that those leveling such ad hominem arguments lack the acumen or courage to actually address the substance of the argument. It doesn’t actually matter if I’m a university professor or a slime mold, my argument stands or falls on its own.
I challenge you to address it.
[1] http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
[3] http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/vsxtab.cfm
Tags: Criminal Justice, Culture, Domestic Violence, Education, False Accusation, Feminism, Feminists, Government Tyranny, Manuel Dexter, Mitchell Lang
125 Posts in Total
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.
If you don't have paypal, check out the other options.
If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store.
Charbroil:
Peegies:
Doug1:
Kimski:
Dr. F:
And this is exactly why it has found Big Brother to be a cosy ally.
Yes! Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! The more this is understood, the more people may yet begin to understand what happens when The Ring of Power is coveted. Dovetails nicely with what I just wrote. At this stage, the violence inherent in misandry cannot be overemphasized.
Feminism, from the beginning, has always been about the coercion of all men in response to the mythical coercion of women by all men through rape, domestic violence and so on. The twinkle in the eye of all early feminists and a great many of them now-at least those on the current forefront- has always been the fantasy of somehow physically harming a man.
Violence through proxy has always been a feminine trait and something that women learn how to use when they are children as they tell their brothers “wait till I tell dad!” when they do not get what they want from them. It is not misogynistic in the least to say this. What man who has approached the age of 30 hasn’t had a complete stranger approach them in a bar threatening them with physical violence if they ever touched their girlfriend again only to have them point at their lady friend whom herself is someone that he has never seen.
Women are JUST AS VIOLENT AS MEN!!! But like so many other arena, they have different mechanisms and proclivities to achieve their ends. This article is spot on and brilliantly ties in the violence of feminism with its features as the hate movement that it is.
Bravo John!
To be honest John I don’t think violence was ushered in with feminism I believe it was there even before feminism. Protecting the innocence of women is a primal charade to convince ourselves that our seed is being incubated in a pure and clean vessel. In fact if we consider the mortality of female biology against male they were designed to survive and reside in bacterial sewage.
I do agree that feminism is a violent ideology and much more so than the now defunct patriarchy but mostly in our own communities. Whereas the patriarchy would export violence with war. Currently western military is engaged in what seems to be more murder than war. Which I believe results from the influence of feminist policy and influence.
I see a future where men and women no longer reside together and birth is arranged through legal brothels. All access agreements to children are pre arranged by contract. I see no need for men to risk being in the proximity of women, now or in the future. The one change we need to achieve is child access for fathers. After that I’m good. I’m willing to forgo servitude to a woman and accept happiness and peace in my life. I have become more of a gender separatist, I don’t think the genders should live together, work together, or play together. It’s just safer for everyone concerned.
“…birth is arranged through legal brothels…”
I have to admit that my business is science, which is the art of making new things possible.
One new thing that will soon be possible is birth without involvement of a woman.
A second thing that will soon be possible is virtual reality so perfect it is largely indistinguishable from the real thing.
Which begs the question … why not plan for permanent and complete separation?
AntZ Wrote: Which begs the question … why not plan for permanent and complete separation?
_____________________________
That is exactly what Isaac Asimov predicted in his description of Solaria in one of his Robot Novels.
To be honest I think the current social paradigm is the perfect breeding ground for interplanetary travel.I don’t think space travel would be well supported by the nuclear family model. Personal autonomy, with the ability to couple in short term relationships. We won’t have children just genetic derivitives, with no sexual pairing for procreation. Relationships will be technically based. Learning will be in a semi conscious state.
I agree. Except that interstellar space travel for the masses is a century away at the least. What to do in the meantime?
I hope this works (caps off)
I like science fiction, but the potential utopian society will only ever be available to very few people. Most of the population will have to deal with what is left of our planet.
Maybe they’ll use genetics to breed the perfect docile man-slave.
oops, italics off and it didn’t
Antz I always like to read your comments and I’m not really into biology myself but I think the possibility of bringing birth without a women (ectogenesis if I’m not mistaken) seems a little over enthusiastic. Correct me if I’m wrong but if I’m not mistaken it’s still decades away. What Virtual Reality concerns (I’m a software engineer so that’s more my kind of thing): it’s a promise allready made at the mid 90′s and it’s still in it’s infancy. I cannot imagine how (for example) to have sex in a Virtual Reality and really getting physically stimulated. I guess if it’s invented than a women version will be much more easily to build than the male counterpart I’m afraid. But let’s hope that the wonderful world of science and technology may surprise us all.
A little offtopic: Maybe the man-women discussion is a useless discussion after all: Kurzweil predicts that within 25 years we will have computers as intelligent as human beings (book: The Singularity is Near). Kurzweil made a lot of predictions which seemed to be quite accurate. However the predictions in his book seem a little optimistic. However, the law of accelerating returns may surprise us all. Let’s hope it can be applied to the MRM too
“I see a future where men and women no longer reside together and birth is arranged through legal brothels”
-Do you think men will have any rights left by then? At the rate we’re going, men will be second class citizens and treated as wage slaves and cannon fodder. Are we there yet? Get ready for a brave new world, I’m glad I don’t have any sons that will have to live through this.
I have two sons the oldest (27) uses game for pairing and would not even entertain the idea of a woman under the same roof. The youngest is 6. For them the best for their financial future is all their holdings in a privately owned corporation, and shares not exceeding 48%.
Men are second class citizens now and have no rights. Whether they have rights or not the perception is no confidence in trying to use them. I believe it is no longer repairable with government policy or intervention. Most men I know are opting out everywhere. Those that marry are coupling with foreign women, Indonesian etc.
The most dangerous aspect of feminist violence is that it does not embrace any form of chivalry towards men.
I have friends with sons, what advice would you give to a 11yro boy?
-don’t be so easy and manipulated by girls
-reject traditional expectations of men
-do what is best for you
I would tell him to read all of the essays of Sam Fryman:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6642519/A-Mens-Liberation-Guide-to-Women-Final-4th-Edition-Sam-Fryman
The essays of Sam Fryman can be found on the internet in various places. His published works have the following titles:
01 A Mens Liberation Guide to Women – 4th edition – Sam Fryman lit
02 An Innocent Woman’s Guide to Men – Sam Fryman lit
03 How to Meditate – Sam Fryman lit
04 Kundalini – Preventing the Apocalypse – Sam Fryman lit
05 A Mens and Womens Liberation Update – Sam Fryman lit
06 The Myth of the Teenage Rebellion – Sam Fryman lit
07 What is Intelligence – Sam Fryman lit
08 Kundalini – A Personal Experience – Sam Fryman lit
09 Feminal Farm – a short satirical novel – Sam Fryman lit
10 The Innocent Persons Guide to Law – Sam Fryman lit
11 Understanding Female Sexuality and Porn – Sam Fryman lit
12 Freedom of Speech & Maitreya – Sam Fryman lit
13 An Innocent Persons Guide to the Da Vinci Code – Sam Fryman lit
14 How the Feminists Stole Psychology – Sam Fryman lit
15 Hearing Voices and Psychic Phenomena – Sam Fryman lit
16 The Psychology of Soaps – Sam Fryman lit
17 Is Competition Necessary – Sam Fryman lit
18 On Drugs and Alcohol – Sam Fryman lit
19 The Importance of Thinkers – Sam Fryman lit
20 The Demonisation of the Innocents – Sam Fryman lit
21 The Psychology of Prejudice – Sam Fryman lit
22 Science and Fear – Sam Fryman lit
23 The Scientist and the Guru – Sam Fryman lit
24 Respect for Age – Sam Fryman lit
25 A Waste of Paper – Sam Fryman lit
26 Saying No to Peer Pressure – Sam Fryman lit
27 Smashing the Da Vinci Code – Sam Fryman lit
28 If Men Went on Strike – Sam Fryman lit
29 A Message to Readers – Sam Fryman lit
30 Why Size Doesn’t Matter – Sam Fryman lit
31 Afraid of Women – Sam Fryman lit
32 The Feminist Offenders Register – Sam Fryman lit
33 The Truth about Obsessive Compulsive Disorders – Sam Fryman lit
34 Why Capitalism Doesn’t Work – Sam Fryman lit
35 Time for Dawkins to Retire – Sam Fryman lit
36 The Dawkins Delusion – Sam Fryman lit
37 Dawkins – The Blind Mischief-Maker – Sam Fryman lit
38 Sam Fryman Obituary – Sam Fryman lit
If you do find these on the internet, You’ll need the free Microsoft Reader http://www.microsoft.com/READER/ to view the files. Mr. Fryman’s writings were what woke me up to the whole men’s movement back in 2007 and made me aware of what exactly was at stake for men in the West.
I highly recommend all of our regular readers here find Fryman’s works and read them.
You sure it wasn’t the Globe and Mail (Canada’s other national newspaper) who exonerated the bitch. The National Post I find to be male friendly with columnists such as Barbara Kay very pro-male. That kind of shocks me and I must have missed that as I read NP most days. The Globe and Mail I use for bird cage lining.
Barbara Kay “was” very pro-male. Have you read anything pro-male in any of the Canadian media lately? They’re all crap.
Denis:Dude I am on your side. Why you comin down on me bro?
Seems to be a widespread problem with MRA’s. You think Stephen Meurice is a socon ??? WTF. He has been with NP since the beginning. Just asking. Don’t bust me up.
I agree with you scatmaster. I’m one of Barbara Kays biggest fans and critics. The G&M sucks rocks.
Are you a regular reader of the NP? Have you noticed a trend since they were sold and got a new editor? Did you notice that Lorne Gunter’s article on Assange was only published in the Edmonton Journal?
Yes and while the women who are working together, playing together etc, they can do all those things in buildings and towns and cities that they build themselves. As far as I’m concerned women should be made to mine all metals that women use, build all buidlings that they use, create all medicines that they use, everything. Of course what you would have would be the population of women living in grass huts separate from men. Suite me fine, I think they are nothing but parasites that have no practical use outside of childbirth. Apart from that, make trouble between men, use most of the worlds resources that men produce by using their sexuality to control men. I think Islam has the answer to that by putting in place laws which do not allow women to use their sexuality to manipulate and control men. Not even visually. The rules in Islam stop women from controlling men with their sexuality and punishes those who try to do that. It also respects the “deal” in marriage, man provides and protects, women give him sex and children, no ifs or buts.
Two words:
Julian Assange
Feminist payback to their alpha-male sponsors, who have so often wielded the burning blade of feminist anti-male hatred.
Although, as anyone who has ever met an alpha-male knows, feminists regularly bestow their most valued asset in gratitude to their alpha-male enforcers.
Drunk with power and lust, alphas rarely have enough time to grow a conscience, between hard-ons.
“I’d suggest an intro to men’s rights for you. (see here and here).”
-Link is missing
In domestic violence calls, the police at times over react with violence to save the damsel in distress. They are perfect white knight chivalrists reinforced by dominant aggressor training. Mandatory arrest laws aren’t what they seem:
http://www.saveservices.org/protect-victims-stop-mandatory-arrest/
“-The other possibility is that the prevalent ideology creates a cognitive blindness or bias towards men, and the assumption of innocence and victimhood of women”
-These people aren’t researchers, they’re just BSocs who learn what they are taught. It could be that their working environment has created a malicious bias against men. I have personally spoken to a number of shelter advocates, the majority of responses are complete disinterest, very few are wiling to empathetically listen to a man’s POV or even opposing research. Are they interested in dealing with women’s use of violence? Nope, there is always an excuse never any criticism of her POV.
So my bet is on poor education, self interest and malicious bias created by their working environment.
There are some feminists are actively trying to decriminalize prostitution for the safety of women. It’s the SoCon Feminists that are against porn and prostitution. Prostitution gives women power by taking men’s money. It is only an affront to other women who don’t want their value lowered by competing with prostitutes. Marriage and divorce are far more profitable for women.
The National Post was different before it’s sale, now it has a socon matriarchal supremist for editor (Toronto Lawyer). It’s just a bunch of chivalrous man-boys and Barbara Kay is off on a tangent yammering about her kitchen, Israel and literature.
Actually the variant of “legal prostitution” that I see advocated by feminists, and what, if I recall correctly, exists in Sweden, is that it is legal for the woman to be a prostitute but illegal for the man to hire her. It’s late and I’m tired, but there is a convoluted rational about how this “protects women” from human trafficking.
Why is everything in italics?
Who let the italics out?
Alphabet Supe!
Brave New World was the first thing that came to mind when I found the MRM and started reading about the Gender War.
Little by little the puzzle is coming together. The ‘patriarchy’, the ‘rape culture’, the ‘male batterer’ are core to the girl power game. Now how about something similar on child murder/child abuse/child sex abuse which we know is a male monopoly too (NOT). Thanks one and all for the good work here.
Good point, by the standards that feminism applies to men, most child abusers are women, therefore all women are capable of child abuse and should be watched.
“Every woman in a relationship with a man holds a metaphorical gun to his head, whether she chooses it or not. And every man in a relationship with a woman lives under her license until she chooses to exercise her power to destroy him.”
You said it perfectly. But we men still have options, such as moving to another country. Avoiding Western women is easy for the properly-qualified man. A degree in any subject allows you to teach English and otherwise work overseas, perhaps in marketing or technical writing. A tradesman’s license, such as electrician’s, allows the same opportunity.
Throughout human history, good folk have left bad governments. Think of the Huguenots, the French Protestants, under Louis XIV, who oppressed them. So they moved to Holland and, as craftsmen, enriched that country.
So I say, the hell with the whole Battle of the Sexes. Leave. Asian women are sexy and sweet (though beware Americanized or Christian Asian women, as they tend to be pushy).
Who told you asian women are sweet?
LOL! Try that at your own risk. Eventually you will find that things don’t change just because you moved far enough. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”.. is the fate of asian idolizers, only now you will have no idea where to escape or how to manage the damage.
Speaking as a female your article is absolutely ‘right on.’ I have a son and I witnessed him not only being accused of DV, but he himself was assaulted by this female, went to the hospital with obvious injuries, called police, filed a report, she was found drunk and beligerant and driven home and put to bed by police.
Same woman did it again once while he was admitted to the hospital and the nurse (male) that was on duty had her escorted out, provided a statement and when the same woman filed a restraining order because she felt threatened the judge didn’t care that my son was abused or that there was a witness or that he went to the hospital with injuries. He was not even allowed to make a statement in court, there was a restraining order against him, called an abuser, his child taken away, and reduced to limited supervised visitation for over a year because he was considered dangerous. All this happened mind you while he was suffering from urinary strictures, had a subprapubic catheter for three months and could barely get around. And of course $100′s in fines he can’t pay.
I say the victims are people, men, women, and children alike, perpetrators – the system that incites the problem and profile a gender as being totally responsible but in actuality they are the scapegoat, and for what? A billion dollar industry! The Violence Against Woman Act is a money-making enterprise with all the court fines, the mandatory DV assessments, the classes, and the violation of no contact orders because dads want to see their kids, and who is paying the costs? We all are. Kids don’t have a dad, women are exhausted and resentful, and who takes the brunt of that? Maybe the kids who don’t have another point of view, who believe their dads are angry horrible people and God only knows where we go from there.
If you think this thing through to the very end you could conclude it is the Violence Against Children that we need to be very concerned about right now. Speak up speak up! That is what we can and should do. It’s a senario that is vicious and picking up steam and we need to get in front of it, peacefully of course.
Good post. Thanks.
You have to understand that American Feminism is the last real ember of the KKK/WKKK. It goes back to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and how Segregationist’s added women to it in an attempt to create a new kind of Jim Crow. Because even though all men suffer under this feminist tyranny, the African American community is falling apart at the seams. A pathetic remnant of the Culture that brought us Soul, Jazz and the Blues.
That is why feminist’s come across as mindless, because they are bigots.
Added in Lesbian Separatism(which is what Feminism in America really was circa 1900′s-1950′s when the WKKK joined into feminism) and CIA meddling and there you have it.