White-Feather

This truth really hurts

In March 2011 – I wrote “Mainstream feminism is the largest, most successful scam perpetrated on the public since the inception of central banking and fiat currency – and most of the public haven’t caught onto those yet either.” I may have been wrong – feminism might predate those innovations. However, whichever came first, the operative phrase is “scam perpetrated on the public.”

A major item in the cultivated narrative of feminist doctrine is the quaint myth that it is a bottom-up, grass-roots movement. Even within an ideology built almost entirely on a framework of lies – this lie is a big one. The truth, once understood, reveals a depth of willful depravity in the vast majority of feminist ideology’s adherents.

Feminism is not a grass roots, bottom up movement. It is top down, elitist instigated and funded astroturf with real objectives that have no relation to human rights or social equality between men and women. What’s a worse indictment of the gullible public is that this is obvious with the most cursory examination.

This can be seen by the ideology’s produced outcomes – one of which is the reduction of the social power of the family unit as a fundamental unit of society. By isolating individuals from the social support of traditionally strong family framework, this has rendered our culture much more pliable to top-down social control. Another is the reduction of the economic value of labor by the doubling of the available labor pool. This was sold to a credulous mainstream under the guise of giving women the “right” to work. In the year 2011, most feminists still don’t grasp that they were conned.

That feminism is a movement created by the world’s elites and fed to women through lies and flattery is also evident when start-up funding for feminist institutions comes through governments or from hereditary banking families like the Rockefellers.

Gloria Steinem was financed during her startup of Ms Magazine indirectly by the the CIA and the Rockefeller foundation. [1] This was documented New York Times article in February 1967[1]. and confirmed by Henry Markow in a 2002 article called “How the CIA Used Feminism to Destabilize Society”[2].

Before becoming an icon of second wave feminism, Steinem was employed by the CIA to disrupt student organizations, and funnel information to her CIA handlers. During the time she was starting Ms. Magazine, she dated Henry Kissinger – a matter of public record. Amazingly, nobody seems to think this saps the credibility of the movement she helped launch.

Looking farther back, It becomes evident that at every stage of feminism’s run, it has been funded and instigated by political and financial elites. Organized female activism has taken many formats – including women’s temperance movements as an early outgrowth of female social conservatism. This also included women’s suffrage movements all of which were facilitated with the cooperation of political and economic elites to diminish the political power of enfranchised men in society.

If women ran the world, there would be no war.

In 1914 despite widespread pro war propaganda, male enthusiasm for shipping off to go get slaughtered in foreign battlefields was low. To overcome the reluctance of young men to get themselves killed or maimed for the benefit of a few hereditary elites and royals, Admiral Charles Fitzgerald began organizing a groups of women to help “convince” the men of Britain to enlist.

Using public humiliation, the objective of these groups was to shame civilian men into joining the armed services. “This aim was to be accomplished by public humiliation — the women handing out white feathers to any man who did not wear a uniform.  The feathers were intended as a badge of disgrace, branding the men who received them as cowards, the primary effect of which as to render them as unsuitable in the eyes of women. “The Order of the White Feather” and their recruiting methods quickly spread across Britain. Women of all backgrounds contributed their influence to the war effort.”

“(Gullace, “White Feathers” 178) The zeal and the scope of this gendered phenomenon was paralleled only by the contemporaneous movement for suffrage — a movement which, right before the war, had reached a radical pitch. It is in the radical nature of “The White Feather Brigade” — the confrontational method which was employed by these women toward men — that a tactical tie is evidenced between the pro-suffrage and pro-enlistment movements. It is in the motives and movements of Emmeline Pankhurst that an ideological connection is discovered between the feminine pro-war demonstration of the “White Feather Girls” and the Suffragists.”

A feminized society shaming men into compliance is not merely a relic of the past. Feminists and women shaming men into compliance with an entirely self serving definition of masculinity is actually a core component of an ideology that masquerades as humanism. The only possibly new element is that growing numbers of men are refusing to play along. Understanding among a small but growing fraction of our culture is that feminism is a fraudulent sham, built on lies and violence, which depends totally on suppressing the humanity of the penis-owning half of the population.

The shaming language used today is only slightly more sophisticated than the label ”coward” of the “go get killed in a freezing trench” campaign of feminists in the 1st world war.

“The child-man, then, is the lost son of a host of economic and cultural changes: the demographic shift I call preadulthood.”
― Kay Hymowitz, Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men into Boys.

Hymowitz is partly correct in her evaluation of modern men. Specifically, she’s correctly spotted the rising trend of men refusing to self sacrifice as protector-provider-appliance.

Another ideologue building a career on publicly excoriating the male demographic who just don’t cater to female convenience is the CEO of the humorously named “Concerned Women of America.” Just like many other confused social conservatives the penny has dropped for Penny Nance.

“We think they’re [men] an essential part of the American family. However we want them to feel the pressure to achieve, to put down the remote, to go find a job.”

Hear that guys? Stop self-actualizing and get back to paying for women’s shit and dying on the job.

To date, even in the ongoing and fraudulent chorus of pay inequity from feminists – no mainstream feminist has ever addressed the rate of workplace deaths among men. Did you know that for every 100 american workers who die on the job – 7 of them are women! Those poor, poor, women.

For that matter – for every 4 people who kill themselves – 1 is a woman! For god’s sake – somebody help the poor females. What’s that you say? What about the other 3 out of 4 dead bodies who happened to be men? Pay no attention to the piles of male corpses behind the curtain.

These dead men, by the way, are the glue of a feminized society. Dead and mutilated men are the byproduct of keeping everyone else comfortable, and shaming men back into the trenches of war or the zero sum game of protect-provide-sacrifice on behalf of a culture which values male utility but not male humanity.

Feminism, in its nakedest form is the radical notion that men are not people. The violence which overwhelmingly impacts men is feminism’s dirty secret. The continued and escalated narrative of female victimhood and male villainy is designed to always keep men on a psychological defence, silenced, compliant and apologetic, while they keep serving, providing and dying. Keep everybody focused on female victimhood, even when its created from whole cloth – this is the smoke and mirror show to distract us.

However, this is now so overwhelmingly obvious that even men who would otherwise be unaware followers of convention are rejecting the acceptable model. Aware adults of both sex are also increasingly alert that the overriding cultural feminist narrative is a great big lie. As those invested in maintaining the status quo; – social conservatives and feminists attempt by commentary and legislation to reinforce and command obeisance.

Unfortunately for them, the truth comes packaged with some painful adjustments, requiring the abandonment of comforts and privileges. The harder these so-cons and ideologues fight to enforce male compliance to an outmoded paradigm of human disposability – the more it’s going to hurt when choice to face reality is taken out of their control.

[1] http://www.namebase.org/steinem.html
[2] http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/310075.shtml

[3] http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/federal-status-of-women-funds-a-new-canadian-feminist-movement/
[4] http://itech.fgcu.edu/&/issues/vol1/issue1/feather.htm

  • AVFM seeks app writer volunteer

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

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

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

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! A Voice for Men and WikiMANNia are working to increase knowledge of men's issues through two wikis: the AVfM Reference Wiki for scholarly references, and WikiMANNia for general-interest men's issues. Volunteers needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing. Some knowledge of the German language will be helpful but *not* required.

    Please write to editorial_team@wikimannia.org...

  • BobbyL

    Great article John. It is extremely important to understand that feminism was and is funded by the most powerful people in the world to serve their global marxist agenda by preemptively removing the opposition (Men). The feminists themselves and their minions are merely useful idiots who will be thrown to the wolves at the right time. They will still be held accountable even though they were duped.

    • TheBlackKnight

      I agree! They will be held accountable sooner rather than later the way the economy and jobs are going.

      Eliminate the men = eliminate the family = women (and unfortunately many children) will go it alone when times get rough.

      When China (or whoever we owe money to) comes knocking on the door to get it back, women better hope girl power is enough to fight them off.

  • AntZ

    Great article! I particularly like this:

    “A major item in the cultivated narrative of feminist doctrine is the quaint myth that it is a bottom-up, grass-roots movement. Even within an ideology built almost entirely on a framework of lies – this lie is a big one. The truth, once understood, reveals a depth of willful depravity in the vast majority of feminist ideology’s adherents.”

  • Gruelien

    Not long ago I was watching a special on Sparta. They may be the first experiment on Feminism from what the narrator was saying. Women had all the joys of society and the men were sent off to learn how to be soldiers.

    According to the show, eventually they could not field enough men and were taken down. There is more too that made it very interesting but I’m going to make this short.

    Gru

  • scatmaster

    You have a few links cited but I do not see where number 3 comes into play in this outstanding article. I assume number 4 is associated with “(Gullace, “White Feathers” 178). Of course I am probably blind.

  • Ben

    Outstanding article! This one is definitely going to be one that I will print and leave on the coffee tables and magazine holders.

    I never had this information presented to me this succintly and powerfully. You oblitterated the feminist notion of If women ruled there would be no war like I have never seen before.

    I am having trouble finding places to leave your articles on campus where they will not be immediately thrown away. The maintenance staff prevents anything adrift from having a half life of longer than a nano second around here. I think it is a ploy to control and silence grass roots voices on campus.

    I was just asked by a table full of sorority girls for a donation for breast cancer 5 minutes ago while walking back from class. I left them a copy of the “Think Blue” booklet I made. I wish you could have been there to witness the resulting altercation between me and the rapidly fired reflexive shaming language they hit me with. It did not matter that I was right. What mattered was that I did not make women feel good. A White Knight even joined them.

    This version of the White Feather Campaign will be added to my anti-fembot arsenol. Thanks for this thunderous addition to the manosphere!

  • Zorro

    One of the best articles I have read yet on AVfM!

    One small point: I don’t see how something can be revealed or exposed in 2002, and confirmed in 1967.

    /Pedantry off

  • Atlas Reloaded

    I say we make another phrase amongst MRAs; White-feathering.

    Applicable primarily to women shaming men with statements such as “man up” “be a real man”. And whenever they assess a man’s status of manhood or what they believe a real man is.

    White-feathering.

    • Zorro

      I second that!

    • Ben

      3rd!

      • Atlas Reloaded

        And I multiply it by 1000 because we fuckin can!

      • Paul Elam

        And the motion has passed!

        • Atlas Reloaded

          As my Marine Granpa would say ..”ARROOOOOGHHHAHHH!”

    • Introspectre

      Agreed!

      • Atlas Reloaded

        Knew ya would bro…fuck any woman that assesses a man’s masculinity. Lord knows we’d get the riot act if we assess their femininity.

        Good thing about us coming up with terms and phrases like this? Thier shaming doesn’t work as much! Hear that ladies? Your shaming tactics are not workin. In fact, indeed, they never really did. We just allowed them to. That’s changing and right fast.

    • the hermit

      Somebody should estabilish the “White Feather Award” for women try to shame men in public. My first canidate is Sharon Osbourne.

      • Zorro

        Not to parse language, but “white-feathering” is an act of shaming. That vapid cunt Sharon Osbourne didn’t shame men at all. She publicly insulted us by treating us like we were nothing more than barnyard animals.

        Misandry in the extreme. Bitch should be deported.

        • Atlas Reloaded

          I was just thinking that; what Sharon Stillborne did was an act of verbal assault.

      • AntZ

        I think the winner is the president of “concerned women of America”, Penny.

        • http://www.mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/ Masculist Man

          The funny thing is you have braindead idiots,some even call themselves MRA’s,think that CWA is not all that bad. This should shut them up.

  • Paragon of Animals

    Great article John. I applaud your dedication and research. I am still very new to the MRM and I still have much to learn. This is indeed an education.

    And, Ben, I too have been attempting to post some flyers around the school I am attending, but they get taken down by the next day. Taking a tip from THF, I’ve put them in the men’s restroom, plus the cafeteria, the student union. I think perhaps I will eventually just hand out the flyers to guys walking by. But just in case someone engages me in a debate, I need to brush up on the facts.

  • Arvy

    Ahah! Men are finally beginning to discern some of the real roots of feminism. And it’s the same old question that applies to solving most “whodunnits” — Cui bono? (To whose benefit?)

    Do women themselves benefit from their “liberation” from traditional family roles into an environment of wage slavery and labor arbitrage? Do families benefit from the resultant doubling of the work force and its inevitable “supply and demand” impacts on the value of labor so that two incomes are now barely able to achieve what one income once provided? We need hardly ask the same question about benefits to the children of this “brave new world” where institutional daycare and a latchkey existence are becoming the norm.

    Who then does actually benefit from the promotion of “feminism” and its impacts pitting one half of society against the other and, as an added bonus, effectively castrating the half that might be most inclined to rebel?

    The answers would seem obvious. And believe me, guys, your struggle against mere symtoms is the lesser battle. The real behind-the-scenes promoters and beneficiaries themselves will be much tougher to dissuade.

  • Codebuster

    My word feminism is a scam.

    Nowhere in recorded history is it conceivable to have the oppressor get down on one knee, looking up with pleading eyes, to beg:

    “Please marry me. Please let me be your provider. Please let me provide you with a house, with an income, so that you never have to work again. Please let me take you on trips and lavish you with luxuries that you would never be able to indulge in on your own. Please let me fight your wars and die for you. Please let me do all of this for you, and I’ll work in the harshest of environments to die a premature death, and I’ll take all the flak for being your oppressor, for being your rapist. Please…”

    What a moronic society to buy into this absurd scam so completely. Nothing like it in hisory. As much as this stuff elicits my “saving” impulse, perhaps as a sense of duty, a part of me really does want to see it all implode. Organisms this stupid don’t deserve saving. Best to turn them into compost to feed a more deserving life-form.

    • Jo

      Lovely strawman there, Codebuster.

      But taking the essence of what you have said as why would men marry a woman they want to oppress and abuse, you must note that domestic violence almost exclusively occurs only after either marriage or pregnancy. Before the marriage or pregnancy the abuser is generally considered a kind of ‘prince charming’. It is a lot more complicated than you assert.

      • the hermit

        And you must note women also hide their true nature before marriage and/or pregnancy. After that, they love to – mostly verbally- abuse their partners, but never before…
        i guess you know why: marriage and children is a kind of comittment, you can’t just walk away, so you’re in a trap, literally (in an abusive partnership).

        So it cuts both ways, so to speak.

        • Jo

          To be fair Hermit I would say abusive women hide their true nature before marriage and pregnancy.

          However, I was replying to:

          “Nowhere in recorded history is it conceivable to have the oppressor get down on one knee, looking up with pleading eyes, to beg: ….”

          as there are many cases in history where exactly this type of situation occurs.

          • http://www.mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/ Masculist Man

            as there are many cases in history where exactly this type of situation occurs.

            Got proof of this?

          • Jo

            Robert Mugabe
            Saddam Hussein
            Vladimir Putin

            Just to name a few high profile examples.

            Just about every military coup has involved a minority of the oppressed convincing the people they will do the right thing by them only to slowly destroy the country after they gain power.

            Most politicians.

            and according to most people on this site, just about every woman in a relationship.

      • Paul Elam

        My my, is it always the prince? Thanks for tipping your hand. First, your primer.

        http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/domestic-violence-women-are-half-the-problem/

        When you have read and comprehended the information, you may then converse with the grown ups.

        • Jo

          OK, you are talking about reciprocal violence…. the first article cited in that piece states that 50% of domestic violence is non-reciprocal. .. what has that got to do with whether an abusive partner may appear non-abusive at the beginning of a relationship?

          But seeing as you have side-tracked me, the more useful measure of domestic violence is the level of injury inflicted. High levels of injury such as hospitalisation are almost exclusively male on female violence.

          • Zorro

            The most nightmarish violence bestowed upon a domestic victim is female-on-female (lesbian) relationships.

            Women, once angered, have no fucking self-control.

            3 years working at Harvard Medical School as a phase 3 & 4 clinical studies coordinator had me recruiting study patients in the EW. I saw it all.

            You are sooooo full of it, Jo.

          • Paul Elam

            I have not side tracked you. There is ample room for all kinds of discussion here. I have simply pointed out that discussing domestic violence without the foundation of gender symmetry is misleading.

            That includes reciprocal and non reciprocal violence, the latter of which is much more female prevalent on the offender side.

            And the more useful measure of domestic violence is not the level of injury inflicted. Look at it this way. Only a really small, and I mean REALLY small percentage of what is classified as DV is physically injurious in any significant way. And yes, most studies tend to point toward women being more seriously injured in those cases.

            Qualifying that of course is the fact that in most cases where there has been significant injury, there has been reciprocal violence,that the women ,most often initiates. Many of their injuries are sustained from being hit back.

            But even that is not really the point. The most affected persons by family violence are children who repeatedly witness it, or become involved in it, not the adults who frequently go through cycles of abusing each other.

            Those children are no less affected by watching (or being abused by) violent mothers than they are violent fathers. And the great majority of children who are seriously injured or killed in the home experience that at the hands of many more mothers than fathers.

            The problem with your paradigm is that it is a 1950’s model of “wife beating,” not a more informed model based on current research, which mainly points to reciprocal violence, gender symmetry and children being the primary victims.

          • TheBlackKnight

            Your attempt to reframe physical injury as the “more useful measure” is crap. Firstly, women do it too and, since they are taking advantage of the fact that men will usually suffer in silence and not report them, they do so, more often than not, with impunity. They inflict physical and, more importantly, emotional damage, which is usually women’s primary form of warfare and manipulation. I would contend that high levels of emotional damage are almost exclusively female on male and female on children. I would also contend that, since it is known that violence on men often goes unreported, it cannot be said that high levels of injury are almost exclusively male on female.

            Jo, women like you are the reason the information in this gender war is so distorted. Women psychologically reframing what males do as the only real damage is poison and one of the forms of damage that women inflict on men. If you’re not part of the solution, get out of the way.

    • Chloe Blue

      I love and appreciate men. I am acutely aware of this anti-male, anti-family, anti-morality culture we live in. I AM sorry beyond belief that men are stuck in horrid military jobs, unsafe jobs or menial office jobs, when they deserve to live the NATURAL life that our “modern” society has stolen from everyone.

      A natural life to express their God-given gifts…..to experience challenge and adventure. To feel a fulfilling sense of pride providing and protecting his family AND being rewarded by his wife and children for doing these things. Rewarded by being given respect….by being listened to….being cared for……being praised….being loved.

      A traditional life. Living off the land, providing our own food and shelter, and enjoying our families together….with each partner gravitating towards their natural roles based on their strengths.

      With FATHERS teaching their children survival-skills and sons & daughters having wonderful role models to look up to.

      This is the kind of tribe I wish I had been born into.

      Just know that there are women like me in this world that SEE how awesome and capable and VALUABLE men truly are!

      Truly!

      Many of us LOVE and respect you!!!!!! xo

  • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

    Speaking of dealing out some painful truths, my teacher, a woman, told a joke in class tonight. She started out with, “Why did the chicken cross the road,” but couldn’t think of a catchy follow up.” She then said: “How many men does it take to change a light bulb? Ans., zero, men don’t change light bulbs.” Not a second passed before I chimed in, “They just invent them.”

    I instantly followed that up with, “Why did the chicken cross the road?” One guy not the teacher said, “Why?” I responded, “because he was egged on.” The class laughed and the teacher got back to the lesson. :-)

  • Introspectre

    Excellent article John.

  • Alfred E

    Great stuff John! The veil that surrounds feminism covers their ass with the silly default “equality” idea that so many seem to have ignorantly swallowed hook, line and sinker.

    The saddest part is there is no turning back. The lie is deeply embedded in the mortar and the brick wall is dry. We are in trouble.

    • Stu

      Then we smash the brick wall down

  • keyster

    Yes it was originally (and still is) statist monies that funded feminism.
    Single women LOVE big government.
    Now it’s also corporate “sponsorships” that act as a kind of annual extortion fee. If your list of charitable donations in your annual report contains “women’s causes”, you’re in the PC safety zone.

    Again, there’s a very limited moral equivalency between treadful shaming tactics, and the (leftist) sources of millions of dollars of feminist funding, legislation and judicial advocacy; much as one might try and make it.

    When the time comes to move on from the rhetoric of social commentary (which JTO has a 5th degree black belt in!), and into political activism, how do we proceed?

    • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

      Quite a comment coming from the king of rhetoric himself.

      I thought that this was a non-partisan site for men’s rights and not a political activist site. Maybe I’m confused or maybe it’s just you.

    • Chloe Blue

      I’m now single and hate the gummint. I see the insanity of how corporations, evil bankers and this “modern” world has ripped apart families, has emasculated many men (not all), and has left so many children fatherless.

  • Atlas Reloaded

    And I still say; one of the biggest acts of public male shaming was the YT video someone put up here of that little girl telling the young boy she is gonna marry him when older. The boy was getting very annoyed and disturbed at it. And that dumb cunt of a mother is encouraging the girl and totally mindfucking the young boy. HE…SAID….NO BITCH!

  • nicenthic

    Great article, John. I had no idea sites like this existed. I have felt this unfairness in every aspect of society and more than ever in the family court system.

  • Ed

    Loved the article. It was succinct, well written and unique. I’m the guy behind the Xbox. I have been since Atari came out, and was never shamed into doing anything I didn’t want to do. And articles like this make me feel like I’m the sane one, not my friends who have taken the path that society commands they do. It’s great to have my self-worth be about me, not who I pander to.

    Please keep writing articles like this.

  • Eoghan

    The feminist movement was pre-existing. The Carnegie (sp?) and Rockefeller families first got involved with Sanger, who’s idea it was to attach the voluntary eugenics and population control agenda to feminism which was looking for b/c and improved reproductive health as it was.

    That’s the verifiable entry point for these elite families into the feminist movement.

    Here’s something interesting. Sanger’s movement was a “voluntarily eugenics” movement. The idea being that your financial and social situation and desire dictated whether or not your chose to administer a form of eugenic technology and that the poorest communities should have plenty of access to these services at the lowest possible cost. All that has changed is the name, and that hasn’t changed very much at all – “voluntary eugenics” became “pro-choice”.

  • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

    I’d love to hear a radio discussion between Paul and John on the feminism is socialist v. fascist issue.

    Personally, I think they are simply opportunists that will latch onto any and every movement that suits their goals of women’s power and men’s marginalization.

    The history of feminism has also shifted between right and left, depending on the issues.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/meninrevolt meninrevolt

  • Jo

    I’m not really sure what point you are trying to make about women, men and work. On the one hand you say that allowing women the right to work is a guise to con people into diluting the workforce and reducing the value of male work, then you have a go at women for expecting men to be the breadwinners (FYI I don’t expect men to be breadwinners and I don’t expect women to be excluded from the working society). Do you think women should have the right to work or not?

    I similarly abhor the white feather movement and the large proportion of workplace fatalies being men however, fast-forward to the year 2011 and women in most countries do not even have the right to join the front-line of armed forces even if they can pass all the criteria that men have to pass – and many do want to join the frontline which is why it has been debated in the last decade. Many of the dangerous industries are considered masculine occupations such as mining, farming and defence and the few women who do try to work in these industries find a very hostile environment toward women. So yes, women should step up to the plate and take on more dangerous jobs, but men also need to step back and allow them to take those jobs. Similarly when it comes to the tradionally female occupation of ‘houswife’, women need to step back and allow men to be the ‘stay-at-home’ parent and women to be the ‘breadwinners’.

    These are not simple issues and there is discrimination on both sides of the fence. History must be considered, after-all it was only a couple of generations ago that women had to quit their job when they got married, were not allowed to have their own bank accounts and therefore had to rely solely on their husbands for everything, that means that many people have living grandmothers that grew up in such a society and those grandmothers taught their mothers about what a woman’s role is – do not expect the attitudes to decline quickly.

    You purport equality but mostly introduce a dichotomy by constantly referring to men against women – you must realize that both patriarchal and matriarchal societies are held up by both men and women (and remember it is a logical fallacy to suggest the men who support matriarchal societies are not ‘real men’ but ‘manginas’. )

    • http://www.mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/ Masculist Man

      Let me translate what you just said: wahhwahhhhawahhhhwahhhhhh

      • Jo

        Surely you must recognise that your response is more appropriate to the tone of this entire site. I take it that you consider only the parts of my reply where I did not agree with author as an immature whinge, whereas the parts I did agree with are, of course, a legitimate concern.

        I am happy to engage in the debate and figure out solutions in an iterative process, which is why I engaged with each of the points the author made and decided which I agreed with and which I didn’t agree with and considered why I did or did not agree with it.

        When you are ready to engage in the discussion instead of using imprudent one-liners, then I will be waiting.

        BTW, the word you were looking for is ‘paraphrase’.

  • http://avoiceformen.com KARMA MRA MGTOW

    “John the Other demonstrates why It is evident that at every stage of feminism’s run, it has been funded and instigated by political and financial elites, and how they continue to stick it to us.”

    The more things change the more they stay the same….

  • kissmyirishass

    Dear Woman and William Bennett

    Bite Me! I refuse to be a provider drone for an emotional black hole you call a wife. I find the idea of getting married and “settling down” to be the most unattractive thing I have ever heard. I find it suffocating at best. I am a free male and I can take care of myself and you can fix your own problems. Don’t like the fact that I won’t “man up”….Bite me and follow the instructions with my username.

  • Quartermain

    The MSM is run by sociopaths.

    Never ever trust any so-called movement that is media generated. Never.