There is a phrase gaining in popularity among those who oppose human rights of male citizens. This phrase is used to characterize a small collection of individuals calling themselves activists, and whose activism consists almost entirely of writing and making videos, and activists whose message rejects the use of violence.
The phrase being used to attack men’s rights activists is “men’s rights extremists.” This terminology has the usual intent of vilifying and marginalizing writers in the MRM. However, the migration from standard anti-male insults to the claim of extremism also serves is to make potential violence against them seem acceptable. Similarly, referring to a collection of bloggers and videographers whose message includes a rejection of violence – and then calling these activists violent, is also a rhetorical tactic which appears designed to encourage and to normalize violence done against them.
Obviously, opponents of the men’s rights movement have never been shy of heaping scorn, abuse, and unfounded accusation on the movement as a whole; as well as directing campaigns of false accusation against individuals. But the now common characterization of MRAs as violent extremists surpasses hypocrisy, and seems obvious as an attempt to foster violence. It is a disgrace, and reflects the complete moral bankruptcy of those who employ this tactic.
Some individuals, skilled in rhetorical manipulation, have taken this deceptive and indirect promotion of violence to a new level. An example of this was shown when a hate organization produced a video depicting male-targeted murder, eroticized licking of the victim’s bullet wounds, and showed the closing message “Do your part.” This unambiguous promotion of male targeted murder was discussed within the men’s rights community, and AVfM identified the individuals who produced this call for murder. We felt it was a matter of ethical responsibility to identify members of a hate organization who promote killing.
A morally bankrupt and stunningly unethical blogger wrote about this, but managed to portray the producers of a video advocating murder as victims, and portrayed those who outed them as violent. The mind boggles. I was one of the writers calling for the identification of the makers of the video and then publishing the identities of these murder advocates – and now, thanks to the rhetorical contortions of a depraved and futile feminist; I find myself a potential target of violence.
Following the political protest by self immolation of Thomas James Ball, A Voice for Men published Mr. Ball’s final words to the world. This was 15 page account of his abuse by the New Hampshire family court, his decade long struggle, and his clearly articulated intention to draw attention to systematic corruption in the courts through the ultimate sacrifice of his own life in a self-ignited gasoline fire.
Mr. Ball also detailed his desire to burn down the courthouse buildings, though he thankfully did not act on it. In the republication of his writing on AVfM, Ball’s paragraphs providing instructions for incendiary devices were omitted because both Paul Elam and I (along with everybody else contributing at AVFM) strictly oppose the use of violence.
Somehow, our omission of instructions on building a fire bomb was translated by an opponent of male human rights into our purported support of such catastrophic violence. This distorted characterization surpasses my ability to explain in its depravity and deceit. The characterization of bloggers who openly oppose violence as though that opposition is support of violence is purposeful. It is plainly intended to facilitate the use of force against us.
I will not be modifying my position, nor toning down my rhetoric, nor apologizing on behalf of the purposeful distortions of bad actors. In fact, individuals fielding rhetoric intended to foster a social climate conducive to violence will enjoy increasing exposure in my writing.
The indirect, by proxy, or once-removed approach to using violence shown by cultivating a public image of human rights activists as “terrorists” demonstrates a mode of indirect application of force. Through the shaping of perception, more direct actors are motivated to use force, believing themselves justified in the application of violence.
Men’s and women’s motivations and means of acting in the world are different. Men are traditionally imagined as the violent actors of the human race. This, however, is an incomplete understanding which ignores the reality that due to women’s average lesser physical strength and stature, women often act indirectly, by motivating others or using proxies to apply force or violence. The simplistic view of men as the source of all physical aggression ignores how much male behavior is on behalf of, or is manipulated by women.
This is not an attempt to re-attribute all male misbehavior to women, but to point out the widely ignored but obvious fact that women’s misbehavior and violence is largely indirect; pursued through others.
Outside of legal considerations, violence on behalf of women or children is the basis for the cultural construct of heroism. Within MRM writing, men willing to absorb or provide violence based on chivalry are called white knights, and this term is not a compliment. A police officer who batons, pepper sprays, tasers or arrests a man accused of attacking his wife on no evidence except her accusation is a white knight. The police may later untangle a false accusation and release the accused man, but he has still been bludgeoned, pepper-sprayed, tased or caged by proxy on behalf of the accusing female.
Some opponents of men’s rights writing have begun to use the word “terrorist” to characterize bloggers in the MRM. Apparently, the by-proxy application of police tasers, batons or pepper-spray is unsatisfactory, and military force is the desired tool to silence bloggers arguing for human rights.
Shortly after her announcement as a regular contributor at AVfM, the blogger and videographer, our fellow MRA GirlWritesWhat received an email warning her of the dangerous character of other writers on this site.
Apparently, Paul Elam, founder and publisher of AVfM is a terrorist based on his preference for inflicting pain on the agents of hate. His exact quote from the December 2011 seasonal fundraiser was:
Progress for men will not be gained by debate, reason or typical channels of grievance available to segments of the population that the world actually gives a damn about. The progress we need will only be realized by inflicting enough pain on the agents of hate, in public view, that it literally shocks society out of its current coma.
We have seen some evidence that it is working; a twitching toe here, a moving finger there. Just enough to let us know we need to turn up the voltage and hit it some more. Once we get the patients eyes and ears working, then we can talk and reason with people.”
Of those three paragraphs, the second, taken out of its context of the blogging and online blogtalk radio show which comprises AVfM’s activism might sound very scary indeed. Of course, the concerned citizen omitted that context to deceptively portray Paul as a violent maniac, indeed, calling him a terrorist.
In the email sent to GirlWritesWhat, the concerned citizen issued this whopper of a lie:
“To recap, Elam is raising money while drumming up support for a public act of violence to make the MRM message heard. Public acts of violence with political motivations are called acts of terrorism.”
In reality, Paul Elam, along with myself and every other contributor on AVfM oppose violence. This is regularly evident in the unapologetic booting and banning of any commenter or contributor who suggests or endorses violence. This is flatly false claim by yet another morally bankrupt individual attempting to portray bloggers as violent criminals, indeed, as terrorists.
I too, was flattered to be explicitly named as a potential murderer by the same lying degenerate. You may be asking yourself, “Why are these claims of violent criminality applied to bloggers who regularly take pains to disavow and discourage any use of violence?”
The answer is obvious. If such a narrative is fabricated and popularized, then those with guns, funding and the legally approved state sanction to use them will eventually silence us. Naming human rights activists as terrorists is a device; the fabrication of a public narrative to drive a cultural consent for violence.
And I still refuse to use violence in return. The fact that rather than factual argument, opinions backed by peer reviewed stats or even attempts at logical debate, our opposition now cultivates violence, is a measure of the total fraud, failure and bankruptcy of those opposing the human rights of men.
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.
Stu:
Jean Valjean:
Charbroil:
Peegies:
Doug1:
The foolish condescension of imploring Mr JTO to tone down his rhetoric must not be repeated. Feminists are sharpening their semantic wits for battle, and some of you want our champion heavy-weight to enter the ring with one hand tied behind his back? Why not just throw in the towel?
Some scolded Mr JTO as if he were a boisterous child at a Sunday sermon. No-one is above a bit of honest criticism, but after producing a library of MRA resources full of enough ungilded truth and invective to smote hordes of radfems, I think he should have been treated with a little more respect.
I trust him to know what he’s doing, and so should you.
I respect JtO enough to disagree with sweeping bioreductionistic claims. If y’all were enemies, debating wouldn’t be worth the time.
Let the feminists threaten. We aren’t centralized. We have no leaders to take down. FTSU is easy enough just by exposing the rad fems in their own words and revealing their advocacy of state violence.
Excellent exposure of feminist propoganda, and a highlighting of the non violent platform of AvFM. This particular truth about AvFM is shooting big holes in the enemy’s propoganda machine.
As an aside I’ve been wondering lately if the “all men are violent” strategy is the last big trick left in the feminist bag? It’s losing credibility fast too, even as it gathers a disturbing momentum in some places. More articles like this one from JTO can only do good.
The attempt to make the MRE label standard has already begun. Last week, I challenged a woman who made some out-of-nowhere misandric comments. She remarked that I had to be one of those MRE’s and used the term to make some snide comments.
I responded by replacing the word, ‘feminists’, with ‘Evil Murderous C@%ts’. She was outraged and said that many of us were extremists. I pointed out that many feminists were EMC’s and cited Solanis and her huge S.C.U.M. following. So using her logic, that made it OK.
I calmly told her that I had a ‘Male Solution’: that we both behave like grown-ups and use the proper terms – ‘MRA’s’ and ‘feminists’. She stormed off in a huff. They really can’t handle anyone coming back at them – so brittle.
The use of ‘MRE’ is a sign from the feminists who use it that they do not intend to engage respectfully. Interaction must never take place until they refer to us properly. Grow up, ladies.
MREs…. You don’t mean… “Men Ready to Eat”?
My god! It IS true!! Feminism turns women into glutonous ravenous man-eaters!!!
So that’s why you feminist women have such enormous girth! You ate the ones that mated with you, before you came here, didn’t you?
Sorry guys, I just had to go for it.
Andybob,
but but you herwt her feewings with truth and logic.
I have one question did she stomp her feet and hold her breath as well just like a 3 year old?
She did stomp her feet as she atttempted to make what she imagined was a diva exit – but was too short, sour and suburban to pull it off.
She was an aquaintance of the wife of a couple I have known for years. They thanked me because she was beginning to drop in uninvited. A lonely spinster between cats. I meet many women like her. Their misandry is so ingrained that it’s almost subconscious.
It led to an interesting discussion where I questioned the wife as to why she allowed someone to insult her husband under his own roof. She had never considered how misandric comments could be insulting to her husband. Really.
I believe the MRE and terrorist labels will be used more and more……keep telling that lie…..until people believe it. I’ll tell you what the future holds unless Ron Paul becomes President……SOPA and NDAA will be used to shut down all MRM sites….and prominent MRAs will probably find themselves arrested….held indefinately…..and maybe never seen again. The powers these laws give the military….and cops…..is absolutely frightning…….and they are not being enacted for the reasons they say…..their intent….is to give them the power to shut anybody up that they don’t want to have a voice……and that list will include us……no doubt about it. Remember Assange?
Yes, I get tired of this thing guys seem to have to do……it’s like……this guy is great…..a hero…….than they say one thing they don’t like and it’s…….this guy is a total retard…..evil incarnate.
There is two types of people in this world guys……those that are on our side……fighting for mens rights…….and all the other losers…….enemies. JTO is on our side…..big time…..and if he says some stuff you don’t agree with…..disagree…….quietly……there is enough on the other side bagging us……we don’t have to add to it.
Exposing Feminism, their beliefs, their agenda, is what irks them I guess. I would not be worried about them trying to label the community as extremists, or terrorists, or what have you. We need more such exposures, and spread the word.
Proud to be an ‘Equality-Extremist’
And FTSUing people like the S.C.U.M-scum and the mentally deranged sounding RadFem -ists, I’m very happy to point the light at their beliefs and ask, “what’s wrong with me opposing that shite?”
Gandhi and Martin Luther King being the only valid comparisons I can come up with, I am wondering if they were described as ‘extremists’ by their opposers at that time?
There’s something rotten in a world that calls people fighting for basic human rights for extremists.
Let’s see, in the last six months I have seen women celebrate male mutilation on national television,
A video of women dancing around the corpse of an executed man which was so inspiring it was deemed fit for children,
A group of women at Radfem discussing the final solution to the male problem,
And finally, a man so atrociously abused by a family court system that he lit himself ablaze in protest.
If telling the truth is a crime, which it seems to be these days then I guess we should all be marched off to the gas chamber.
I recall reading a magazine special on Charles Manson once. The magazine stated that:
“Charles Manson was unique among serial killers in that he was a killer by proxy. He never killed anyone himself, but inspired people to kill others.”
So, Charlie Manson is a dangerous killer that needs to be locked up because he inspired women and men to kill…
…Meanwhile Valerie Solanas, Mary Daly, Andrea Dworkin who urge women to murder half the human race are feminist icons.
Why is it, I wonder?
Oh yeah! It’s because Charlie Manson had a penis and his followers killed women along with men, I forgot!
Silly me! I should have known that urging violence against men doesn’t really count as “murder by proxy”. My Bad!
I’ve been an AVFM reader ever since it was a small website with articles. I watched it grow, and I watched it flourish. I read all the articles. I haven’t seen anything that urged violence against women or against anyone for that matter.
Your rebuttal is way too long. Here’s mine. “MRE? What the fuck is that?”.
Yeah, we’re extremists,just like Galileo or Christopher Columbus.
The only reason why our ideas can be painted as extreme by some is because the people we’re arguing against are the equivalent of those who believed the earth was flat several hundred years ago.To the idiots who would use such a childish term as “MRE”, gender issues are a single tiny point centered on women,when in reality, they are a sphere which encompasses all of us. If you don’t take the issues that affect men into account while dealing with gender issues, you might as well be using the Ptolemaic model of astronomy.
I predict not only increased use of MRE and increased attacks on MRA’s. But, a strong effort to back even just a few MRA’s into a corner and hope one or two explode with violence.
Feminists seek to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. In which they beat and beat and beat a man or two until he reacts and then point and say, “See I told you they were violent”.
It is their last hope, we hold the logical high ground, we hold the moral high ground, while they will resort to torture of men to elicit a reaction and incite a mob mentality reprisal program.
This is why I 100% agree with JtO. Violence can have no place among MRA’s.
I wouldn’t even suggest that an abused man should hit his attacker to stop her unless his life is threatened, this is likely to only show him the inside of a jail cell. Morally and in strict legal terms he would be within his rights to do so but, the reality of the application of DV laws and kid-glove treatment of female violent criminals render that choice both foolish and risky to the abused.
Or they might try to pin the violence of some individuals on MRAs, I think I have already seen something like that before.
Women have never been oppressed, and so feminism has been built on lies. Why should we be surprised that the movement is sinking to new lows? Articles such as this clearly show feminism as evil.
First feminism aimed to estrange men and women. Done. It’s next step is to encage men more forcefully, something that is happening through VAWA and campus regulations regarding rape claims. One wonders what stage three will be.
The next stage is to limit men to the lower class claiming the middle class for families, that means single women, women with children, and older women.
Men will be janitors, automechanics and lift heavy objects.
This is evidenced in a recent story of a homelss vet that killed a few homeless people here in califonia this week.
As it turns out, his father is also homeless, used to be a store manager and got laid off and his wife put him out.
Father and son.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/troubled-marine-veteran-suspected-in-deaths-of-calif-men-who-were-homeless-like-father/2012/01/17/gIQA0dLw4P_story.html?tid=pm_national_pop
You must not be an Auto mechanic. My son is. Today’s automobiles contain more complex computers than the ones that went to the moon.
If you are a GOOD mechanic, you make bank, and EVERYbody wants to be your friend!
I’m not sure if this is a call out to violence or something more dangerous, the attempt to splinter men’s groups as they have with the kimmels and good men projects.
Women are chattering monkeys.
But this is a debate so we must respond.
Yes, the feminists that came after the 50′s are supremacists.
Let’s refer to all feminists that came after 50′s as “SCUM feminists” after Soldano who they all truley secretly idolize.
So, if a woman has a conversation say, ” Are you a SCUM feminist? Because I don’t talk to SCUM”.
One of the first things a half million feminists did after winning the right to vote was to join the Klu Klux Klan. The woman who worked so hard to make abortion legal often gave speeches at Klan rallies.
We can all conclude that feminism is a bastardized version of Marxism and was a hate movement from the very beginning.
it is a hate movement that was bought and paid for by the elites to further stimulate social decay.
“Yes, the feminists that came after the 50′s are supremacists.”
Perfect description of what men have to put up with on a daily basis, and the roots of the deeply disrespectful attitude we see in our families, at work, in the media, etc. It is sex-supremacy. My sisters are like this, yet would be surprised if I told them that. Hard to tell someone who things she’s better than you that she’s wrong. Since she’s superior to you, she’ll laugh at you, at best think you’re cute for getting out of line.
Men put up with sex-supremacy for so long that they internalize it.
Foxy Proxy
—————
one, two, she’s after you,
three, four, always hungry for more.
five, six, get your crucifix,
seven, eight, don’t drink with her late.
nine, ten, wake up men.
I said it before and I’ll say it again yet again and again and over again. Children first learn violence from their primary nurturer. Josef Fritzl did. So did Adolf Hitler. So did Josef Stalin and Pol Pot. What is it that we’re not getting? Why are people stating these ideas as if they are an epiphany? What all tyrants have in common is that they first poked their heads out into the world from between a woman’s legs. Are we allowing feminists to get away with dismissing long-held commonsense, like “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world?” Ok, so we don’t have cradles any more. Doesn’t change the reality of Mother’s influence.
We are caught in the “it’s all in the genes” bullshit, and so we overlook the important role that mothers have in wiring up the brain. Initial conditions, chaos theory.
Remember back when schizophrenogenic mothers were a concern? Just because you can’t find much sensible material these days on the topic using google does not mean that the phenomenon has ceased to exist. What, have we all swallowed the leftist bullshit that mothers bear no responsibility for how their children are raised? And so we bend over backwards trying to explain that women are mean too? This conversation is unnecessary.
People seem to be stating the idea that women get others to act on their behalf as if it’s news. It’s not news… to me… nor would it be news to people of other cultural backgrounds with various sorts of historical influences, both religious and cultural. It’s only news to the genocentrists and the evo-psych crowd.
The primal basis of chivalry and the willingness of men to do women’s dirty-work is Mother’s influence. Mother’s physical strength and stature is never less than that of the child to whom she gives birth. Never ever. Every ape, every half-witted white knight bozo, chivalrist and mangina is simply responding to the initial conditions that were etched into his simpleton brain at his earliest stages from the fetus through to infancy and on to childhood. And yes it is true that the mother begins to wield her influence as early as the fetal stage (see arbitrary smattering of references below). The father’s role, properly executed, is about extinguishing mother’s toxic influence.
Some specifics from Russian and Austrian sex maniacs share shocking similarities:
What were the mothers of Fritzl, Mokhov, Priklopil and Komin if not, somehow, schizophrenogenic?
It’s not in the genes. Anyone who persists with the genocentric fairytale is destined to continue trying to explain to everyone else that women are just as mean as men. This “women are mean too” conversation is entirely unnecessary. There is no reason whatsoever why we should feel the compunction to explain ourselves. Just tell them to get fucked. There is no reasoning with these cretins.
I love the work you’re doing JTO, and I’m on your side. But let’s draw the line on how we engage the stupid. If someone told you that the sky was pink with purple stripes, are you going to try to explain to them why it is not so? People this stupid are the enemy. Don’t engage them. No violence, no conversation, nothing.
Arbitary smattering of references for mother’s influence on developing fetus:
Mampe, B., Friederici, A. D., Christophe, A., & Wermke, K. (2009). Newborns’ cry melody is shaped by their native language. Current Biology, 19(23), 1994-1997.
Ockleford, E. M., Vince, M. A., Layton, C., & Reader, M. R. (1988). Responses of neonates to parents’ and others’ voices. Early Human Development, 18(1), 27-36.
Oostindjer, M., Bolhuis, J. E., Van den Brand, H., & Kemp, B. (2009). Prenatal flavor exposure affects flavor recognition and stress-related behavior of piglets. Chemical Senses, 34, 775-787.
Trevarthen, C. (2002). Making sense of infants making sense. Intellectica, 1(34), 161-188.
(Hint: it ain’t in the fucking genes)
And remember… Children first learn violence from their primary nurturer. Never forget that. And don’t bother discussing it with the ignorant. They’ll never get it. And keep up the great work you’re doing.
Strong independent women raise psychos.
I don’t think that’s correct. Dysfunctional kids are the product of dysfunctional parents.
In many (if not most) cases, the word parents (that is plural) is not applicable.
In Daniel Amneus’ classic work “The Case for Father Custody,” he makes the point that the major problem with single motherhood is not that mothers themselves are somehow deficient, but that hypergamy will drive women to throw out their husbands and seek new men if there is no balancing factor (such as default father custody).
According to Amneus, default father custody is necessary not because men are inherently better parents, but instead for the purpose of keeping two-parent families together. The existing system of alimony, child support, and default mother custody ensures lots of single parent families that happen to be headed by mothers, which end up raising fundamentally broken people.
I agree with JtO on this.
The constant breaking of the male offspring’s will and psyche, that SOME strong and independent women feel the need to practice on a daily basis, to reassure themselves in their delusional superiority over males, is what creates psychos.
Persons who feel obsessive-compulsive desire to seem superior to other persons are neurotic. They tend to feel that they are unable to cope with the challenges of their world and as a result feel inadequate and inferior. Some of them try to compensate with grandiose self-concepts, by feeling fictional superiority to other persons. Being raised in a closed environment by a person that suffers from this, is almost guaranteed to produce offspring that behaves dysfunctional or violent in one way or another.
I understand all this, but wherever you look, the nutcase was raised by a single mother, that was my point.
“that SOME strong and independent women feel the need to practice on a daily basis, to reassure themselves in their delusional superiority over males, is what creates psychos.”
what you’re describing isn’t the behaviour of a strong or independant woman. Rather, this is a bully compensating for their own insecurity and weakness. The necessity that nobody be allowed a mental stature greater than themselves
@Leos Tomicek:
Yes, I get it.
My point being, that had the dysfunctional parent in question been male, the outcome would have been more or less the same. However, that is somewhat harder to determine, as mothers get the custodial rights in most divorces.
@JtO:
I have no problem with agreeing with that. I have a whole family of matriarchs working in high profile jobs that are viewed as strong and independant by the outside world, but I assure you that that is only skin deep.
@ Kimski and John
Also notice that the above-linked article in Komsomol’skaya refers to these women as strong, who have kicked the father out of the house. It just was reminiscent of all those single mother apologists out there.
I agree that a guy can have a bad influence too, but guys do not have their times of the month, and other software bugs. I would bet that if children were awarded in roughly equal numbers to men, the track record of men on this would be better. But that’s speculation about what is not…
@Leos Tomicek:
I completely agree with that.
I also believe that there’s a basic inability to understand the behaviors and motivations of men/boys that needs to be taken into account, as stated by several women on this site on numerous occasions. They all seem more or less surprised when confronting their boys with MR issues, as an example.
The most important point, though, is that the mother usually gets first go at rewiring the child’s brain. She is more likely to be the primary nurturer, while the father is more likely to be the utility device that provides for the family. I think that the “initial conditions” metaphor from chaos theory is applicable, because it is the primary nurturer that lays the foundations for everything that comes afterwards. It’s like any course you take at university needs foundational assumptions in order to begin developing the rest.
And I agree with what Kimski & JTO suggest about the confusion between “strong” vs “bully”. The author of the linked article is making that very mistake. The bullying, insecure mother (that the author flippantly describes as “strong”) can destroy a psyche in a way that nothing else can. But the mother’s influence is obscured by presumptions about genetic “inheritance”. The toxin that is attributable to her influence alone is rendered invisible because of the myth of genetic inheritance. “Obsessive-compulsive”, domination and control are important components of this toxin. Any behavioral toxin that is inherited from the primary nurturer (whether male or female) is more important than genetic inheritance, as far as psychological development goes.
Those people…it is those people who advocate against violence yet they are preparating violence. Such hypocrisy must be stopped or more people would suffer as a result.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087868/Men-kill-partners-discovering-affair-protected-law-loss-control-consideration-rules-judge.html
Men who murder their cheating partners CAN use ‘loss of control’ as a defence
That “used” to be known as “justifiable homicide” in the ’60′s.
I am getting sick and tired of people trying to sabotage AVFM by telling us to tone down our rhetoric. Criticism of women is not hate. Women are human beings, and they are fair game for criticism. If the truth scares you, then go back to the blue-pill world. Men did not start this gender war, but we sure as hell will be the gender than ends it.
I wish people would stop pulling verbal punches. Men have been financially, emotionally, and physically destroyed for the past 50 years, but we still get little sympathy. We are still hearing from people, some even being red-pillers, who tell us to treat women as dainty flowers and be nice so no one gets offended.
What is it going to take before people have had enough of misandry and stop babying people?
There can be tactical reasons to do this also.
Every time anyone says “women can’t do XYZ”, what I hear is, “slave, you are responsible for doing XYZ because women can’t.”
Labeling the resistance as “terrorists” is what Libya’s Gaddafi, and that giraffe-neck dude in Syria did – even though it was pretty obvious that they were the violent ones.
The interesting part is that legitimate, peaceful resistance only got called “terrorists” when they started to become genuine threats.
You are all “monsters” using logic in an argument is verbal abuse and intimidation, a form of domestic terrorism perpetuated by the western patriarchy. You should all be arrested and castrated for your refusal to understand your disposability. HOW DARE YOU take offense at false accusations, biased courts or the brutal sexual mutilation of an innocent man. Laugh with us, it did not happen to you “Man Up”. Womyn _is_ never_ bad .org
Being labeled an “extremist”, in-and-of-itself is no big deal.
People who just hold pictures of abortions and actually harm no one are called “extremists” for displaying a picture or holding a belief about abortion.
People who want no restrictions on gun ownership are called “extremists” even though they have never committed a violent act.
Don’t worry about that.
All they can do is attack or try to shame us. They know they can never go up against us with facts so they use lies instead. What’s new?
“The progress we need will only be realized by inflicting enough pain on the agents of hate, in public view, that it literally shocks society out of its current coma.”
But it’s exactly that kind of incendiary language that’s meant to draw attention to the site. And now you’re having to defend against it…the grappling point.
Who cares if this is misinterpreted as suggesting violent intent? Isn’t that the idea? To be rather bombastic in tone? (no pun intended)
Well JTO all I can say is that you spoke for me as well, we are not terrorists, extremists nor unlike our opponents are we seeking privileges, superior rights or special “affirmative action” programs. We are PEOPLE too and we demand to be treated with fairness and justice without prejudice to our sex. If that makes us “extremists” then for sure the wrong folks are running the asylum. By the way if anyone comes up with an emphatic form of words that would bind signatories to a commitment to non-violent activism I will gladly sign it. Our opponents should not take comfort from this however as non violent activism can still get the job done if we persist and use our craniums.
“I calmly told her that I had a ‘Male Solution’: that we both behave like grown-ups and use the proper terms – ‘MRA’s’ and ‘feminists’. She stormed off in a huff. They really can’t handle anyone coming back at them – so brittle [...] She did stomp her feet as she atttempted to make what she imagined was a diva exit – but was too short, sour and suburban to pull it off. ”
Women are easily intimidated by the calm rationality of men. To men, women often come across as immature and childish. But to children, these same women that are easily intimidated by men can be the crooked, be-warted, cackling witches of children’s worst nightmares.
Children first learn violence from their primary nurturer.
I’ve received emails similar to the one GWW received regarding my friendship with Mr Elam and my affiliation with this site. They use different shaming and scare tactics with me.
One concerned individual warned me that my public association with AVfM a site that says “women deserve to be raped” will undermine my credibility. They usually add that the MRM has “some valid points,” but . . .
After carefully considering their well-intentioned warnings, I’m still here.
‘They usually add that the MRM has “some valid points,” but . . .’
Yeah, it’s that subconscious whisper from the small furry creature of fairness and ‘the right thing to do’. You just can’t make the damned thing shut up, even if you place it in a cage of it’s own, inside the cage that houses the rationalization hamster.
have you published those emails?
Nah. I read them and then I file them away in a special folder I have. Sometimes I respond. Sometimes I don’t respond. Sometimes I forward them to Paul. But they always end up in my special folder.
The women of the MRA should really join forces on that subject.
There’s got to be material for an article full of responses from feminists to you, in that combined amount of warnings against the evil menz of the MRA. It would probably be a worthwhile read, along with a good laugh or two.
I liken it to being ostracized by the cool kids for dating an unpopular person or a jealous girl who makes up lies about another girl who is dating the guy she wants.
I’ve also gotten the, “Well, yes, some women may be abusive, but what if the information here got into the wrong hands? [Gasp] The horror, the horror.” The implication being what if abusive men use the information on S4M to twist things and claim the women they’re abusing are abusing them. Typically, my response has been, “You mean like some abusive women do with the information on women victim/men villain sites?”
Yes, we deese close state sekrets on zee shrink4men. Damn zat moose and squirrel. (Not a reference to Zorro and Kyle, btw).
@Dr.T:
ROFLMAO.
“Well, yes, some women may be abusive, but what if the information here got into the wrong hands? [Gasp] The horror, the horror.”
-What are the neighbors going to sayyy..??? *gasp* *twitch* *shudder*
I like you.
There’s no other way to say it.
Aw, shucks, kimski. I like you, too.
@Dr.T:
/Blushes modestly and takes a bow.
How true, David (manboobz) Futrelle, offers none of these things,
but has added “cultivating violence” to his standard mocking, shaming, misrepresenting and lying tacitcs, much to the pleasure his feminist audience.
Good head on writing.
When many other people start realizing the issues concerning men and that the men writing about them actually do have valid considerations it will be the critics to this who will be recognized as being the “extremists”.
These men introducing men’s issues to the greater world will have irrefutable facts and the critics will have what?… slogans and more groundless accusations?
Emotions can motivate the actions of many people but the facts usually win in the end.
“I was one of the writers calling for the identification of the makers of the video and then publishing the identities of these murder advocates…” (JtO)
And you were identified as being the one in the wrong? Men of differing ages become wrongly demonized and publicly identified for things of much lesser importance. You did the right thing by informing the people of the world about this video and those who produced it Mr. JtO. I’m certain that a silent majority would be inclined to agree with you.
“A police officer who batons, pepper sprays, tasers or arrests a man accused of attacking his wife on no evidence except her accusation is a white knight.”
I refer to them as “brown shirts” after their many similarities to 1930s, National Socialist, brown shirts. After WWII, when some brown shirts and/or their ilk were on trial at the Nuremberg Trials, they used as a defense, “I was just being a good German soldier.” Today many American “White Knight / Brown Shirts” use the same excuse.
The prevailing counter argument, that was successfully used against those WWII era brown shirts was, “There is a law above the law.” In other words, you have a conscious, you know what’s right and wrong, and you knew you were doing wrong by committing gross human rights violations in the name of the law. Therefore, it is everyone’s duty to disobey corrupt and evil laws and the government(s) that promote(s) them. That’s a concept that goes back to America’s Declaration of Independence, and that’s something I cite to judges when I’m ask to serve on jury duty.
http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
I subsequently tell the judge that I will not follow his instructions on the law (when asked to do so), but as a jury nullificationist, I will sit in judgment, not just on the facts in the case, but on the law itself.
Any legal system that discriminates against men the way America does can expect my lawful opposition at every possible opportunity. Any legal system that has passed into law as much man-hating feminist legislation as America has can expect my lawful opposition at every possible opportunity.
Except that cops are PAID to do that .
If a bystander intervenes like that, yes. It’s white knighting. Cops are under directives to behave that way – they will respond as they are trained, or lose their jobs – or lose their lives sometimes.
They aren’t doing it cause they are siding with women.
Domestic disturbances are the #1 most dangerous situation for cops, and if that’s the most expedient way to put an end to injuries or death, that’s going to be the standing order.
It’s not fair, it’s not right, but it’s effective.
The Brown shirts were paid too and cops aren’t forced by threats of violence.
“Domestic disturbances are the #1 most dangerous situation for cop”
That is a completely false statement perpetuated by cops seeking to cloak themselves in victimhood.
“Public acts of violence with political motivations are called acts of terrorism.”
That’s the most accurate definition I’ve ever seen for America’s Violence Against Women Act and the white knight – brown shirt goons (police, prosecutors and judges) that enforce it.
MRE is a misnomer as the feminists are using it. Under the jack boot of the feminist hate movement, male MRE’s are really (Marginalized, Ripped-off, Expendables).
Many a man has gained a new perspective on how disposable men are in Western society, when some military superior informs him that he’s “expendable.” Expendability is treated like it’s an honor in order to dampen the shock for the man hearing it, but it still means the government, the powers that be, will expend (end) your life in a second and there’s nothing you can do about it. His body, never his choice. Women have never faced that kind of glaring inconsideration for their lives – ever.
After women gained liberation in the 1960s, along with vastly more human rights, males subsequently became even more, “the expendables.” Male expendability has always been institutionalized in Western society, but has become much more so with the relentless man-hating juggernaut of the feminist hate movement.
We’re not extremists, we’re EMANCIPATORS. We work to free all males from the evil bondage/slavery of misandrist laws, many (if not most) being a direct result of the feminist hate movement. We are MEN RIGHTS EMANCIPATORS!
Thank you JTO, Paul and all the other contributors here. You are truly MRE’s (Men’s Rights Enlighteners). Keep up the good work of Men’s Rights Enlightenment, until even dullard feminist minds see the light.
I absolutely love the MRE (Men’s Rights Espirit De Corps) at AVfM.
Somebody tell the idiot, Marxist-feminist stooges, that we’re not going to let them steal and dictate language and vernacular today – as is their usual modus operandi.
Please inform any addle brained feminist, referring to me by their interpretation of MRE, that she/he can address me as His Men’s Rights Excellency, accompanied by a very appropriate kiss of my foot.
Last week in the AVfM Radio chat room I observed it’s an easy mistake for femmies to make as they seem to have a difficult time not slipping in an “E” after an “M.”
Extremists advocate for things like the murder of innocents based on nothing more than gender. Extremists advocate for gender eugenics. Activists fight to wrong social injustice. Seems like DARVO – Deny, Attack and Reverse Victim and Offender.
Don’t back down. If they see a hint of fear or regret they will put you through the shame cycle. Before you know it the entire conversation will consist of them attacking you and you defending yourself. I seen it happen so many times in debates with feminist. Even if you are wrong or went a little too far it’s better to keep going than waste time apologizing. Moderation and concessions should only to be made from a place of strength where you trade one strong position for another. Better to shameless and relentless at least then they will respect you.
These bastards don’t have a snowflakes if they scrabble for anything such as outright lies upon lies in order to shush us up.
In effect they are increasing our resolve to be heard.
Quite frankly it’s unbridled dickheadery to not think about stuff like this.
Bitter sweet huh ?
JTO,
Desperate moves from femies with filled diapers.
Thanks JTO
Remember this old MRA motto:
Any day the feminists aren’t raging at you, is a day you haven’t done enough for the MRM.
A miasma of hatred toward men permeates the fabric of the feminist-woman’s movement. Mens voices, when raised in protest, are characterized as a manifestation of male rage (or backlash). Their anger is demonized, rendered ineffectual and therefore ignored or unheard.
In the language of war; that is, the language of propaganda, feminists have dehumanized and vilified men as surely as warring nations emote, through propaganda, the same dehumanized images of their hated enemies.
Since misandry resides at the heart of all feminist thought, everything else; like distorted machinations of Marxist ideology applied to supposed male privilege, deception and deceit, hubris in the form of feigned sympathy as in Faludi’s book “Stiffed: The Betrayal….” or hubris in the form of sexual insult like Kaity Roiphe’s whining that male characters in novels written by young male novelists aren’t interested in sexual conquest or consummation, exploitation of individual acts of abuse by men as a justification for outrage against all men, distortions of history, concocted data (Lenore Weitzman), News media obfuscation of suffering and atrocity when inflicted on men (Srebrenica male genocide) and duplicity in condemning men of the same offenses some women freely commit against men; serves that end.
It’s no wonder these feminist miscreants will fabricate lies and threaten MRAs. It’s war to feminists and war means hatred. That’s why MRAs like Paul Elam, girlwriteswhat, JTO and many other advocates for the just humanity of men are right and they deserve our full support. They are confronting the pall of outrageous anti-male sociological bigotry operant in society and the unjust and vile outrage against men feminists encourage and perpetrate.
HIstorically, peaceful rational efforts to end violence by the state have always resulted in escalating violence by the state. No one wants to see this battle become violent, but it almost certainly will.
JTO, this is certainly (IMO) one of your most important articles. These cretins accuse us of being violent because that is THEIR go-to ambition when faced with imagined (or fabricated) oppression.
It is very true that if and/or when they bring violence against us, they will implore white knight men as pawns to do their bidding. They resort to violent fantasies because their stance is intrinsically wrong, whether they are conscious of that or not. I think many of them are and that is why the complete eradication of us is important to them. They need to silence us by guillotine because silencing us through legislation isn’t working for them. It is just bringing “the fight” in us out even more.
They’ve co-opted every medium on the planet for their indoctrination and now we’re starting to pop up in more and more avenues of expression – many of the same ones they’ve used successfully. I equate them to a bank robber on a televised police chase. They’ll take all sorts of detours; often run on foot, duck under awnings, crawl in doghouses, etc, but the spotlight is on them and they will be caught at the end of the road.
We’re trapping them and the only way out for them is to start shooting or lie down on the ground. But in running off their base, primal and irrational instincts as they do, they will defend their empire by any means necessary.
Hey guys- I emailed Paul this info, but also thought I would post it here as well.
I was searching the other day and found this video on you tube that shocked me of a woman, I think she is a dominatrix, or something. She was beating her boy friend or lover or male slave in public. It was sickening. I guess some guys are into that kind of sick stuff, but I think it is degrading and evil. I commented on how bad it is to treat another person like that and this is the reply I got back from the woman. Her reply back to me, “worst …. I sell his internal organs on the internet.” I don’t know if she is serious or not. This is one sick bitch. Her channel name is exchange86
Here is the link to the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm0KeZ-GaOU
She needs to be in jail. I don’t know why any guy would be involved with someone like her! it’s one thing to have a weird sexual fetish like Sado Masochism, but for her to reply back to me that she plans to cut him up and sell his internal organs that is just twisted and sick insane and criminal. I thought you might like the info and might have something to say about it in one of your videos- or your own posts if you have one. I also sent this info to Bernard Chapin.
I hope you guys have a nice day- and stay safe!
You guys ever noticed if you go to some online feminist article that allows you to post a comment that they have a very short time period to allow for comments? I bet some comments from men don’t even get posted or if they do they are quickly removed. I wanted to reply to a post on Huffington post and they had already closed the time for comments to be posted. How typical! Anything to keep guys from rebuffing anything stupid they say.
Howdy and G’day. With my own personal life exp.
and what I’m reading in the news and on this and related blogs one thing is clear: The time for action is now! I’m seeing some great minds here and real spirit!
I propose a SHOWDOWN with the Feminists. We’ve
got them on false Stats. we have the Agent Orange Files. We’ve had our Dunkirk; it is Time for D Day!
I propose an intellectual showdown on TV! We might
just be able to get airtime for such an event. Perhaps
two opposing teams of twelve. We could elect leaders
and select a roster for them to choose the balance of the team. I’m new here but it appears that JTO, Paul
Elam and FIDELBOGEN would be a good start. If you
read this please feel free to grab it to a more current
blog or bring it to the attention of others. THANK YOU!