The-Threat

Violence by proxy

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

This isn’t a quote easily attributable to any one particular person, but it’s an idea which has entered mainstream thought and finds easy agreement.  The quote is actually a mis-quote of the actress Sally Fields who said during an Oscar acceptance speech in 1980, “If Mothers Ruled the World There Would be No War”.

Violence, or the threat of violence – attributed to the MRM, is one of the principal foci of attack by opponents to the movement seeking human rights for men and boys.  These attacks are not merely false; they are the opposite of the truth. While it is not complete to say so, it is true that the men’s rights movement is an anti-violence movement. In fact, one of the principal points in rejection of ideology opposing male human rights is the violence inherent in that oppositional ideology.

This is frequently repeated within men’s rights writing but is then either ignored or misunderstood by ideologues clinging to oppositional systems of dogma. Conformist writers following a populist narrative continue to recite versions of the simplistic and false claim that violence is gendered or that men are, by virtue of sexual identity, the source of violence or predation in human affairs. When examined in a clear light, the absurdity and hatred of these claims is obvious. However, in order to understand the basis for rejecting the ideology opposing male human rights, due to that ideology’s reliance on violence, the use of force through proxy must be examined and understood.

If two people have a disagreement of opinion and one of them attempts to sway the other’s point of view or change their course of action using violence, this is direct violence, which conforms to most people’s understanding of what violence is. This exists in the real world, but to imagine that all, or even most, violence fits into this extremely simple model is an incomplete concept. In the real world, violence is rarely placed in demand and initiated by the same individual. Most real-world violence is enacted by proxy.

Soldiers deployed to foreign countries and given duties which include killing brown people on oil bearing land are performing the proxy violence of the politicians whose executive instructions sent them there.

Police officers responding to a woman who claims her boyfriend did something which frightened her, who place him in handcuffs or remove him from the house prior to asking questions, whether her complaint had merit or not, are enacting proxy violence on behalf of that woman.

A man who uses violence on another man because the target of that violence offended or insulted somebody whose favor the aggressor seeks is enacting proxy violence on behalf of that person.

A woman who broadcasts her own grievance of impugned honor to chivalry-practicing males for them to redress on her behalf is, in many cases, making a plea for proxy violence.

These are blatantly obvious examples of violence by proxy, but many more types of violence, effected at once or more remove, can be listed.

In a society in which one demographic is known to carry the majority of violent criminal victimization (men), exclusive direction of efforts to reduce that violence to the demographic least impacted (women), is the implicit promotion of the ongoing brutalization of the first group. This is the maintenance of violence by proxy.

Many more examples could be listed, but are omitted here for brevity. The point being that violence in the real world doesn’t too often occur in a vacuum in which the direct participants, the aggressor and the subject of a violent action operate without relation to other indirectly participating actors. Adults with a functional grasp of reality will already be aware of this; however, such individuals form a small, vanishing fraction of the general public.

A number of writers addressing sub-cultures growing within the MRM, such as zeta masculinity and MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) – including myself – have explicitly rejected violence in their own philosophies. This includes the social expectation of enacting the proxy violence of others which seems to be accepted as normal within social conservative rhetoric. This is the assumed requirement for men to automatically participate in or to volunteer themselves as targets of violence on behalf of others. This social expectation is wholly irrational, not only in the automatic acceptance of or enactment of violence, but also in the de-valuation of the life and safety of any individual expected to buy into socially required violence by proxy.

It is startling when critics of this point of view characterize the explicit rejection of violence as if it is an endorsement or advocacy of the violent use of force. The degree of ideological distortion necessary for the rhetorical transmogrification of opposition to violence into enthusiasm for violence provokes the need to explain this reaction. Can these critics be simply lying? Perhaps they suffer from some form of dementia? Or is their ideology so immovable that a wholly fictional reality is superimposed on what filters through their eyes and ears before it is processed?

One example of this might be the oppositional reporting on a group of ideologues whose public rhetoric makes open advocacy of eugenics. A writer using the pseudonym Vliet Tiptree published this emotional call for an engineered program of extermination. Many months later, this nightmarish diatribe remains online, despite the public notice which followed commentary on that insanity by MRAs on this site. However, other ideologues, who claim a mandate to oppose violent hate organizations, listed as dangerous the activists exposing and opposing this endorsement of eugenics, omitting the author and supporters of the still-publicly visible call for human extermination by sex as violent hate mongers. Worse, the same organization previously exposed for their advocacy of eugenics and infanticide are now openly raising money on behalf of that self-styled anti-hate organization.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is now being openly funded by an organization which publicly calls for sexually selective eugenics and infanticide.

Neither hypocrisy nor corruption is adequate to any attempt at description of this situation.

To return to the discussion of indirect violence and violence by proxy: All over the world, violence by proxy is the rule, rather than the exception. Starting in January 2011 and continuing to the present, Egyptians have protested and assembled in public in opposition to President Mubarak. In these demonstrations, Mubarak’s security forces have brutalized, batoned, water-cannoned, run down with trucks, and shot hundreds of young Egyptian men. These security forces rain a torrent of brutal and deadly violence against the Egyptian civilian population.

Throughout this brutality, it’s necessary to note that all of this is violence by proxy, not the individual volition of members of those security forces to engage in coordinated campaigns of public abuse and killing. However, in December 2011, during a protest in which hundreds of civilians clashed with security forces inflicting Mubarak’s violence – a woman was shoved to the ground, kicked, and beaten by several baton-wielding security members and had her garment partially ripped, revealing her blue bra. This was certainly not the only woman subject to public abuse by Mubarak’s forces – and it must be noted that thousands of men were brutalized compared to relatively few women. However, in the international outrage that among the thousands of men killed, shot and bludgeoned, some women were similarly abused – nobody seemed to catch the meaning of Egyptian women’s protest in response to this incident.

Outraged that a handful of women were subject to the beatings and violence, which thousands of protesting men suffered, on Tuesday December 20, hundreds of Egyptian women took to the  streets chanting “Drag me, strip me, my brothers’ blood will cover me.”

Piling on like lemmings, the international media roundly denounced the horrible, horrible brutality suffered by a handful of Egyptian females – as if the thousands of men truncheoned, run down with trucks, tortured, and variously murdered just didn’t count. But nobody seemed to grasp that the thousands of Egyptian women protesting the public beating of blue-bra-woman were pledging not themselves in protest, but their brothers. “Drag me, strip me, my brothers’ blood will cover me.”

The abject moral bankruptcy innate in this pledge, and the international community’s total failure to even notice that in a nation ruled under the supposedly woman-oppressing rule of Islam, thousands of women outraged that a handful suffered violence similar to what THOUSANDS of men suffered – these women pledged their brother’s blood in retribution.

This is the abject and total disposability of men, the promise of participation in violence and receipt of violence of men as proxies for the female protesters – shown in front of the entire world in bright Mediterranean sunlit illumination – “my brothers’ blood will cover me” promised in the public pledge of outraged Egyptian women. This is violence by proxy, and most of those brothers will take it, never even realizing that they count as lesser human beings to be used and killed to assuage their sisters’ and mothers’ outraged privilege.

Once the proxy violence is understood and recognized apart from the commonly held and simplistic view of direct violent application of force, it becomes useful to revisit the obvious fact that violence is abhorrent and repulsive to ethical human beings.  That is to say, direct violence is repulsive and abhorrent to most of us, for some very practical reasons. Violence carries a high social, moral, and physical cost to anyone directly using it. Administration of direct violence against another person will produce social ostracism, penalties of law, as well as the real hazard of personal injury or death. All adults understand this instinctively, so of course we find it repulsive. This is why violence by proxy is so universally preferred by those whose ethical or moral failings lead them to the use of force in worldly dealings.

War is one of the most common and is the largest scale application of proxy violence in human affairs. However, to accomplish the sleight of hand necessary to manipulate thousands of young men to travel overseas and murder foreign brown people on oil bearing land, as well as cheerfully fill the role of receptacles for violence, is no simple task. In the run up to a government shipping men overseas to die, be maimed, and kill and maim foreigners it’s necessary to cultivate a public perception of the foreigners as either victims to be rescued or portrayed as horrible evil sub-humans who must be stopped. This is recognizable as an established pattern preceding every incident of the United States flexing their empire in the past several decades.

Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. Iraq under Saddam is an existential threat to peace. The Iraqi people are to be liberated from the oppression they suffer under the despotic regime of Saddam Hussein. All of these arguments were routinely circulated in mainstream media prior to the American invasion of Iraq. That is to say, the narrative of a deadly dangerous threat was fabricated and evangelized, in preparation for hundreds of thousands of young American men to enact the proxy violence of the American state against millions of  Iraqis who were murdered through that proxy violence.

This is the creation and sale of a public narrative of danger and dehumanization of a target to be rendered an acceptable target of future violence. A similar phenomenon occurs as the pseudo-statist apparatus of the Southern Poverty Law Center propagates lists of hate groups, or “potential” hate groups, including pick up artists, social conservative women’s organizations like the Concerned Women of America as well as men’s rights activists. This is nakedly obvious as the cultivation of public acceptance for later proxy violence against named targets. Carefully omitted was an organization still openly advocating sex-selective child murder and eugenics. Although possibly their fundraising on behalf of the SPLC explains that omission? Of course, in pointing out the financial relationship between a group calling for the extirpation of humans based on their sex and an organization claiming to oppose hate organizations the hypocrisy is so blatant it has becomes unintentionally comic.

However, in spite of most people’s natural aversion and repugnance to direct violence, the indirect use of violent force comes easily to anyone able to disconnect initiation of violence from the direct practice and application thereof. There may be an argument to be made that males, traditionally both the actualizers and the recipients of the proxy violence of others, have a superior understanding and greater aversion to violence than women. But this is only conjecture, and posited as a question for later exploration rather than assertion as opinion.

Despite this, men and women both seem blithely willing to ignore the violence done by others, or to others, for their own benefit or convenience. Violence done on their behalf is what almost everybody is willing to ignore. What’s more, the violence done to them through indirection, the violence in the form of an invisible gun in the room while we all make believe that we are not being threatened with death or imprisonment whenever we have a pretend conversation. A conversation about how violence is gendered, that men are the violent, the brutal, and the evil. We will congratulate ourselves that rather than those bad men, we are good men, and in the case of women, of course, all women are good, because women, for their part, don’t generally do the heavy lifting of dispensing and, most convenient for everyone else, absorbing the proxy violence of others.

But we’re all willing to pretend proxy violence doesn’t curtain our decisions and we pretend we are above it, that the violence we denounce is not our own. It’s somebody else’s. Rather than see the moral cowardice of accepting proxy violence, we simply contrive to have its cost in damage, pain, and moral failure carried by somebody else. By men, obviously, and that fits in perfectly with the preferred narrative – that violence is simple, and direct, and that men are the ones who do it.

Because the critics of the men’s rights movement persist in behaving as if they are learning disabled, reality impaired, and bereft of comprehension, I’ll finish this with one more re-statement of what must in a sane reader now be known in the marrow of their bones. Violence is abhorrent to ethical human beings.

  • 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...

  • Jeremiah

    “That is to say, direct violence is repulsive and abhorrent to most of us, for some very practical reasons. Violence carries a high social, moral, and physical cost to anyone directly using it. Administration of direct violence against another person will produce social ostracism, penalties of law, as well as the real hazard of personal injury or death. All adults understand this instinctively, so of course we find it repulsive.”

    We are animals. Violence is in our nature. It is not instinctive to abhor violence, it is culturally conditioned to make us more pliable slaves. We don’t find violence repulsive, we are just scared of committing it lest we be penalized, which you spelled out well.

    Jack Donovan has a good article on violence here, which also touches on proxy violence: http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2011/03/violence-is-golden/

    “Violence is abhorrent to ethical human beings.”

    I disagree. In fact I’d go so far as to say abhorrence to violence is unethical.

    • Jeremiah

      I also think this comment from counter-currents is relevant (not mine):

      What people on radical traditionalist right need to understand is that “morality” changed sometime during the progression of Western metaphysics and not just because of the softness that the Gospels injected into it (but that is also by no means insignificant). Virtue ethics (Greek wisdom) is NOT today’s morality. People scarcely can relate virtue to morality because today’s morality is seen as LAW-based morality, not virtue-based. That’s what people think of when they hear the word “morality”– “law”, not an evaluation of character. Because that’s “judgmental,” after all. And we mustn’t judge. Well, if we can’t “judge,” then to the Ancient Greeks there is no morality! Real morality is pagan-based natural law, not Protestant skydaddy law. It’s not just Nietzsche who would have issues with our modern morality.

      http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/03/jack-donovans-the-way-of-men/#comment-19267

      Violence is ethical if it is used for a virtuous purpose.

      • Paul Elam

        Notwithstanding the idea that open debate about the ethical value of certain types of violence is worthy of reasoned debate, I also note that it was under your username in the AVfM radio chat-room that statements extolling the use of physical violence as a way to manage a woman’s behavior were posted. It indicates your rationale about “virtuous.”

        The bottom line here at AVfM, as has been stated on countless occasions, is that we promote only non-violent philosophy. Indeed, as this article points to aptly, we face, as men and boys, the business end of rationalized violence in the most egregious of ways.

        Your presence here is no longer welcome. If you want to promote class violence, go to Radfem Hub.

        • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

          Violence by proxy eh ?

          I like this idea of sitting behind a console of beeping lights, whirling dials and levers I can pull this way or that.

          I’m going to give this proxy thingy a go right now in fact. So here goes.

          Hey Paul. Please take this message from me to Jeremiah.

          “Dr. F violently opposes your above posts and wants you to know his index finger is extended cheerily your way.”

          P.S.
          Thank you Paul, and if you see it suits, please add that Dr. F stamped down a red thumb on his two posts with a “Stuffed” and then a “Get” in reversed order.

          • valdez_addiction

            Come now Dr. F. Are you sure that’s your index finger pointed at Jeremiah?

        • Steve_85

          I somewhat agree with Jeremiah on this.

          While I don’t advocate violence, I do think that there are times when resorting to violence is the proper course of action. There is nothing inherently wrong with violence. Indeed our entire society is built on, if not actual violence, then at the very least the threat of violence.

          I would encourage people to read the linked article by Jack Donovan.

      • valdez_addiction

        @Jeremiah

        Because of obvious social programing, all it takes is one man to make one woman hate all men. By making those statements, you give validity to the lies feminist say about men. All it takes is one of us to make a stupid statement like the ones you made in the chat room that night and we’re all considered abusers.

        Any women you feel you have to beat, is a woman you don’t need to be with. You shouldn’t feel the need to beat anyone, for that matter. That line of thinking is a slippery slope, because those who live by the sword will most certainly die by the sword.

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

          “those who live by the sword will most certainly die by the sword.”

          Unless of course, they’re a kid killing mother. And the last time I checked, the vast majority of them didn’t need no stinkin’ “proxy” to do their dirty kid killin’ work.

          http://manamongoaks.com/lumber.html
          According to the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services and DOJ statistics, more kids are killed by neglect and abuse in a year (1,460 in 2005), than all the female intimate partner homicides in in a year (1,181 in 2005). And mothers are the single largest group of kid killers. They have a rate twice that of fathers, yet the taxpayer funded (gender feminist run) domestic violence industry would have us believe that women don’t egregiously batter men too. They’re lying!

          As shown by HHS statistics, the age range for those child homicides is about ten times narrower than that for female intimate partner homicide, making that rate of child homicide far more concentrated. Yet funding to prevent those child homicides is minimal, compared to the billions that go to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

          • valdez_addiction

            Those mothers may not have died by the sword yet, but they still got some more living to do.

            Don’t forget there’s a lot of murders who thought they got away until new technology using DNA brought them to justice.

            Some way some how they’ll pay for the horrific crimes they’ve committed.

      • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

        I frequently discuss a difference between morals and ethics. Morals are a personal set of principles and values dealing in the difference between good and evil. they are often based on religious principles or dogma and can be contradictory and even illogical. Ethics are culturally based and generally derived from the use of logic and applied to groups. They often form the basis of law, but can be influenced by morals when those morals are held by large groups of individuals within a particular culture. Thus morals and ethics are not mutually exclusive, though they can be.

        An example is my own view on abortion. I believe it is morally abhorrant. But I also believe it is a vital component of an ethical society. Thus I believe it should be a legal option based on individual choice, i would never choose it.

        I believe that much the same can be said for the use of violence. It is ethically justifiable, but morally reprehensible. But as I stated above, morals can be contradictory. The reality is that violence may be necessary at times, particularly for self-defense. Even violence by proxy may be necessary in such cases. That said, I believe such cases are rare and that as a society, we are far too quick to use violence and to justify it. This includes direct as well as indirect violence.

        I think this can be illustrated by using the example of the violence that took place in a McDonald’s restaraunt last summer. I’m referring to the incident where two women attacked a McDonald’s employee even going over the counter to continue the attack. He grabbed a rod and beat them in an attempt to defend himself. Many people supported his use of violence in self-defense. Many (myself included), thought he crossed a line and at some point became the aggressor.

        From the video, it was impossible to tell exactly what was going on behind the counter so it was impossible to determine how much of his violence might be justified or unjustified and the point at which he may have become the aggressor. Any time violence is used for any reason, this point must be determined and it is not always clear.

        Further, violence damages people. It damages its victims and it damages its perpetrators, even if it is ethically or morally justifiable, and whether committed directly or by proxy. Still further, once committed, it becomes easier to re-commit and to rationalize (notice I do not say justify). For these reasons I find it nearly impossible to condone or accept violence committed for any reason whether it can be said to be morally or ethically acceptable or not.

        TDOM

        • valdez_addiction

          TDOM, you make some valid points however I disagree with the point about the McDonald’s attack. If someone initiates an attack on another human being and that person defends themselves and gains the upper hand that doesn’t mean that person becomes the aggressor.

          It means they were successful in defending themselves. Those two women had no right to slap him and then climb the counter to continue an attack, however he had every right to defend himself.

          This is why most women believe it’s okay to attack men. They know at some point the man can gain the upper hand therefore it’s justified to attack him.

          Had that been a women cashier fending off two men the news story title would have been drastically different. Instead of, “Savage attack by McDonald’s employee,” it would have been, “Brave McDonald’s employee fends off two savage attackers.”

          If that had been a police officer they attacked, he probably would have shot them.

          • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

            Wehn I first saw the videos of the McDonalds attack my opinion was that he went further than simply “gain[ing] the upper hand.” It appeared to me that he went much further. But as I stated, there was no way of really knowing what was happening on the ground because the counter was in the way.

            When I look at violence used to defend oneself, at some point one must ask how much force is necessary and when does the force used become aggression in and of itself. Where to draw that line is usually very questionable. I agree that one should be able to defend oneself, but only to the extent necessary.

            I also agree that if the attackers had been men and the employee a woman, very few people if any would have questioned the use of the same amount of force. The employee would likely have been held out as a hero. Many people here might have believed that the force was excessive. Personally, my opinion would not change. The sex of the attackers and defender should not matter. All that matters is the amount of necessary force.

            In that case a prosecutor agree with me, a jury agreed with you.

            TDOM

        • valdez_addiction

          @ TDOM,

          I fully understand what you’re saying. And trust me, I’m not arguing your point. I respect your opinion because as far as I’ve noticed it’s pretty fair and balanced.

          The McDonald’s employee’s retaliation is pretty brutal and I’m willing to admit it’s very difficult to watch. Had I been there I probably would have tried to stop him once the two where down.

          However any person who isn’t trained in the art of self defense is not prepared for an assault like that, especially by multiple assailants, so the reaction in the heat of the moment added with adrenaline and fear is uncontrolled at best.

          Violence even in self defense is always aggressive and sometimes uncontrolled, which is why I can agree that the line between necessary and unnecessary can be blurred very easily.

          I honestly believe he continued to make sure they wouldn’t get up and attack him again, however I also know that people have been killed because of that very same reasoning.

          However, even in a case as drastic as someone being killed, let us not forget it could have all been avoided if people initially respect others by keeping their hands to themselves.

          Violence in self defense will probably always be a gray area.

          • Introspectre

            I’ve had training in a traditional clan system of Tai Jutsu, and I know for a fact, that the threat to the victim goes up exponentially, with the number of assailants. It is too easy to be distracted and blindsided at that point. When attacked by multiple opponents, you must protect yourself with extreme and decisive force, or else you’re effectively opening yourself up to being overwhelmed.

            So even with training, you cannot necessarily restrain more than one person without incurring too great a personal risk. You must obliterate opponents in such a situation. Not advocating violence here, just pointing out the reality. Even if the women were smaller and weaker; against more than one opponent, you cannot afford to take chances.

          • valdez_addiction

            Introspectre,

            I agree 100%. When I was making reference to a trained combatant having control of his actions, I was speaking in terms of subduing one assailant.

            Once you have the person down and immobilized there’s no need for further violence, however with two or more people it’s much more difficult.

            I fully agree.

          • BlueBlood

            Hey mate,

            You’re definitely right in saying self-defence is always a grey area. Legally speaking, in Australia anyway, what is authorised, justified, and excused by law as self-defence basically boils down to “equal to plus one.”

            If you go “plus two” you’re in trouble. What exactly amounts to “plus one” or “plus two,” however, remains a matter for a jury.

            In my personal experience, I have never seen someone I believed to have a legal defence of self-defence go uncharged. It always remains a matter for the Court. I have fallen foul of that one, being told by a much higher power, “You will charge him – the Court will decide that matter, not you.”

            The system is broke in that regard.

            Oh, and I reckon the only Police Officer who would have shot the McDonalds assailants would be a diminutive female.

        • http://Human-Stupidity.com Human-Stupidity.com

          In the McDonald’s example, the seemingly excessive violence probably was because the employee told the women to stay on the floor, not to get up. This was his right, to safeguard his safety, to keep them from attacking again, possibly using a knife. And to do a citizens’ arrest, to keep them down till police arrives.

          So if all this is true, and if he told them to stay down before hitting them again, he was justified in my view. He also was justified to fell them. When you get attacked by 2 vicious people, you don’t wait to see if they are armed, or if they pick up a kitchen knife. You disable them.

          Nobody would have said a word, if the two attackers were MEN.

          But, I understand your point, and it is a kind of borderline case that needs to be studied in detail.

          Personally I believe that once someone clearly becomes a criminal, engages in an obviously criminal act, human rights should not go against a good man (or woman) who acts in immediate defense and might be over-acting. Except if it is very extreme.

          Human Rights are too much tilted towards defending criminals. There is a good German citizen in prison. An attacker had followed him, knocked down his friend and was attacking him. And he pulled out a small knife and cut the attacking thug’s throat. He should have politely warned him that he had a knife, waited for the thug to brandish a knife too, or waited till he got knocked down.

          @TDOM, do you have a link to the outcome of the case?

          • Darryl X

            Yes, those prone to violence, particularly feminists whose violence is not the result of an organic problem and always unjustified in any way, must be disabled. Laws that were created to disable feminists have been abandoned and ignored and dismissed. That’s why they and their ideology of hate proliferates. They must be disabled again. As I’ve written before, there is no political, legal, social or financial solution to our dilemma because all the mechanisms of these institutions and their peaceful mechanism have been coopted and perverted by feminists. The only thing left for disabling them is revolution. It is the only thing that has worked throughout history. Unfortunately, there is no peaceful solution to the problem of feminism.

          • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

            I found a link to an arrticle about it. The case never went to trial. It was actually a grand jury that refused to indict him, not a trial jury.

            http://www.dnainfo.com/20111202/greenwich-village-soho/rayon-mcintosh-be-freed-mcdonalds-beating-case

            TDOM

        • Darryl X

          Great discussion about morals and ethics. And to a population of reasonable and responsible people, it would be relevant. Unfortunately, feminists are not reasonable or responsible. They are malignant narcissists and psychopaths with no conscience.

          They are manipulative and deceiptful, predatory and opportunistic, solipsistic and without analytical skills. They are short sighted and are addicted to power and control. They are parasitic and have no concept of right and wrong or good and evil. They are incapable of learning and are irresponsible and self-serving. The list goes on.

          When dealing with people like this (and I use that term loosely), they only respond to fear, including violence. They are literally worse than animals as even animals are capable of learning to varying degrees and even demonstrate differential response to kindness.

          But malignant narcissists and psychopaths, which is what feminists are, do not distinguish between kindness and cruelty or violence and non-violence. They only know one thing – FEAR.

          And that is what has happened with the US and rest of the developed world. It has been taken over by feminists who only know fear and so that is how they rule. They kidnap children and hold them hostage for ransom. They throw men in jail when they can’t pay the ransom. They subject children to horrible abuse at the hand of mothers and deny the children access to their fathers who are the only ones who can and will protect them. The list goes on.

          Our feminist leaders only know fear and can only rule by fear. Since they only know fear then the only way to respond to their oppression is by making them afraid and unfortunately that requires imposing upon these monsters and making them afraid. That means violence.

          I don’t like it but that is the only thing that works against malignant narcissists. Reasoning with my ex-wife never worked. As a matter of fact, it only encouraged her to do more evil. The only thing that stopped her was a firm slap in the face.

          Once she realized that her persistence to do evil was going to be met with physical harm, only then did she stop. And even that was temporary. But it is the only thing that worked at all. I have met many evil people before. But I have never met someone as evil as my ex-wife.

          She was not just compelled to do some inadequate variation of the right thing or even the wrong thing but the complete opposite of the right thing. There are a million-and-one options between the right thing and its complete opposite and this woman only did the complete opposite every single time. Driven to do evil.

          These people are driven to do evil and the only way to stop them is by imposing upon them and making them fear you. Complaining will do no good because they will just interpret your complaint as evidence of their success in oppressing you and it will encourage them to do more of the same.

          Yes, these people are that evil. They are driven to do evil and they will only be stopped by those who have the courage to stop them. And that will require violence or at least revolution. Revolution is not violence. Instead, it is an affirmative defense against the violence that has already been done to us first. It is the only solution our Forefathers left us in response to our current dilemma.

          • Darryl X

            Oh, I forgot two other important quality of malignant narcissists and psychopaths (feminists) – laziness and an excessive sense of entitlement.

          • valdez_addiction

            Darryl X,

            You’re right about fear, but wrong about using violence to ensure it. The feminists are already scared.

            They’re scared because they see their bullshit coming to an end.

            Don’t forget the only reason they have any power is because it was given to them by men.

            Even as an individual, your women only has the power you give her.
            They can’t extort money from you if you don’t marry or give them a child.

            We need to educate men and boys on the lies of feminism and teach men to control themselves and be smarter when it comes to women.

            Just like the institution of racism, feminism is dying a slow death, but it will die. Why do you think feminists wanna wipe us out. They know their bullshit can’t last.

            But if you and any other men decide to jump the gun and get violent, it will be like giving feminism steroids and we’ll have a problem the likes of which we’ve never seen before.

            BTW
            Your wife didn’t stop because a slap was necessary to calm her down. She stopped because you gave her what she wanted. You gave her the grounds to call you abusive. Women push men to the point of violence as a form of manipulation. This is not because they’re evil, it’s because after the violence they can justify all their actions.

            Now no matter what evils she did in the relationship, she can always say you hit her.

            That’s how feminist gain power. By men making careless mistakes.

          • Darryl X

            @Valdez_Addiction

            “Even as an individual, your women only has the power you give her.
            “They can’t extort money from you if you don’t marry or give them a child.”

            Thanks for your response and I appreciate the sentiment of your comment but you are wrong. Perhaps this is because you may not fully understand the extent of the problem men are facing in the US and developed world – although you seem to be on the right track compared to a lot of men. They CAN extort money even if you don’t marry or give them a child. Ten-percent of child support obligors (male) are victims of paternity fraud. That means they are not the real fathers. They have either been duped by the mother or they have been arbitrarily identified as the father even though they are not. Paternity fraud although illegal is not punished. In many states of the US, a paternity test is illegal in various ways so even determing paternity is not possible. Having no children is by no means an antidote for avoiding the consequences of child support. Bradley Amendment to Title IV-D of the Social Security Act of 1996 prevents downward modification of any order for child support. Less than 5% of all petitions for reduction have ever been successful and almost all of them were before 1996. Even if you are not paying child support directly, the public (mostly men) in general pays for a mother’s irrational imposition upon the father (or alleged father) of her children in many other taxes and costs and waste of money on the Divorce Industry and all its related industries like social workers and marriage counselors and law enforcement and so on. Think about the proportion of your tax dollars wasted on law enforcement responding to false allegations of domestic violence by a man, almost always to cover up or distract from her own violence.

            There are many more ways besides exploiting children by which women go around men to satisfy their excessive life styles and addiction to power and control. Child snatching is just one institutionalized in law, politics, society and finance. Avoiding marriage and children is probably a more immediate problem but there are many more with consequences just as disasterous and implications for society and civilization just as great.

            “Your wife didn’t stop because a slap was necessary to calm her down. She stopped because you gave her what she wanted. You gave her the grounds to call you abusive.”

            I did not slap my wife to calm her down. That NEVER works (if a woman wants to be calmed down then calming her down will work and if she doesn’t then it won’t – they are addicted to power and control and the more you acquiesce to their manipulation the more they will try to manipulate you to satisfy their addiction). I slapped my wife to physically restrain her from abusing me and my son because law enforcement, marriage counselors, psychologists and psychiatrists, attorneys and many other professionals in the community and family members and friends and the community in general who either were aware of her behavior or should have been aware of her behavior refused to stop her because they are afraid of her (or they were just deceived by her). The only thing that will stop a malignant narcissist from doing evil is forcible restraint. Without the community to stop her, the responsibility is entirely on the husband and father which doesn’t work very well without support by the community. People often complain about the poor children of divorce but really even in marriage the children and the husband are in dire circumstances because of how the woman abuses her family in so many ways and in most instances just because she can and has a huge feminist legal and political machine behind her. There was nothing careless or mistook about it. She needed to be stopped and there was no other way to stop her because our culture has acquiesced to the violence and manipulation by women.

            “Don’t forget the only reason they have any power is because it was given to them by men.”

            The feminist lobby is so powerful that women have absolute power whether a man gives it to them (her) or not. Even if I had not slapped my wife, she still had already told people that I had hit her (even though I didn’t). So, it didn’t matter. She had gone so far up to that point as to bite her own lip so hard it bled endlessly and ran to our son’s bedroom screaming “daddy hit me daddy hit me” just to make it look like I punched her. That is the reality of what men are facing today. Sanctimonious platitudes like “she only has as much power as I give her” are not relevant in a narcissistic feminist culture. Especially when a mother is threatening to abuse you son if you don’t physically restrain her. You have two choices – either let her abuse your son or physically stop her. In the past I have resorted to all kinds of desperate measures to stop her, including physically picking her up and carrying her to another room as these thrashing wildly about and deposting her on the bed and running to the door and closing it behind me and holding the door shut while she slams into the other side of the door breaking its jamb. There’s a great joke about feminism – a woman falls off a yacht and her husband throws her a life preserver and yells, “Here, grab ahold of the life preserver.” The woman crosses her arms and as she’s sinking into the water to her death, she yells back, “you didn’t say please.” That’s the kind of irrationality we’re dealing with. I am forty-four years old and I have never (NEVER) in my life met a woman who was not willing to pursue such extremes for imposing her delusional version of reality on everyone else around her. Those include female co-workers and supervisors and university instructors and elementary school teachers and many others. Indeed I have met and endured the consequences of many. I probably more than most men because I refuse to acquiesce to their manipulation and threats and confront them deliberately and decisively and publicly condemn and shame them (which as you might imagine doesn’t work too well as feminists are malignant narcissists and do not feel remorse or shame or guilt). It’s hard work but if more men did it instead of just passively condemning or ignoring the problem we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today. In response to this kind of feminist nonsense, I have deliberately excommunicated my three sisters and mother for more than thirty-one years.

            “But if you and any other men decide to jump the gun and get violent, it will be like giving feminism steroids and we’ll have a problem the likes of which we’ve never seen before.”

            Without violence, we already have a problem the likes of which we have never seen. Today in the US, more children have been snatched and forcibly separated from their fathers and held hostage for ransom than any time in human history. Today thousands if not tens of thousands of men sit in prison for false allegations of rape. And the list goes on and on. And none of it was provoked by any violence. The feminists have invented the who mythology of violence against women to justify their behavior. Violence against them to stop them isn’t going to make things any worse. They are already as bad as they can get. Basically, feminists have instigated and created the problem they complain about (which is typical of personality disordered people) in their attempts to manipulate the public with the spectacle of their chronic victimhood. They’ve cried wolf too many times. I think it’s time for the punishment to fit the crime.

            “We need to educate men and boys on the lies of feminism and teach men to control themselves and be smarter when it comes to women.”

            The irrational behavior of women is independent of men and their behavior. How a man behaves toward a woman will not affect her malignant narcissism or its expression. The only solution is to hold women accountable for their behavior in compliance with age-old laws which were developed for just that purpose but have been abandoned as our fascist government conspires with feminists to enslave men.

            “Now no matter what evils she did in the relationship, she can always say you hit her.”

            This conclusion is incorrect. She would have and did say I hit her anyway. It doesn’t matter what I do. It was self defense (or defense of my son). It’s not violence. Violence is when you impose yourself physically upon someone else to get what you want. You intimidate them. Striking someone to stop them from doing violence to you is self defense. That person must be struck hard enough to disable them and prevent them from another attack. My only regret is that I only slapped my wife (gently on the face) to warn her instead of pounding her so hard it knocked her over so she couldn’t get up to do it again or to run to an attorney for a divorce to run to her boyfriend for sympathy. Which she did. And since she was already doing that, my actions or response to her behavior were and still are irrelevant. The system will indulge her delusions because it makes money off of them. It does not make money off the truth or my reserve or rational behavior. That’s what fascism is. That’s why are country is a fascist country and why it has been drifting that way for more than forty years.

            “Just like the institution of racism, feminism is dying a slow death, but it will die. Why do you think feminists wanna wipe us out. They know their bullshit can’t last.”

            Feminism is not dying slowly. And racism in the US is worse in many important ways than it has ever been for many insidious reasons (and the two are inextricably intertwined – read essays by David Usher). Feminism continues to grow in spectacular ways. The only way it will end is when the entire system built around it collapses and many perish or suffer. There is no political, social, legal or financial solution to our dilemma. Humans are genetically programmed to default to a primitive form of social organizing (feminism/fascism – a few alpha males rule over the women and give them what they want because they are too few in number to stop the women and the vast majority of males exist at the margins of existence or are enslaved). Without considerable effort on the part of all individuals in a population and without families, there is no way to stop it. Feminism has been fundamental to collapse of many empires and nations all the way back to Rome. People have made too much money exploiting the irrationality of women and its consequences. It’s too profitable. The cycle will always repeat itself.

          • valdez_addiction

            Wow Darrly X. I guess you told me… It’s neat how you picked apart my entire comment without disproving any of it with a valid point.

            The fact of the matter is, you’re wrong. No where in your long drawn out statement of random statistics did you once prove that slapping your wife solved anything.

            Don’t tell me I don’t understand the full extent of the problem men are facing. I’m the product of the problem men are facing.

            Unlike you I’ve been stabbed on multiple occasions, surprise attacked by her male family members which included a shoot out, wrongfully locked up, and almost killed on a couple occasions. So you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t sympathize with you having to, “lightly slap your abusive wife.”

            I didn’t have that luxury. My eight year relationship with my kid’s mother was a fight for my life. However, regardless of how many stories we regale this site with and trust me, everyone has one, you’re forgetting the fact that we choose to be with these bitches in the first place.

            And educating men and boys has nothing to do with the woman’s behavior. It’s about teaching boys to avoid these type of women and teaching men to leave them.

            You can’t and never will be able to control a woman’s behavior. Not with a slap, punch, or carefully chosen words. The only thing that will stop this behavior is when men and boys stop choosing these types of women. And women realizing it’s not socially acceptable anymore.

            This is a fantastic solution because despite what you think, all women aren’t fucked up. And these behavior patterns for modern men and women are not born. They’re learned.

            How can you dare talk about feminist accountability while it seems you’ve completely dismissed your own. And I don’t give a damn what a woman says I did, as long as I can look myself in the mirror because I know I didn’t. Even if it’s a prison mirror.

            So you can save that, “people think I hit her, so I may as well have,” bullshit set of reasoning for someone who hasn’t experienced the same thing. Fine, she was acting crazy and you hit her. I understand, but don’t pawn that bullshit off as some type of solution.

            You can’t solve violence with more violence. That has never worked. Wars are fought with violence but it’s the talking at the end of that violence that stops wars.

            If only we knew how to cut the middle man, so many innocent live could be saved. People don’t deserve to die because leaders can’t agree.

            And racism is no way near what it used to be. I don’t have to worry about being lynched or murdered for walking down the street. I don’t have a single family member that’s the victim of a hate crime. And I definitely can go and come as I please without any chains or shackles on me.
            My black great grandfather was able to buy 150 acres of land in Virginia (a very racist common wealth state) because he was a hard worker. His father and grand father could not do that. That means progress, so save you bullshit rant about racism for someone who doesn’t know the history of it.

            And feminism is and will die whether it’s slow or not because it’s built on a foundation of lies. You may not have faith that shit like than can’t stand but I know it can’t. It’s basic mathematics. Something else I wouldn’t have been able to learn a couple hundred years ago.

            I’m all for self defense but if you think you solved anything by slapping your wife, even if for a moment, you’ve deceived yourself.

            Allow me to give you the real solution whether you want to believe it or not.

            The real solution was to leave her and an even better solution was to never have picked her in the first place.

            “An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure.”

            What we need is more education and accountability for our own stupid mistakes. Not more violence.

          • Darryl X

            @Valdez Addiction – I wasn’t trying to “tell you”. And I wasn’t trying to completely “disprove” what all of your post. Most of it was pretty good if not a bit inaccurate. So I’m sorry if my literal expression of my thoughts came off as too much of a polemic or criticism. Believe me when I say we’re all in the same boat but our experiences are different enough so that we’ve all been exposed to different parts of the elephant and we can each describe the different parts but we haven’t quite described accurately the entire elephant. I’ve been trying for most of my life to cobble the different experiences of myself and others to describe the problem, our common dilemma, and identify a solution.

            Feminists are malignant narcissists and psychopaths and your actions or behavior or response to them neither pursuades them toward more civil behavior nor discourages their bad or abusive behavior. They have no conscience. They are in a permanent out-of-body experience. What you say or do is irrelevant to them. They are addicts and satisfying their addiction is all that matters.

            Anything you do to give them attention will encourage their bad behavior. Feminists (malignant narcissists and psychopaths; women and their male enablers) are addicted to power and control. By manipulating you to give them attention or monopolizing your attention and you obliging them, they are satisfying their addiction.

            Slapping my wife was not meant to calm her down nor was it meant to discourage her behavior (in the long term at least for sure). It was meant for nothing more than to present a physical barrier and threat of a bigger barrier between her and me and my son. There was no attention intended. At the time she might just as well have been a door knob.

            Malignant narcissists and pyschopaths (and I will keep using those terms over and over to drive home the point about the kind of creatures we’re dealing with) which is what feminists are interpret your complaint against them (or any attention for that matter) as evidence of their success in oppressing you. That’s all. Nothing more. Communication with a feminist is not possible. No matter what you say or do they will filter it through their delusions and fantasy land and twist into what they want to hear.

            I have been stabbed, by my wife no less. With a pair of butcher knives to the back. Without provocation and after considerable premeditation. And poisoned. And many other things. I have also experienced many other kinds of violence throughout my forty years – all by feminists. They are very dangerous animals.

            You are correct for sure about one thing: the best solution to the problem is to have never choses her. But that just illustrates another problem for men today. No woman is a good choice, especially under a brutal feminist fascist regime that enables their psychotic behavior. And for my generation (Gen X) men are in a particularly bad situation. We are small in number and our population is much more disparate than other generations and meeting a woman at all that is within our age range is not as probably as say for the Baby Boomers or the Millenials or the Greatest Generation. So choice is not something men from my generation had (have). There aren’t much to choose from. It’s basic statistics.

            But as I explained before, any man in any generation who thinks he has a choice, especially under a brutal feminist regime, is mistaken. The regime has homogenized women into a single malevolent entity kind of like the Borg in Star Trek. For the most part anymore, there is very little difference among women and their behavior. And any man who argues that women from other countries are better (or worse) than women in the US are sadly mistaken and underestimate the influence of feminism globally.

            When you say teach men and boys to avoid these types of women, you have to understand that under a feminist regime, almost all women are the same. There are no kinds. They think and act with a single mind. That is what malignant narcissism is. These people believe that others are an extension of themselves. They do not understand individuality or independence. They do not understand barriers. They require compliance of those around them for protection against any retribution that may be directed at them in response to their misbehavior.

            A common difference which has often been described between women and men is that when a woman presents a problem to a man the man tries to solve it but all the woman wants is affirmation of her feelings. That’s bullshit. She wants to manipulate the man into agreeing with her stupidity so that when there are consequences to her actions or decisions, she can point to the man who stupidly affirmed her feelings instead of condemning her for her mistakes and irrational response to situations. That’s malignant narcissism. Never affirm a woman’s feelings. It’s the first step in absolving her of responsibility for her actions and implicating you in them. She needs to be held accountable, even for her feelings.

            Unfortunately that is the curve ball God and the universe has thrown us. All humans require affection and touch and consolation. And there is no equivalent than that from a woman. So hope springs eternal. Even if there are no good women out there I will probably keep searching not because I think I will be successful but because the need for a woman’s companionship is so great that I would risk my life for it. That’s the Catch-22. Feminism has turned all women into evil creatures. But we need women and they have been taken away and we must get them back.

            Hope you understand the wisdom of my post and understand its contents and take it to heart. and sorry if it’s too long.

          • valdez_addiction

            Well Darryl X,

            The one thing in your post I can’t agree with is the fact that all women are the same. I know for a fact that all women don’t behave like that.

            There are women like Dr. T who not only believe in our cause but is doing everything in her power to help men and contribute to it. So to say that all women abide under one feminist flag is wrong.

            There’s a big difference between first wave feminists and second wave feminists. There’s a big difference between feminists and radical feminists. And there’s definitely a very big difference between normal thinking woman and personality disordered psycho bitches.

            And just so I don’t come off like a jerk because I’ve been told I can be a bit intense at times;

            I disagree with you, but it’s nothing personal. I believe that men can disagree without disliking each other because of it. And from you’re response I’m pretty sure you feel the same way.

            I understand what you’re saying, trust me. By the way, that was a nice analogy about the Borg from Star Trek. But don’t forget Captain Picard became part of the Borg but his crew didn’t give up on him. They were able to tear him away and bring him back.

            And that’s all I’m saying. It looks bleak but don’t give up hope. There are a lot of women who don’t believe in feminism and some who are in feminism that will on day see the error of there ways. Women are the unhappiest they’ve ever been according to statistics.

            I’m not saying we need to be fools or naive. And I’m not saying we should be pacifists.

            All I’m saying is we need to be cautious about the language we use concerning violence.

            We don’t want to dismantle our cause before we even reach half time.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            Valdez – It’s not always a matter of “choosing” to be with an evil woman.

            Some men are born to truly evil women or they are siblings of them.

          • valdez_addiction

            You’re right OneHundredPercentCotton. You can’t choose who your mother or your sister is, but you can choose whether or not you’re willing to stick around and put up with they’re bullshit.

            I have a mother and a sister who are both borderline. And I don’t put up with their bullshit. I check they’re behavior and tell them when they are dead wrong. And if they don’t like it, they can go to hell.

            The moment they start acting stupid like little kids, I walk away and don’t deal with them for a while. I’m talking months. And guess what?

            Because of that, they respect me and unsurprisingly they put their bullshit on hold when I’m around.

            This works because they love me and want me in their lives. If they didn’t love me, it wouldn’t matter anyway.

            Most people would say, “why would you do that to your mother and sister?”

            At the end of the day I have to do what’s best for my mental health, which means avoid poisonous bullshit that’s gonna stress me out.

            The time for making excuses is over gentlemen. We cannot become professional victims.

            Any woman who’s behavior is unacceptable by normal standards does not deserve your company. Blood or no blood. This is the consequence of being a self entitled bitch.

            And until men stop making excuses and start giving these women consequences, (your absence) they will never stop terrorizing you.

            I don’t know about you, but I don’t negotiate with terrorists.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            All due respect, Val – that’s exactly what I told my husband so many, many times, yet he continued to be the dutiful son even knowing it was damaging his relationship with his own wife and children. We were supposed to love him enough to put up with their shit, which we dutifully did.

            The day came his mother crossed the line, and I wrote her a letter telling her I no longer wished to have any association with her – I was divorcing her, not her son.

            My husband backed away in horror, whispering “you shouldn’t have done that…you shouldn’t have done that…”

            A few months later we got a call from the local police saying our teenaged son was being charged with raping his cousin(his sister’s child who had accused twice before people who angered her mother) – she “just remembered” from a family visit years before.

            My husband curled into a fetal position, and was literally out of it for the duration. My mother in law was a secretary at Loyola Law School for over 20 years and through an aquaintance coached his sister every step of the way.

            I had no idea the depths of depravity those women would go to, but he knew.

            I’d always presumed his PTSD symptoms, the nightmares, sleepwalking, the heavy drinking, the refusal to argue or stand up for himself or his family was the result of his combat experiences. It was during this time I learned all those things dated back to his childhood (even the drinking).

            He made no effort to speak up, threaten or anger them in any way. I was banned from participating in my son’s defense when I tried to say what I knew about their prior accusations. My young son was entirely on his own against the state.

            It’s been a long bitter time since that went down. I came very close to divorcing my husband over it. A man I met online who had been through a false accusation himself advised me not to even think of divorcing my husband – that my son would always blame himself. I’m very sure he was right about that.

            My husband no longer speaks to his sister, but has maintained a relationship with his mother. We never speak about her, he leaves the room to take her calls. It’s like she’s The Other Woman – only his Mom. I’ve had a few shrieking banshee break downs when he tried to suggest she really wasn’t involved, or tried to take our younger son to visit her.

            I even tried counseling, but the poor woman told me she was just out of her depth to help us – it was an unendingly incomprehensible horror show.

            … just not what I ever pictured when I vowed til death do us part, for better or for worse…

            We’re still a family, still are close and still love each other. I’m simply grateful for what we have left.

          • valdez_addiction

            That’s terrible and I’m very sorry to hear that happened to you. I also must apologize for assuming you were a guy.

            Unfortunately in situations like that it’s very difficult to handle. Part of the reason is because he has to make the decision that her behavior is wrong and he’s not going to tolerate it.

            I have a cousin that’s currently dating an outright bitch who uses him for his money. Most men are programed to protect women at all costs. Especially their mother, sister, or girlfriend. It’s very touchy and sometimes you can only throw hints and prey they realize and are willing to do something about it.

            My comment was meant more for guys that have realized and make excuses instead of taking action.

            In your case the only thing you can really do is be supportive like you’ve been doing and hope he sees the light one day. But that’s only if you think it’s worth it to stay.

      • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

        Jeremiah,

        You are like a cro[a]p-duster full of glue and leaflets swooping down low over MRA’s and dropping your load.

        The MSM will pluck those leaflets that stick to our bodies and shriek with delight when they read “I’d go so far as to say abhorrence to violence is unethical.”

        No matter how “gifted” an MRA you may or may not be it’s irrelevant in the light of this inebriated aeronautical display.

        Your myopia is expressed with deranged priorities
        * Most important – Say my opinion about violence.
        * Not as important – Do not say my opinion about violence because the MSM might use it against all of us as a group.

        You are a terribly self centered man.

        The irony is that with the stupidity by proxy via your posts, you have potentially delivered to our group real violence by proxy.

        Mr Elam did well to ban you and leave your obnoxious posts intact. He knows full well that having them remain to be flayed where they stand will be the best prophylactic measure against any feminist backlash.

        Silly man you are.

        • ThoughtCriminal

          I’m going with Valdez,et al on the issue of violence.

          There are many ways of making and winning wars.Dropping bombs and shooting people is only one way.

          Another way is infecting your enemies with diseases.

          Yet another way is to undermine and then overtake their culture (this is what feminists are doing to us).

          And yet another way is blockade,a.k.a. starvation. And this method of making war is,has been,and will continue to be effective as long as human beings seek comfort and nourishment.Our enemies are entitlement princesses, and what is the bane of the princess? The pea. A simple pea under the mattress is enough to cause a festering boil on the delicate skin of the pampered princess.

          How do we stop feminists from making war against us, our culture, our traditions and our future? We starve them out.

          Lest anyone get the wrong idea, I’m not talking about literal starvation. Not only is that not ethical, but in the first world, it probably isn’t possible. We’re so wealthy you can get fresh uneaten food out of just about any dumpster you look in,but women, and feminists doubly so, crave status and security. They’re not going to want to go dumpster-diving.

          All we have to do is find the most conservative presidential candidate possible, a real believer, and throw our full weight behind him.Yes,it will probably bite us on the ass,yes,I’m sure many of us would reject that idea on principle.

          But I’m telling you people,when that ultra-conservative tight ass who thinks God is personally giving him the stamp of approval starts cutting the welfare, these princesses are going to SCREAM. You will have never heard such a cacophony, and when they realize that stamping their feet won’t get them anywhere, they are going to sob,pout, and then they are going to go home and SHUT THE FUCK UP.

          If you ask any of them,as far as they will be concerned, there is no patriarchy.Because when they see what REAL hardship looks like, fake hardships will never again enter their radar.

          Violence is inescapable? I beg to differ,sir.

          These people have been handled with kid gloves all their lives, if we tell them “Sorry, fresh out of kid leather, here’s a paper towel.” they’ll react like we’re burning their faces off with acid.

          In contrast, ACTUAL violence has a threshold where it becomes unproductive, and then quickly degenerates into counter-productivity. The threat of violence generates more fear from the target than an ongoing extreme form of torture,because your body will pump itself full of chemicals to dull the pain, and your brain can even go into shock if the pain is too intense or terrifying, then you don’t feel it at all.

          I know from experience,gentlemen.You name a type of pain,I’ve probably experienced it. Hunger,cold,burns,blunt trauma,cuts,scrapes,gashes,fingers crushed. When you’ve experienced a lot of pain, you know how to inflict it on others.

          Overt violence is unethical,unnecessary,and counter-productive.

          Feminists have used psychological warfare on us to great effect,we can turn it back around on them. It’s as simple as making sure every bed they try to lie down in has a pea in it. Every place they seek comfort they’ll find that damnable pea. Pretty soon, in a pavlovian fashion, the mere sight of a pea will cause discomfort, then we don’t even have to go to the trouble of putting the peas in all their little nests.

          What is the purpose of violence? To provide discomfort as a mechanism to influence compliance or to deter attacks. Why not cut out the middleman? Use discomfort itself as the weapon. We know feminists have a weak spot there,just look at the vast EMPIRE of comforts they pile up around themselves!

          Take their freebies away,and to them,you might as well be killing them.I assure you it will accomplish far more for our cause than actually killing them.

          If we go off half-cocked and start forming militias or hit squads, we’re fucking toast. Nobody will ever support a group of men violently attacking a group of (mostly) women,regardless of how justified the men or how openly evil the women. If we go and do that, it makes us,now and forever, the bad guys.

          If,however, we remove entitlements that hardly anybody thinks they deserved in the first place, people will consider it a good deed by us and will be mystified at how anyone could complain like feminists will over something so stupid. Acting selfishly with taxpayer money during a global economic crisis=massive fail.

          • valdez_addiction

            “Pavlovian fashion.”

            I couldn’t have said it better myself. ThoughtCriminal, you are a fucking Genius.

            This is exactly what I was trying to get across to Darryl X but couldn’t articulate it as well as you did.

            All their power is given to them by the state and white knights.

            The moment men and boys stop marrying these selfish bitches and providing them with every luxury know to man, they will definitely sing a new tune. Especially when the government does the same.

            Women only consume for the most part. They don’t build, which is why they will always need us. The moment we realize how much power we have in the decisions we make and begin to take away the lolly pop, the self righteous bitches will fall in line because all they want is the lolly pop.

            Gentlemen, we have the lolly pop. We’ve always had the lolly pop. We’ve just been giving it away for nothing.

            Excellent comment Thought Criminal.

          • Darryl X

            “The moment men and boys stop marrying these selfish bitches and providing them with every luxury know to man, they will definitely sing a new tune. Especially when the government does the same.”

            But if they don’t get it by exploiting marriage and children, there are many other ways they can get it. Displacing men in institutions of higher education, the job market, etc… It’s no coincidence that the ratio of young women and young men at university continues to grow (currently at 3:2). Men are discriminated agains in many ways, not just marriage or children.

          • valdez_addiction

            “It’s no coincidence that the ratio of young women and young men at university continues to grow (currently at 3:2). Men are discriminated against in many ways, not just marriage or children.”

            Darryl X, you do realize that women outnumber men, don’t you?

            And I get that you wanna debate but, anyone who still thinks that violence is the answer after ThoughtCriminal’s brilliant solution is just someone looking for an excuse to be violent.

            It’s obvious that the best solution is something along the lines of what ThoughtCriminal suggested.

            I’m starting to think you’re just militant.

          • http://counterfem.blogspot.com Fidelbogen

            Excellent thoughts, Thought Criminal.

            It is both unnecessary and counter-productive to advocate violence as political policy.

            And yet. . at the same time, we realize that if conditions x, y and z are in place and continue unabated, then violence as a primordial force will be the probable outcome.

            In sociological terms, this means that if a targeted demographic is subjected to x,y and z systemically and en masse, then “violence” in its infinite, twisted forms will be the outcome. Systemically and en masse.

            So, without prescribing violence, we may safely (and quite ethically) predict its appearance in the world.

            And prediction becomes our weapon.

            All of this has the added benefit of keeping us, the predictors, upon the moral high ground.

            The other side can either listen to us, and heed our wise counsel proactively. . . or continue with business as usual. If they choose the latter, they will come down on the wrong side of history — and that can be a nasty experience.

            In a way, this is like the Mafia game of “making them an offer they can’t refuse.” Except, there is a huge difference. See, when the Mafia does this, it is a threat of Mafia violence, plain and simple.

            But when “we” do it, we are issuing no threat of any kind, because the only “threat” is a force majeure beyond our control. Yet we are making an “offer”, namely, an offer to advise them for their benefit. And if they are wise, they will not refuse our offer.

            The primary onus of responsibility and moral agency falls upon them, you see!

    • http://Human-Stupidity.com Human-Stupidity.com

      @Jeremiah, I see your point. Feminists and Black race activists can defend vigilante-ism and violence and are socially accepted.

      But Paul Elam has to draw a clear line. Absolute legality, absolute non violence. To make it totally clear that he does not advocate any terrorist or illegal activities. Not one single quote that out of context could be construed as terrorism.

      And, to be on the safe side, not even allow such discussions. Just not to allow the feminist “enemy” to call him a head of a terrorist organization.

      I was actually surprised at the amount of courage and extremism Paul Elam is capable of. (correct me if I confuse things and that was not Paul):

      Declaring he would not help a female rape victim. Declaring that as a juror he would never convict a rapist because the legal system is so biased that all proof might be forged and exculpatory evidence might be repressed. That looked pretty extreme and it took me a while to deprogram my mind and see the wisdom of such action. But it still is legal and non-violent.

      I am certain Paul would not just walk away from a rape but call the police and inform them of the rape. This would keep Paul’s lack of white-knight-self-sacrificial-help to a damsel in distress perfectly legal.

      @Jeremiah: you might find more sympathy with Angry Harry. As his name says, he is angrier. Some of angry Harry’s statements regarding violence, though carefully worded, made me squirm.

  • Kimski

    Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.

    My religion is based on truth and non-violence. Truth is my God. Non-violence is the means of realising Him.

    Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages.
    Mahatma Gandhi

    • valdez_addiction

      Well said. I only wish the rest of the world shared this philosophy.

    • http://Human-Stupidity.com Human-Stupidity.com

      You are right in this case. But, with all due respect, it did not work in Tibet.

      Gandhi was lucky he was dealing with the squeamish British and world conscience. Try that when dealing with the Chinese.

      Of course, if Tibetans acted like Palestinians, China might have obliterated and wiped them out. Noone knows.

      And I am also torn about non-violence with regards to Iranian nuclear armament. I see your point but try to deal with a nuclear armed Iran. Especially if you are Israel.

      The world is not black and white. It is complex. And often unsolveable.

      • Kimski

        You’re right, and the quotes were Ghandi’s, not mine.

        I’m not even close to being that nice, if I’m attacked.
        I’m a human being. :)

      • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

        To add,

        Reverse the 4th and 5th letter in the last word of your post and removed the “s”.

      • Darryl X

        It didn’t work with Gandhi either.

        If I were Iran and the West was impsoing upon me the way they are, I’d want nukes to protect myself. But I don’t think they are pursuing nuclear weapons. I think the US and other western countries just want an excuse to attack them for purposes of controlling their oil reserves.

        • valdez_addiction

          Yeah but you’re forgetting one thing. The memory and legacy of Gandhi inspires men to greater things.

          Warmongers like Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam, and Genghis Khan are only remembered for War, which inspires nothing.

          P.S. They erect statues in tribute of all great men, but the content of their individual character decides if those statues remain standing.

          • Darryl X

            That’s the problem with only condemning a man for the worst thing he did in his life without celebrating the best thing he did. It creates a very polarized view of men and of history. These men and history (and all men and history) are very complicated and those who fail to analyze objectively them and history lose out on a more rewarding life. I could easily condemn Gandhi for the worst things he did and celebrate Hitler for the best things he did. Both have done horrible as well as great things. And analysis of each changes dramatically over time. The malignant narcissists of the world choose which of those things to promote and which man to hold up as an example and which one not when either man could serve either role. The Illuminati just chooses which men to promote and which not to based upon its own self-serving goals.

          • valdez_addiction

            Ok… I’m sorry but at this point I have to stop taking you seriously.
            The crimes against humanity that Hitler committed were horrific and even if he tried he could never replace the lives he’s taken or the damage he’s caused.

            I’m both shocked and amazed you would even attempt to make a comparison about something so utterly wrong.

    • Darryl X

      I’m not aware of any instances in history in which non-violent protest has worked as an affirmative defense against the violence that has been done to others first. Examples like India and Gandhi and race in the US are poor as India currently is a mess as a direct result of peaceful protest early in the past century and race relations in the US are the worst they’ve ever been (compare them with Brazil or many other countries where slavery was a significant part of the economy). Unless you’re willing to use as much civil disobedience as possible and as little violence as necessary, then those who are willing to use only violence will exterminate those who are unable to defend themselves. That’s how it’s worked throughout history. That’s how primitive social organizing dictates it work. If you want peace and freedom and a civilization, a population must be on perpetual vigil and willing and able to destroy those who don’t want it but who want to satisfy their addiction to power and control. Ever try to reason with or peacefully object to a cocaine addict. Doesn’t work. And walking away doesn’t work either if they are willing to and have a huge legal and political and financial and social machine behind them to extract what they want from you if you don’t want to give it to them voluntarily. Jus because you use violence doesn’t mean your a malignant narcissist. Only if you use violence to manipulate others to impose upon others for your own ends at their expense and not to stop someone from manipulating and imposing upon you.

      • Kimski

        I agree, but I also see the japanese grasseaters making a lot of people in charge worried, by walking away and being non-violent.

        Of course it’s two different kinds of violence where talking about here, but if a large enough group in any population decides unanimously that they don’t want to participate in anything anymore, there’s really not much the people in charge can do about it.

        If you ever saw the movie ‘The Warriors’ from the late 70’s or early 80’s, there’s a gang leader in it, Cyrus, who states the obvious in an attempt to unite the gangs of New York: There’s 70.000 cops in the city and some 200.000 gang members, so who owns the city when it comes down to it?

        It works in the same way with a population. Politicians (and most people) just seem to forget that politicians are put in place by the people they are there to serve, and the people can take that power away from them, at any time they might wish to do so. And an extreme version of MGTOW might just be the best way to do that, in a non-violent way. Just like the japanese men are doing it right now. For a society to work there has to be somebody doing all the hard work, and if there is noone who wants to do it, you’ll end up with a society unable to sustain itself. The consequences of more and more boys dropping out of schools and uni’s is exactly the thing you would want to prevent, or you’ll eventually end up with that outcome.

        • Darryl X

          Love the movie reference. Haven’t seen it in ages.

          “There’s 70.000 cops in the city and some 200.000 gang members, so who owns the city when it comes down to it?”

          Here’s the problem: We actually don’t outnumber. When you consider the number of mothers and other women and members of the Divorce Industry and grandparents, medicare and medicaid recipients, social security recipients (who will receive a payment when they otherwise would not have if a man had not lost that opportunity because he owes child support), etc… who benefit from the trafficking of children, then we are actually outnumbered. And by a great deal.

          The proportion of our population which benefits from trafficking children and other forms of real child abuse and misandry is considerable. Trafficking children in the US at least is the largest industry or business in the history of the world. It moves more money per annum than any other industry. Without the Divorce Industry, the US economy would have collapsed forty years ago.

          That’s why politicians and members of the Divorce Industry and other people are so desperate all of a sudden to allow gays to marry. And to give them rights to adopt children. They are running out of heterosexual couples to divorce and make money from.

          And its role in the economy of the US cannot be understated. It is simply vast. Even though there may be some long-term consequences to these dynamics for most of the beneficiaries of a nefarious system like this, the short-term benefits are far greater.

          The vast majority of the American population did not support the Revolutionary War against England. Only 17% of men. Too many people benefited from England’s rule of the colonies. It was up to that 17% to fight everyone else, even the vast majority of their own countrymen, to win their freedom from oppression.

          We are definitely not in a majority. And if we are to win our freedom, and more importantly the freedom of our children, it will only be through revolution. The vast majority of the population which benefits from the exploitation of us and our children will not stop unless they are forced to. They don’t care about you or your children. And they never will. Appealing to their better nature is futile.

          • Kimski

            All fair and square, but I think you misunderstood where I was coming from:

            The vast majority of people that keep the societies running at their most basic level are men.They farm, they mine, they drill, they fish, and so on and so forth. All of them are being exploited by a demographic who doesn’t really do any essential things to sustain said societies, besides piss and moan about their lack of ‘equality’ and ‘privileges’.

            If a large enough amount of ‘sustainers’, i.e. men, decides to stay home from work the next couple of weeks, the wheels would stop turning immediately, and we would in a very real sense be back in the middle ages. Imagine the impact it would have on the western hemisphere if this was done in the winter season.

            Then imagine that they refused to return to work, until the demographic of ‘non-sustainers’ had taken over the jobs for at least a month. You know, just to get a little taste of the ‘equality’ and ‘privileges’ the vast majority of men face every day. I’ll bet it would take a couple of years before we heard any pissing and moaning again, if there were any society left that is. And men would absolutely be appreciated a whole lot more for the things that they do.

            It’s just make believe right now, but if the pressure keeps rising on men as a demographic, that is exactly what we are going to see, if you throw the lack of ressources, the changing weather patterns and the global economy into the equation. Add to that the rising amount of men not getting an education necessary to do this kind of work, and it will be a lot less pretty than the fairy tale I just set up here.

            Go watch the movie or rent it. It’s still a great movie, even after all these years. It is also a very good example of what happens, when a demographic has been kept down long enough: They start looking for a leader to end the problems they are facing in their lives, and in one of the worst case scenarios in history they suddenly had a ‘nice’ little Hitler-problem on their hands, as a direct consequence.

            ‘Appealing to their better nature is futile.’

            I concur. The subject is not up for debate with these people.
            So what’s left, if you want to make a point?

  • valdez_addiction

    Although I’m not one for turning the other cheek, I do see JTO’s point about violence. At an early age I was trained in martial arts and later boxing, so I know the full extent of damage that one human can do to another. It is because of that knowledge that I avoid violence at all costs.

    I only learned to fight as a way of defending myself from those who believe that they can bully people into submission by using violence. They believe that violence is the only solution to any problem.

    Violence was a solution to problems when we were primitive and unable to get our point across with words and reason. Yes violence is a part of our history and yes it has helped us to rise to the top of the food chain, but it’s only part of our history. We also have evolved because of our incredible ability to think and reason. Our ingenuity that has given us the necessary tools of the day, like the one I’m using to type these words of reason.

    To believe that violence is a productive modern tool is to toss this lap top out the window and carve this message into my wall with a hammer and chisel.

    Direct violence is the act of a desperate person; someone unable to persuade others with logic and reason.

    I saw the comments in the chat room made by Jeremiah and I can only say that he is very misguided. He’s taken some valid points and ran with them as most misguided people do.
    The fear of violence can deter someone from the act of committing direct violence against you, however it can never be a tool to change a person’s mind or view point.

    Sure you can scare the person into agreeing with you for the moment or it may just enrage the person to the point of a homicidal act. In either case, nothing can be gained from it.

    In fact it was the Philosopher/fighter Bruce Lee who said so eloquently, “You can’t change people with your fists.”

    • Stu

      You can’t change peoples attitudes or beliefs with violence, but you can change their behavior. No laws have any weight at all without violence. In fact, all civilization is, is the controlled use of violence when you get down to it.

      Every law that dictates what you can or can not do, is backed up by violence, and without that, all laws are impotent. You think fines and community service and Jail sentences are what stop people from from doing whatever they want…….not true…..for without violence you have no way of enforcing those fines, or that community service…..or Jail……you don’t even have the means of arresting anybody.

      Imagine you and bunch of other people set up a utopian community where all violence is outlawed……completely…..including state violence. So the only punishments for anything are non violent punishments……then one day I do something wrong and get a $100 fine…….but I don’t want to pay…….so I don’t…..and tell you and your court……..to go fuck yourself. So you say that my fine is now $1000…….and I punch you in the face. You know say that I will go to jail……then I just walk around the court and relieve everybody of their wallets……I take a shit on your desk…and rub your face it in……then I rape the prosecution lawyer in the arse, and than walk out of court…..steal your car and drive home. What are you going to do about it…..send me more fines……..order me to report to jail for my life sentence.

      Any law that does not include and follow up with the threat of force…..deadly if required…..has no teeth….and co-operation with them is voluntary.

      So, violence is a required ingredient to having any sort of society, community, or civilization. Without it, all the pacisfists just end up being walked over by those that are willing to use violence. They survive today, because of the proxy violence, or threat of proxy violence…..of others.

      It’s totally impossible to have any level of society…..even a small tribe…without rules…..laws…..and since nobody has any incentive to obey rules and laws that they don’t agree with…..or work against their interests at a given point in time…….without violence…….the only way you can have any level of community…..is to use violence and the threat of violence…..to hold it together.

      In other words…..if you do X, we will fine you Y number of dollars…..and we will take those dollars off you by force (violence) if you don’t cough them up voluntarily.

      Every law and every punishment has to have the……or else violence will come to you…….to back it up.

      The last thing I want to see is the MRM become a movement of pacifists. Pacifists in any society only survive if others protect them……and nobody is going to protect the MRM except the MRM.

      • valdez_addiction

        Very valid points except the fact that it isn’t violence that stops people from committing crimes. It’s the fear of violence. Therefore those of us that don’t fear violence are immune to that method of control.

        The police force and the US military are very violent and yet every single crime you used as an example for the most part, occurs everyday in our country. Violence is not a deterrent of crime because real criminals don’t fear it.

        My father once said, “A locked door is only there to keep an honest man honest, because it won’t stop a criminal.”

        Yes rules and laws are needed to maintain a certain level of society, however it’s far more important that those people follow the rules and laws because they know it’s the right thing to do. Not because someone’s gonna kick their ass if they don’t.

        The rule of Violence as I stated above is only necessary against people who have no plans of following the laws in the first place. Sometimes because they don’t want to and other times because they resent the threat of having their ass kicked if they don’t.

        These types are usually not conducive to civilized society in the first place. They understand the concept of rules and decide to disobey them. This is why we have prisons and despite the threat of violence everyday, prisoners still break rules.

        The goal of a civilized society is to reach a point where no one resorts to violence because it’s considered primitive and counter-productive. Although we are a long way from a Utopian society, it’s still an admirable goal. In fact the only way we can ever dare to come close to that goal, is to change the attitudes and beliefs of the people. This as you clearly stated at the beginning of your comment cannot be done by violence.

        I never said I was a pacifist or that the MRM should be, however every great civilization collapses sooner or later due to greed, corruption, and ultimately, violence. We may have been violent and may still be violent, but if we plan to take that long awaited step into our next phase of evolution, we can’t continue on the path we’re on because pretty soon there won’t be a planet for us to have a civilization.

        • Stu

          I put it to you that you, and nearly everyone that doesn’t have a death wish…..does fear violence. You may have enough confidence in your ability to withstand what’s on offer, or avoid it, or dish it out better than those that confront you.

          And yes, there are those that are going to break the law no matter what…..and for them……violence is the only solution……in the form of arrest…..imprisonment etc…..to what ever degree it takes to achieve that. But you have noticed that there are those that no matter what the punishment…will break the laws regardless….and there always will be those people….which is why society will always have to use violence to prevent those people totally destroying all.

          In any case, the state is now acting as proxy violence against men, on behalf of feminism. There is nothing one man can do to stand up to this state sanctioned proxy violence, or even a small group of men. We need to grow into a massive movement. Our preferred course of action of course will be to get the state to stop using violence to enforce draconian anti male laws……via non-violent means. Part of that approach would be to get the state to act as proxy for us……..as in holding feminists and manginas equally accountable for their actions…..and arresting them and holding them equally responsible……changing the laws in other words….or enforcing current laws equally regardless of gender….whatever. But if all that fails…..all the non-violent appeals……all activism…..then what do we do…..just go home and except the fact that we are lower life forms with no rights. Lets face it…..if it comes to huge protests in the streets……it will come to violence…..if we are just going to pack up and go home as soon as it starts……..we lose.

          • Darryl X

            Malignant narcissists, although all they know is fear, do not fear. That’s what makes them so dangerous. They are addicted to power and control. Attempts to make them afraid satisfies their addiction. It’s a complaint that they interpret as success in oppressing others. That’s why making them afraid doesn’t work and only getting rid of them works.

            As determined by assortive mating strategies, humans are disposed to primitive social organizing, and half are malignant narcissists (or occupy a position high on that continuum) and do not fear. That’s 80% of women and 20% of men. That’s the distribution of our current leadership throughout the developed world. Those men acquiesce to the whims and excesses of the women or they will be eliminated by the women.

            That’s how the men satisfy the whims and excesses of these women, they sacrifice the other men by driving them to suicide, sending them to die in wars, and condemning them to the street or prisons. They are so stupid though that they don’t understand that sending them to prison actually costs them. They also don’t understand that withholding passports prevents these men from leaving.

            Or they understand it but they just want to hold the men in place so they can abuse them. And they are building “containment facilites” for more efficient imprisonment of them. Most people do not understand the desperate measures these malignant narcissists are going to satisfy their addiction to power and control.

            People like Joe Biden and Obama are truly horrifying. We are not a civilization and haven’t been for more than forty years. Since advancement of civilization and technology and everything else that defines civilization is dependent upon the very men who our leaders are sacrificing, that’s even the vestiges of our once civilization will be gone soon and we will all be living in a post-apocalyptic stone age.

            Seriously. These other men and women, malignant narcissists, can’t do anything on their own but pursue their addiction to power. They can’t think. They have no analytical skills with which to think. And their attempt to enslave men like me will and already has failed because slavery is a very inefficient way of extracting labor from men. And always has catastrophic consequences.

      • vklaatu

        Sadly, just a few cave men can make our whole movement look like jack booted monsters. So we need to deal with them asap. People, in particularly on manboobz, have been tarring the MRM with a brush based on noise over at reddit, which is as disturbing as it is pathetic.

        We need to get out and put a human face on the MRM, with rational discourse and postive role models.

        As much as we can’t afford to be passive, even more so, we can’t afford to be seen as advocates of violence in any way shape or fashion. In other words, we’re stuck being forced to be above reproach. This means that subversion, which takes serious effort to utilize, is our best weapon.

        • Stu

          There have been lots of discussions like this on here before. Stop worrying about Manblobz and the like……no matter what you say or don’t say….no matter how passive you are……they will spin you into a monster regardless. Look, just the mere fact that you want to stand up for mens rights is going to get you branded as Adolf Hitler incarnate…..on steriods……..if you are going to worry too much about that than you wont do anything.

          • Stu

            Even a pack of pathetic manginas like the Good Men Project get their arses reamed and branded haters by feminists and even bigger manginas at the slightest word that can be taken out of place, or should I say……demonstrating the slightest concern about actual men’s rights. Even Manblobz has got on the wrong side of them before. Just how much of a mangina does one have to be before your immune to their wrath……the answer of course is infinity. You have a penis……they hate you for that……no amount of tip toeing around and soft peddling is going to spare you their wrath.

          • vklaatu

            Point taken… and I have a stack of stuff printed from this site for distribution down at the local university. I suppose I’m better off quietly dispensing leaflets anonymously, for the time being at least.

          • valdez_addiction

            I understand what you’re saying Stu. Trust and believe if we were protesting and were attacked, I’d be right beside you to back you up.

            I don’t have a death wish but I’ve trained myself to not fear violence. I’ve gotten in the ring with trained fighters more often than I care to remember. Facing a fear numerous times makes you less and less afraid of it until you’re no longer afraid.

            And there are criminals who are battle hardened that don’t care about laws and rules. We men are the victims of violence and violence by proxy. We can’t expect to change the world by accomplishing our goal with the very thing we’re fighting against.

            Although it’s true it may come to violence, but this needs to be a last resort and not our first action.

          • Stu

            Yeah I know what you mean. Done a bit of martial arts myself, and a little boxing, long long time ago…..I’m an old bastard now…..50 this year. Was in a gang when I was young for a while, and we used to box each other. We used to play this game to toughen ourselves up…..you had to stand there….still….and let the other person punch you in the face….not allowed to move or block……then it’s your turn…….with the boxing gloves…not bare fists. You can build up quite a tolerance for being hit, and, you lose your fear of it almost completely…….but……if you come up against someone who pulls out an iron bar, or a knife, or a gun…….suddenly you’re scared again. But fear isn’t such a bad thing, it can keep you out of trouble, especially when old age and discrepancy is catching up with you. lol

          • valdez_addiction

            @Stu

            Yeah, fear is good at times. It’s kept the human race alive and I certainly see your point about a knife or gun.

            That doesn’t increase the chances of injury and a certain amount of fear.

            BTW, thanks for making me feel young. I’m 33 and sometimes I feel like I’m old.

        • Introspectre

          Your point about subversion is well taken. Wars, ideological or otherwise, are won or lost, based on the quality of intelligence gathering and utilization, of any exploitable advantage found.

      • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

        “In fact, all civilization is, is the controlled use of violence when you get down to it.”

        Very insightful articulation.

  • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

    Females, as a rule use police guns and brutality to steal children from their fathers as well as the fruits of their labor. This is all you need to know about the proclivity of the female nature for violence and war. Females are the most rapacious and demanding consumers on the planet. Wars are fought over resources; the intimate relationship between females and war is a matter of simple arithmatic. Females control access to reproduction and tend to deprive men of the opportunity to reproduce for lack of sufficient surplus resources to offer in tribute; the intimate relationship between females, violence and war is an elementary bit of logic. Females as a rule direct the men with whom them associate to fight with other men in defence of her ‘honor’. The intimate relationship of females with violence requires no intellectual processing as it is self-evident.

    Hillary Clinton has postured aggressively with China, effectively waving the threat of U.S. military might. This from a 4 foot screeching wretched ‘feminist’, who wouldn’t know a foxhole if she fell into one in her empowering ‘feminist’ high heels and pantsuits. Female willingness to use men violently for their own ends is SOP.

    If females ran the world moreso than they already do, there would be more wars initiated by vindictive bitches over petty complaints, like McDonald’s is out of chicken nuggets, or the shoe that she wants is out of stock at Bloomingdale’s.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      I’ve said it before – prison rape is largely rape by proxy, especially when the victims was falsely accused and wrongly convicted.

  • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

    Hitler is despised not because he personally murdered millions of humans. He is despised because he orchestrated it. Proxy violence is quintessential violence.

    • http://a-wayforward.blogspot.com/ caimis.vudnaus.

      I wholeheartedly agree, I think in any criminal case where someone hires or orchestrates a violent crime that crime should be treated as if it was the worst form of that crime possible for sentencing and whats more since they have proved they can get others to commit crimes they should have no unsupervised contact with any human being including other prisoners.

      It seems impossible that any crime where you orchestrate it can be a crime of passion. This means any person who orchestrates crime is either a habitual criminal or a psychopath. As such reforming them is either unlikely in the extreme or impossible.

      • Introspectre

        Agreed.

  • keyster

    In the midst of slipping in a little anti-American sentiment, let’s at least get our facts straight:

    “That is to say, the narrative of a deadly dangerous threat was fabricated and evangelized, in preparation for hundreds of thousands of young American men to enact the proxy violence of the American state against millions of Iraqis who were murdered through that proxy violence.”

    1) So in other words it was all a complete ruse; Saddam Hussein was actually a beloved and benevolent leader. The Iraqi people and the region would be far better off had he he simply been left to reign.

    2) About 1.5 million American soldiers have served in
    Iraq at one time or another. What percentage were sent to specifically enact proxy violence against Iraqis is not clear, but of the 4,777 coalition forces that died, 4,459 were American.

    3) There were 109,032 Iraqi deaths including 66,081 civilian deaths since 2003, attributed to the Iraq War; the vast majority of whom were killed by other Iraqi’s in sectarian violence. Not “millions of Iraqis who were murdered” by American “proxies”.

    Casualties from Iraq’s gulag are hard to estimate. Accounts collected by Western human rights groups from Iraqi émigrés and defectors have suggested that the number of those who have “disappeared” into the hands of Saddam’s secret police, never to be heard from again, could be as many as 200,000. (Of course these were the very same Iraqis who insisted Saddam had WMD’s.) This doesn’t include the 500,000 Iraqis he sent to fight Iran between 1980 and 1988, and those that died invading Kuwait.

    To this day the United States has yet to extract one barrel of oil from Iraq. Iraq has about 2000 active oil wells. (The state of Texas has over one million active oil wells.) They simply don’t have the infrustructure to drill their own oil.

    The self-appointed Ombudsman, …
    …keepin’ it real…!

    • vklaatu

      We have a history of covert violence by double proxy, thanks to the CIA, all over the Caribbean as well as Central and South America, for the benefit of American corporations. When men in this country decided that they didn’t want to be disposable cogs, and formed unions, the labor got outsourced, and the CIA has been all too happy to pave the way through all kinds of skullduggery

      The USA still hasn’t recognized the Armenian Genocide by the Turks, either. In fact, Hillary Clinton considers it a matter of “historical debate.” One of the most heinous acts of violence by proxy in history is white washed by the former first lady and current Secretary of State!?!?!

      The USA has a simple policy on dictators or other political tools that corporate vultures want to see in power. It was stated by someone in the state department in the 1930’s about Rafael Trujillo when he was running the Dominican Republic: “he may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.” And this was before the cold war! Considering how materialistic today’s gynocracy is, I’m sure dirty tricks that keep swine in power so native populations can get exploited, (read: men and children in sweat shops), will continue to be used against whoever people like Hillary Clinton want to intimidate. She was all in favor of revenge for 9/11 anyway. So much for the image of the peace-loving matriarch!

    • Darryl X

      Excellent analysis.

  • vklaatu

    Right, Hollywood, and Magaret Thatcher didn’t start a war and didn’t brutalize Scotland. Sure ladies, whatever you say… oh wait, they white washed Thatcher in a biopic!

    I would actually expect some capacity for extreme violence from women if you look back at what things must have been like on the African savannah where humanity began about a million and half years ago. Consider the early hunter-gatherers; men went off to hunt, women collected plants and watched the kids. Obviously the women would need some defensive capabilities. Now those of us who have had to tangle with women understand this. Picture ten prehuman women with sticks pummeling whatever happened to get in the way!

    There so very many ways to subdue an unarmed attacker without breaking bones,leaving bruises, or doing any real damage at all, if you have taken the time to prepare yourself. Violence can be avoided. My first Ex lashed out at me, decking me in the ear, one time and one time only. She found herself restrained when she tried to swing on me again. I didn’t have to hurt her. She never tried it again. She was the one with the really hot temper.

    My second and last Ex was the passive agressive type who was always quick to call the police on people. I never gave her reason to do so with me, and although she let her first husband beat on her, I was supposedly worse than him, thanks my outrage over her gambling, deception, and assorted threats of suicide. She tried to poison her first husband by pouring bleach in a soft drink; luckily for both of them the pH of the soft drink neutralized the alkaline bleach. This relatively passive act is also violence, and it is an often overlooked type of violence used by women throughout the ages.

    Needless to say, the only viable way to deal with violent or otherwise passive-agressive women is to leave them. It worked for me on both occasions. Sadly, the women do tend to get the kids, anyway, but not always. And what good are we to the kids if we’re in jail for defending ourselves, or if we’re feeding a climate of insanity?

    • Stu

      Even restraining her would be considered an act of violence now.

      • Kimski

        Any kind of boundaries or restraints preventing excessive money-spending, abuse or any other kind of irrational behavior is an act of violence nowadays.

        Even opening your mouth to disagree with anything she says is considered violence.

        Add to that an entitleminded individual who never had to grow up, and you’ve got yourself one hell of a molotov-cocktail, that will burn down any marriage or relationship ASAP.

    • Mr. J

      Putting stuff in your food isn’t passive by any means…Its violence of the first order.
      Its about the same as targeting you with a booby-trap bomb.

      • ThoughtCriminal

        The other day some chick was telling me about how she spiked some guy’s food with birth control and it caused his dick to shrink three inches permanently.That’s what she said, I don’t know that that’s possible medically.

        She was laughing uncontrollably about it, and just pouring it on,trying to get me to yuck it up too. I just glared at her,and then she went silent. If I didn’t feel icky about getting my DNA anywhere near this nasty cunt,I probably would have spat on her. I could use her birth control to deliver cancer-causing uranium directly to her intimate lady parts, but I am not a sick psychopathic monster.

        I don’t care what kind of disagreement with or malice you have for someone,harming their genitalia is a weak,pathetic,deranged thing to do.

        I believe the guy was gay,and that’s why she did it.

    • Darryl X

      “Needless to say, the only viable way to deal with violent or otherwise passive-agressive women is to leave them. It worked for me on both occasions. Sadly, the women do tend to get the kids, anyway, but not always. And what good are we to the kids if we’re in jail for defending ourselves, or if we’re feeding a climate of insanity?”

      That’s what they use the children for – to keep you around as fodder for satisfying their addiction to power and control. Best way to deal with them is to leave them, like you said. It’s also best for the children. Usually, if your around, it will just satisfy her addiction and her behavior will escalate and she will direct the abuse to the children. If you’re not around, they are better off. That’s what’s so sad about these situations. The mothers create circumstances in which taking their father away is the good option. How crazy is that?

  • vklaatu

    Some female heads of state in action…

    Catherine the “Great”: known for extending Russian borders rather agressively

    The “Iron Lady” (Thatcher): known for the Falklands War and crapping on Scotland

    Elizabeth I of England: depended heavily on a group of trusted advisers(men), and presided over a very bloody period in English history

    These three started wars, that’s for sure, and they’re considered postive role models! One of the many reasons I’ve joined the MRM is my disgust with the misrepresentation of men as the sole instigators of violence.

    As for state violence, the death penalty is major mixed bag. It really doesn’t deter enough people to justify itself, does it? As far as I’m concerned, a gulag is a better destination for animals like multiple murderers and the like. Put them in a big camp in the middle of Antarctica, both males and females.

    • andybob

      It seems that you have some considerable first-hand experience of proxy violence, Mr vklaatu. The bleach in the soft drink incident is chilling to say the least. I wonder why she told you about it? What did she gain? She obviously wasn’t after your high opinion! Perhaps it was coercion, “Look what I tried to do to him, so be careful.” Thank God you escaped.

      You obviously have a lot of interesting perspectives to contribute here. I have enjoyed reading your comments and look forward to reading more. Welcome aboard.

      I would also add Cleopatra, Mary Q of S and Boudicaa (her rebellion was doomed from the onset and all but crushed her people into oblivion – a treaty would have been far more advantageous for all) to your list of incompetent women leaders. It’s amazing how few people realize how much dithering and procrastinating Elizabeth I indulged in. The so-called Golden Age was blood-soaked and happened in spite of EI, certainly not because of her.

      • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

        Hang on a minute Andybob.

        Irene of Athens (8th century):
        Had her son blinded so she could become empress of the Byzantium empire.
        * Excuse – Adopted Child Syndrome, she was in “sleeper effect” mode while in knowledge of being adopted leading to crime.

        Isabella I (15th century):
        Expelled all Jews and Muslims from Spain; re-conquered Grenada; began the colonization of the New World; initiated the Spanish inquisition, killing thousands through torture and burning at the stake.
        * Excuse – Arbitrary Abuse of Power Syndrome, claims behavior due to dealing with bureaucrats all day.

        Mary I Bloody Mary (16th Century):
        Burned thousands of religious dissenters at the stake; waged war in Ireland and France.
        * Excuse – Cherambault-Kandinsky Syndrome, or CKS, an erotomanic disorder invented by John Hopkins sexologists to explain desparate acts, such as child abduction and extortion.

        Nzinga Mbandi (17th Century):
        Had her brother killed so she could ascend the throne of Angola.
        * Excuse – Mother Lion Defense, seeks to justify mother ‘s violent reactions taken to protect her children. Often admitted and successful.

        Catherine the Great (18th Century):
        Engaged expansive military campaigns through central Asia and Eastern Europe; brutally quelled rebellions throughout the Russian empire.
        * Excuse – Sitting Duck Syndrome, a victimization condition in which a person abused early in life, or has a history of abusive relationships is more likely to passively accept new abusive or exploitative relationships. Often quoted statistic is 75% of women who leave are at risk of being killed by their abuser.

        Empress Dowager Cixi (19th Century):
        Killed political rivals; may have killed her own son to ascend the throne; her penchant for fine luxuries almost broke the Chinese state treasury.
        * Excuse – Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, a recognized DSMIII disorder, triggered by a distressing event, where person becomes numb, offered as justification, excuse, and mitigation. Most successful at mitigating , getting charges reduced.

        Golda Meir the original Iron Lady (20th Century):
        Considered Palestine a British fabrication and famously declared, “There is no such thing as a Palestinian people”; refused to stop expansion of Israeli settlements.
        * Excuse – Holocaust Survivor Syndrome, first identified in 1952 to explain distrust of governments and other acts of resistance or inabilities to remember.

        Indira Gandhi (20th Century):
        Led India in war against Pakistan; waged an internal campaign against Sikh communities in India; imprisoned political foes and censored the press; tested nuclear weapons.
        * Excuse – Distant Father Syndrome, invented by Robert Bly in book Iron John, explains crime as vindictiveness toward an absent father who never payed child support and never showed son his workplace.

        Margaret Thatcher. (20th century):
        Launched the Falklands war; contributed to the Cold War build-up of nuclear weapons in Europe; bombed Libya; supported foreign dictators like Augusto Pinochet; privatized many British social services and national industries; ate unions for breakfast.
        * Excuse – Everybody Does It Syndrome, often the claim of politicians caught in malfeasance of office that every other governor, sheriff, etc. uses public funds or inmates for personal chores.

        Benazir Bhutto (20th Century):
        Removed twice from office of Pakistani Prime Minister on grounds of corruption; allowed intermediaries to smuggle uranium enrichment data to North Korea; adamantly opposed abortion; supported the Taliban’s rise in Afghanistan.
        * Excuse – Nice-Lady Syndrome, used to explain why unhappy people stay with abusive or unsatisfactory mates, because they care about others feelings more than their own, co-dependency, Al-Anon.

        Condoleezza Rice (20th Century):
        As National Security Advisor of the United States she pushed for the 2003 invasion of Iraq (based on its supposed possession of WMDs); authorized the use of illegal torture techniques such as waterboarding on detainees.
        * Excuse – Gangster Syndrome, a claim of cultural influence, growing up in gang-infested ghetto, causes crime.

        Makes sense to me.

        • Phil in Utah

          I’d like to add a couple more, but they’re not guilty of proxy violence:

          A.D. 34: Agrippina the Younger. Sister and lover of Caligula, wife of Claudius, mother of Nero. Poisoned many people within her own family during a bloody quest for ever more power. Read about her life, and you will have no trouble understanding why Nero turned out the way he did.

          A.D. 1611: Elizabeth Bathory. Tortured and killed as many as 650 young girls (80 at the bare minimum, but 650 is entirely possible) for her own twisted pleasure, using her status as a countess to conceal the evidence.

      • Darryl X

        Incompetent female leaders – how about the recent female leaders of Canada, Australia and New Zealand? To name a few. What disasters.

        • Kimski

          Denmark.
          *Deep sigh*

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

    Women’s use of proxy violence is as old as time. Tell that to conservative, law enforcement, white knight acquaintances, when they extoll the virtues of womanhood.

    Salome is a notable example of violence by proxy from the New Testament Gospels, when she had John the Baptist’s head cut off and delivered to her on a silver platter. http://tinyurl.com/536rea Today under VAWA, Salome would just call 911 and tell the police a lie to accomplish the same ends in a more torturous and inhumane way.

    In the very first book of the Old Testament, Genesis, Potiphar’s wife falsely accused Joseph of raping her, resulting in Joseph’s false imprisonment by proxies of Potiphar’s wife.
    http://tinyurl.com/85oxvt9
    http://tinyurl.com/6nscb3n

  • Otter

    “Can these critics be simply lying? Perhaps they suffer from some form of dementia? Or is their ideology so immovable that a wholly fictional reality is superimposed on what filters through their eyes and ears before it is processed?”

    I don’t think the three are mutually exclusive. Recently when I told a close female friend that I don’t feel obligated to defend women, she immediately accused me of supporting violence towards women. The logic was so backwards it made my head spin.

  • Bombay

    One of the significant gains of Cultural Marxism is the instillation of the mantra of nonviolence. Since men by their definition are violent this is part of their gender shaming control. But it is really bigger than this – it is societal control. With their reclassification of domestic crime as domestic terrorism and the creation of Homeland Security, the fear of being labeled as an individual/organization who is violent, reality not withstanding, is justified.

    The accusation of being violent is currently the most potent public shaming tactic there is IMO. And it is currently only effective against men.

  • Rper1959

    It’s getting clearer all the time thanks JTO for showing us how skilled women are at violence by proxy, just another of their dirty little secrets.

    Add to this their unquestioned supremacy in direct violence via verbal, emotional, financial and administrative abuse, their abuse of children in all forms including destroying kids relationships with their fathers and promoting paternal alienation, their self absorption in their own appearance and with their own needs and the average female human certainly has no justification in claiming the moral high ground.

  • DruidV

    I have always believed that violence in and of itself is not evil. Neither is it righteous. It simply is.

    Whenever you watch a shark, a tiger, or a spider enjoying its kill, yes, that is violence. When a hurricane blows your house down, or a tsunami washes you away, that too can be considered violence. This is natural violence and will never ever change. Much of it is unavoidable.

    Man (and woman) made violence is something else again and much of it is completely unnecessary and totally avoidable.

    Another belief I have always held is that whenever one is attacked with violence, similar violence should be returned upon the attacker threefold, so as to prevent the attacker from getting back to his or her feet to continue attacking. In some very rare cases this even knocks some sense into abusive, violent bullies and they may actually reconsider such reckless behavior and callous disregard for the personal space of others in the future. As I said: Rare.

    Nevertheless, this policy as a socially acceptable norm, to my way of thinking, would make for a much more polite and safer society.

    FTSU
    &
    GMOW

    • Darryl X

      I disagree, Druid. Violence by men is almost always justified in either the long- or short-term analysis. Men impose upon each other for resources – fight wars, etc… They only pursue those ends when all other alternatives have been exhausted. They are capable of analysis of costs and benefits.

      It’s when that imposition is at the instigation by women that their violence is irrational – when it is used to satisfy her excesses and her entitlement and addiction to power and control.

      When a man beats a woman, it is to stop her from wasting resources or in defense of himself or his children (since they don’t have the sense to regulate themselves, they require a man to do it for them – and the government doesn’t count as a man as it is simply a tool of the woman).

      Women don’t respond to reason – they only respond to fear. It’s all they know because their brains don’t work otherwise. So the violence by men is justified. Violence by women is not.

      Hurricanes just happen. They have a cause in meteorology and geography and physics and can be described mathematically. Behavior of women is irrational and senseless and defies a cost-benefit analysis and mathematical description and almost always has an alternative that is not violent. It is truly violent because there is an alternative.

      Bottom line: women just do shit and it makes no sense. That makes it violent. Sometimes, on rare occasion, men do things that appear violent but an analysis shows either that all other alternatives have been exhausted or that there is a woman behind it all.

      The only true violent element in our population is women. And they distract everyone from their inherent nature by casting aspersions and fingers of blame at men. And to suppress violence, we must suppress women. It’s no more complicated than that.

      Although feminism has always been around, it is no coincidence that its proliferation forty years ago came with a proliferation of real violence – pandemic child snatching, wars for oil and other irrational wars, mass suicide by men, economic induced famines and disease, etc… Feminism is anathema to civilization and without a civilization, all populations will devolve to primitive social organizing and feminist rule and all the real violence inherent to them.

      • DruidV

        I’m not sure I understand what you’re disagreeing with.

        My point was simply that it is perfectly okay to defend yourself and make a point while doing so.

        I agree that violent women and their free pussy pass is a real problem, but violence is not gender specific, a point many here have been trying to make, for a long time.

        • Darryl X

          Oh, OK. I must have had too much coffee this morning. We’re good.

      • valdez_addiction

        You have a couple points that can be thought of as valid, but you’re skating on a slippery slope.

        Woman have been manipulative because it was necessary to their survival. They’ve only gotten out of hand with it because they’ve been programmed to disregard taking the more logical of the species (Men) advise.

        Our leadership has always been essential to their survival. This is true. And as of late they’ve been taught not to respect us as leaders, however we will not gain that respect back through fear of violence.

        The only hope for the human race is the education of new generations. Just like this bullshit was taught to us, the right shit has to be taught to our children.

        Feminism is a foundation of lies. The moment we embrace violence as a solution you give feminism a real foundation to stand on.

        And please don’t say, “They already think we’re violent.”

        That’s like a poor black man selling drugs to solve his money problems and then saying, “They already think we’re drug dealers.” This may solve his money problems but only temporarily and the long term consequences of his actions put him in a worse position than he already was in.

        They’ve already branded us violent, I know this. But everyone including them knows it’s bullshit. Numbers don’t lie. But the moment they have concrete proof that we really are more violent. This misandric society of ours will seem like a picnic compared to what will happen in the future.

        I don’t know about you, but I wanna make shit better for my boys, not worse.

        • Darryl X

          There is no peaceful solution to our dilemma, Valdez. Any attempt at a peaceful solution throughout history has failed. And failed with spectacular consequences. I’m not saying that it should not be a goal but that we should not be disappointed when that goal is not achieved. Malignant narcissists do not give up power and do not free their slaves voluntarily. Freedom is achieved only by force. Applying that force judiciously is important. Thomas Jefferson promoted the use of as much civil disobedience as possible and as little violence as necessary to mitigate the abuses of government. Unfortunately today the US has been outlawing incrementally civil disobedience and many acts of civil disobedience which in the past have been critical to promoting our freedom from oppression are now punishable by lengthy jail sentences.

  • AntZ

    Very thorough treatement of the subject.

    Women know that the agents of state power are their allies (wearing blue or black uniforms).

    Men know that the agents of state power are their oppressors (wearing blue or black uniforms).

  • Otter

    I’ll tell you what, guys. I’m 27 and was raised by a single mother who was a devout feminist. From birth she instilled non-violence in me. I grew up in a well off community and she would always tell me that if I got into a fight, my family could lose our house. I believed this wholeheartedly and became very good at “using my words” to deflect and avoid conflict whenever possible.

    The scary part came when I got into fights where I was attacked because my instinct to protect myself was all but killed. I would get pummeled for several seconds before even getting the urge to do something. I was so passive it was a danger to myself. I did wrestle in highschool and became very good at it. Fights would end with my face bloodied and swollen but my opponent choked out on the floor, because to this day I can’t bring myself to hit another human being in the face, the voice in my head telling me I’ll lose everything if I do is just too strong.

    Kind of reminds me of Little Alex, only they got to me before I did anything.

    • valdez_addiction

      I can fully relate to what Otter is saying. As a child I was very timid and peaceful. Needless to say I soon encountered other children who weren’t.

      I had to learn to defend myself out of necessity, but to this day I will never initiate a fight because of my nature and how I was raised.

      The feeling I get during a physical altercation is one of anxiety and stress. It is always an unnerving experience. It may be possible that some people are naturally violent, however I can only speak for myself when I say, “I’m not one of them.”

      In my experience it is always the cowardly at heart who start fights for no reason. It’s usually because they are scared. The feel threatened by the world around them so they set out to convince those around them that they are fierce so that they won’t be challenged.

      It’s like a guy doing his first prison bid. He puts on a tough face to discourage attackers because he’s scared.
      He may even start a fight. Because prison is full of real tough guys, the recognize this ruse and he immediately becomes a target.

      I know a lot of guys who are great fighters. They enter tough man competitions and other competitive matches. However on the streets they are the most peaceful down to earth guys you would ever meet.

      I’ve never seen anyone of them start a fight, but I’ve definitely seen them finish one.

      This is why violence by proxy is so dangerous. It’s those same cowardly bullies, paying real tough guys to do their dirty work. The coward’s hands are clean in his mind because he’s not doing the actual act and the tough guy doesn’t feel guilty because in his mind he’s just doing his job.

      Violence by proxy is action without accountability.

      • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

        First stones then bows and arrows.

        The art of war is killing from a further distance than your enemy.

        Well, that’s what I reckon anyway.

        • Darryl X

          This is how cowards fight.

      • Otter

        “Violence by proxy is action without accountability.”

        I think accountability is the root of most of our problems.

        • valdez_addiction

          I can agree with that Otter

  • Sheldon Walker

    Good article, Although it’s worth noting that there is no escaping violence due to the fact that every person on this planet has the will to power.

    Essentially anything that opposes someone else’s reality can be interpreted as violent.

    The proclamation of being above violence is a bit outlandish due to the fact even trying to change someones perspective is violent.

    It’s part of life, it’s ugly, it’s something no one is above nor can escape. I also believe that men particularly enjoy violence which is why they enjoy logic, video games, sports, politics, etc.

    All of those things give them the opportunity to be violent through “socially approved” avenues.

    Also money and status is enough to have most men happily partake in proxy violence.

    As sad as it is to say everyone has a price.

  • sweeney
    • DruidV

      Truly sick and disgusting what these yellow prosecutors and media will come up with to play that pussy pass, innit?

      “Prosecutors said if they were to charge Cassandra Kennedy with a crime, it might discourage girls from reporting sexual assaults.”

      Or at least the totally fabricated, false ones, anyway.

      Please excuse me, I have to go puke now…

      • Stu

        What they mean is that if they were to charge her it might stop other women making false allegations.

        What a lot of mra’s don’t understand is that the legal profession and the abuse industry don’t care that woman make false allegations, they know they do, and they know that there is an epidemic of them, and they know why. It’s because they have enabled it. And they make a living out of all this crapola. It matters not if an allegation is false or not…….there are parasites galore that are being paid to deal with the complaints…..they don’t care if they are false or not….what matters is that they have a job…..well paid job at that…..and they get to sit around pushing paper around for a living before retiring to big fat pensions. They also get to play heroes and saviors.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      My son was 23 when he unexpectedly ran into his false accuser(s) at the Phoenix Airport. The (now adult) child herself ran and jumped into a cab, but her mother started trying to hug him, bawling, and asking for forgiveness; “let’s just be a family again”.

      It was the first time I ever saw him break down and cry over the horror how they’d put him through.

      “All this time I thought she was crazy and really believed it happened…now I know she lied …just …because she could…”

      He told them he’d already “forgotten” it – it was over as far as he was concerned.

      We of course never contacted them again until 10 years later, when he was trying to have his name removed from the sex offender registry.

      She promised to do “whatever it takes to help” him get off the registry, then “objected strongly” when actually contacted by the court.

      Which, of course, I knew she would do.

      He succeeded in having his name removed anyway. Whatever vengeance is in order is in God’s hands. I am grateful for the current recession, the new laws that would return him to the public registry are too cost prohibitive to enact …for now.

  • The Watcher

    “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent” – Issac Asimov.

    That said, sometimes “incompetence” is thrust upon one, in that one’s opponent absolutely refuses to consider any other option. One cannot reason with the unreasonable, nor persuade the unpersuadable. More often than not, however, one resorts to violence because one is unwilling to risk the consequences of going a step further, and attempting another non-violent solution. Alas, in this current society, too often one faces a double bind, where even choosing the ethical or moral course subjects one to dire consequences, sometimes at the hands of the legal system that at least nominally should be the guardian of justice.

    Concerning direct vs. proxy violence, I consider direct violence, abhorrent as it may be, the more honest alternative. Direct violence often leaves the initiator open to being injured in kind, through defensive or retaliatory actions. While there may be excuses, there is no denying that one too part in a violent altercation. Like a dog caught chewing on an expensive shoe, one knows that what one has done is going to bring about disapproval and/or punishment (at least in most civil societies).

    Indirect or proxy violence is dishonest violence. The initiator is removed from possibly injury, and may often feel as if they had maintained the claim to being peaceful and non-violent. Someone else gets their hands dirty, and takes all the risks. Some would even (rightfully too often) call this cowardice.

    My philosophy is that violence is often the product of injustice, whether real or merely perceived. Increasing the level or real justice will decrease the levels of violence, by and large. Those faced with no legal method for redress of their grievances will ultimately seek extralegal methods, which inevitably lead to more violence. Only a fool expects people to continue on under conditions of grave injustice without seeking redress.

    To those out there who would accuse the MRA’s, and men in general, of advocating and engaging in violence, concern yourselves first with re-establishing real, fundamental justice in society, and the so-called problem will solve itself.

    • Darryl X

      “That said, sometimes “incompetence” is thrust upon one, in that one’s opponent absolutely refuses to consider any other option.”

      That’s what malignant narcissists do. They eliminate the option of civil disobedience by outlawing and punishing it, leaving individuals with no other option for protecting themselves against an oppressive fascist regime.

    • Sheldon Walker

      There is no such thing as justice.

      I used to be very fond of that word when I was younger. But now I realize it’s a loaded word that usually has an agenda behind it.

      Justice is as abstract concept not concrete. Often justice is used as a rationalization tool for a personal crusade. I know because I’ve used “justice” for that very reason in the past regrettably.

      It’s hubris to believe that one is always righteous and their definition of justice is the only one that is correct and beyond reproach.

      • The Watcher

        If there is no justice, there is also no injustice. Do you really wish to take that stand?

        I do agree, there are varying ideas as to what exactly constitutes justice. For some, ‘justice’ entails punishment. For others, some form of reparations. Yet others would use justice as their reason to institute ‘affirmative action.’ None of these are the justice I speak of.

        Real, fundamental justice can only be found in the company of wisdom, compassion, and humility, all qualities that are sadly in short supply these days. It involves notions like treating everyone equitably, and respecting individual dignity. Yes, these are rather abstract, but deep down, I do believe that humans as a species do harbor an innate sense of what is right and wrong, just and unjust. To paraphrase Potter Stewart, I shall not today attempt further to define what real justice is,but I know it when I see it. The same applies to injustice (Although the latter may be easier to identify). That may come off as a cop out. So be it.

  • AndrewV

    My previous comment apparently got swallowed so here goes.

    I accidentally turned the tables on a woman who I became convinced was trying to get me in trouble. Eventually I turned to the police for advise. It turns out that in my little town, the police here are quite happy to do equal opportunity proxy violence.

    All you have to do is call them (just make sure you have had a chat with an Officer about your concerns beforehand, and make a note of the Officer, the date and time).

    YMMV depending on local conditions.

  • Otter

    Considering our prison culture where accused rapists are considered primary targets for rape, isn’t falsely accusing someone of rape then rape by proxy?

    Furthermore I don’t think I’m alone when I say I have often heard women gloat about convicted men being raped in prison.