Young woman wrapped in adhesive tape

Bad girls purged from Good Men Project

The Good Men Project has apparently been quietly purging its archives of items written by A Voice for Men contributor Elly Tams (aka “Quiet Riot Girl”) and now it appears that they are also doing so to articles written by AVfM contributing Editor Girl Writes What. We are now pledging to re-publish anything the censors at The Good Men Project have decided to deem WrongThink or that they may otherwise have “accidentally” published when they were trying to be open-minded to challenging Establishment points of view. The below was published, and then purged without explanation or acknowledgement, from The Good Men Project. –DE

How Feminism Hates Women by Girl Writes What
Part Two: Unwanted Sex vs. Rape

From Wikipedia:

Actus reus, sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime, is the Latin term for the “guilty act” which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the mens rea, “guilty mind”, produces criminal liability in the common law-based criminal law jurisdictions of Canada, Australia, India, Pakistan, New Zealand, England, Ireland and the United States.

Mens rea is Latin for “guilty mind”. In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means “the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty”.

Okay, so let’s pretend we’re talking about me, and what we’re talking about is me crashing my car into another vehicle, killing the driver. The act of crashing my car into his and killing him is the actus reus, and let’s say that this fact is not in dispute. Once it has been established that I did indeed crash my car into another and kill the driver, an investigation will be done (I would hope!), and the attendant circumstances examined, and it will only then be determined whether I have committed a crime.

Let’s say I undergo a breath test and am found to be legally impaired. In this case, I will be found to have the mens rea of recklessness–I engaged in conduct a law-abiding person would have refrained from, and that conduct resulted in a foreseeable death. I may be charged with a variety of crimes, based on my degree of inebriation and other circumstances–drunk driving causing death, vehicular manslaughter, reckless indifference homicide, etc.

Let’s say I live in a jurisdiction where it’s still legal to use a cell phone while driving, and I was on the phone when I crashed into him. If it can be determined I was paying more attention to my phone than the road, I will be found to have the mens rea of negligence–that is, a reasonable person would have been able to foresee the danger of my behavior and the harm it might cause. I will probably be charged with manslaughter.

Let’s say I drove through an intersection where a stop sign had been stolen or knocked over by vandals. If there was a wrongdoer in this case, it was certainly not me, and I have committed no crime.

Or let’s say the other driver ran the stop sign. In this case, I have also done nothing wrong, and have committed no crime.

Or let’s say I drove over a nail which blew my tire, and I could not regain control of my car in time to avoid the accident. Again, I have done nothing criminal.

Let’s say I saw that the other driver was my ex-husband, and I floored the gas pedal, slamming my car into his before backing up and ramming his vehicle repeatedly until the jaws of life couldn’t extricate him from the mangled wreckage. Not that I would ever want to do something like that *coughcough*, but in that case I would be found to have acted purposefully and wilfully to cause my ex’s death. And that, my friends, would be capital murder.

So here we have a bunch of different scenarios, all with the exact same terrible result for the victim, all of which differ in their degree of criminal culpability. Only two of these scenarios would qualify as murder, and in three I have committed no crime at all.

So here we have the crux: any situation in which one person kills another is a homicide, but not all homicides are crimes, and not all criminal homicides are considered murder. Whether a homicide is considered murder or not, depends entirely on mens rea–the “guilty mind”.

I have often asserted in my arguments online that just because someone feels they have been wronged or harmed by another, this does NOT necessarily mean a crime was committed against them. And by extension, a man should never be considered to have raped a woman if he did not have the necessary mens rea–that is, if he did not actually realize he was raping her.

I am often told in response that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but ignorance of the law has very little to do with mens rea. In the case of rape, mens rea is not a question of whether someone knows that forcing an unwilling woman to have sex is rape, it is a question of whether someone is aware they are forcing an unwilling woman to have sex.

But how could a person not know they are forcing an unwilling woman? How could anyone not realize that a woman who isn’t consenting is not consenting?

Well, how about if you’re naked in bed, engaging in the preliminaries of sex, for which said woman seems enthusiastic, and at no point during the festivities does the woman ask you to stop?

Early anti-rape campaigns focused on a phrase I could really get behind: “No means no.” But things have morphed a little since then, into an attitude of, “Anything but an enthusiastic and oft-repeated ‘yes’ means no.”

I have been cautioned by so many people on feminist boards about how very very important it is for a man to check in frequently with his partner, that many women simply don’t have the wherewithal to say “no” if they change their minds, but that this does not mean they are consenting. That women have been known to freeze up and the first sign a man might have that he’s raped her is the sound of her quietly sobbing after the fact. Oddly, I hear very little talk about how very very important it is for a woman to actually have the maturity to say “no” if, indeed, she means “no”, before she climbs naked into a man’s bed, however. She, apparently, has no responsibility toward her partner, to prevent him from inadvertently doing something he’d likely feel terrible about afterward.

Considering how differently women are wont to behave during sex, it is unreasonable to expect a man to conclude that loud moaning, say, can be translated as “please stop”, or that a lack of loud moaning can be translated as “please stop”, or that twisting and writhing can be translated as “please stop”, or that a lack of twisting and writhing can be translated as “please stop”, or that a grimace can be translated as “please stop”, or that the lack of a grimace can be translated as “please stop”, etc.

So here we have a woman who has changed her mind, and is counting on her body’s signals and her facial expressions to convey this message to her partner, who may have never engaged her in sexual activity before. Because she lacks the wherewithal to actually tell him to stop, and believes he should just…well, he should just be able to tell. The man is on top of her, arguably holding her down, but in his mind he’s just holding her tightly the way his other partners liked him to do.

That the sex was, indeed unwanted, is a fact not in dispute. The feelings of the woman may include violation, trauma, fear, anger, and a deep sense of having been wronged. These feelings are in no way invalid.

However, for the crime of rape to have occurred requires both actus reus (the act of unwanted sex itself) and mens rea (some form of criminal or guilty mind or intent). For the above scenario to be rape, and a crime, the rapist would have to KNOW that he was subjecting the woman to unwanted sex. And if the first clear sign that she’d changed her mind is her quiet sobbing after the fact, well…this is unfortunate, and a terrible situation (both for the woman, who may well be traumatized, and for the man who unintentionally traumatized her) but it isn’t a crime. It is NOT RAPE.

And this is one major issue I have with data on rape presented in studies like Ms. Magazine’s infamous “1 in 4″ survey. Because those studies conflate “unwanted sex” the actus reus that constitutes only half of a crime, with “rape”, something that requires both the actus reus of unwanted sex AND mens rea.

Claiming that 1 in 4 college women are victims of rape or attempted rape based on one-sided accounts that conform to specific sexual scenarios is analogous to publishing a report on how many capital murders occurred in the US in a given year, and including accidental homicides, manslaughters, homicides where the killer was mentally incompetent, self-defence killings, negligent homicides, and second degree murders in your tally.

The Ms. study did give mens rea a “nod”, if you will, by asking respondents who’d been subjected to unwanted sex to contextualize what they believed had happened to them. A full 49% of respondents characterized what had happened as “miscommunication”. This would make the unwanted sex in those cases an unfortunate, but not criminal, act. In those respondents’ opinions, the perpetrators did not have the required mens rea to have committed rape, because they were unaware that the respondents were unwilling. And perhaps, being there at the time, the respondents were more in a position to assess the behavior and motivations of their “attackers” than the surveyors were.

However, the author of the study disregarded these interpretations and applied the term “rape” or “attempted rape” to every incident of unwanted sex where some degree of force was used, such as holding a woman down. And this might be reasonable, if not for the typical mechanics of sex, which often involve, well…a man holding someone whilst simultaneously being on top of them.

Ahh, you might say, but in the Ms. study, about half of the findings of rape and attempted rape involved alcohol or drugs, “administered” to the woman before sex. Here again, I have some issues. Because in the dating and hook-up scenes on campuses, there’s a lot of booze consumed by women, often gleefully provided by young men hoping to grease the wheels of sex. I have some serious doubts as to whether these young men are holding women down and pouring liquor down their unwilling throats. I also have a hard time seeing scores of sober young men pressuring women to drink in the hopes that they will become incoherent and sloppy enough as to be unaware of her surroundings and unable to resist, much less participate in the anticipated sex.

So we have college parties where everyone–male or female–is drinking like mad, all looking to shed their inhibitions, have a great time and maybe hook up with someone.

And while providing a woman with enough free beer to drop a rhino may be self-serving on the part of the young men involved and in no way entitles them to sex, I can’t help but think that if these women are somehow unaware that alcohol consumption lowers inhibitions (even sexual ones *gasp!*), and that consuming enormous quantities may lead them to consent to things they would never do while sober, they probably do not belong in college in the first place.

So let’s explore the role of alcohol in the crime of rape. Let’s be true to the criminal code and say one’s own willful intoxication is no defence, and let’s be totally wacky and hold both genders to an equal standard of accountability.

Young man pours young woman several beers. Young man is unabashed in his motive to get said woman buzzed enough that her judgment will be impaired and he may get lucky as a result. Said woman drinks those beers looking to get wasted, because getting wasted doesn’t just feel good–it frees her up to do things that she wouldn’t while sober, but that she kinda sorta wants to do sometimes and might just do if not for those pesky inhibitions.

So let’s say she’s drunk but coherent, and he is equally drunk but coherent, and both of them willingly engage in sex. In the morning, she rolls over and realizes she just fucked Ron Jeremy’s less suave cousin, and she can hardly even remember how it happened. She’s lying there, thinking, “OMG, he got me drunk on purpose so he could take advantage of me–that’s RAPE!”

Well, yes it is. Sort of. If one can wrap one’s head around the idea that pouring a woman a few beers is the precipitating act proving an intent to commit rape, rather than a generous application of socio-sexual lubricant. I mean, it’s not like he slipped her a date-rape drug. He gave her alcohol, which she willingly drank. If his intention when pouring her those beers was to get her so wasted that her level of intoxication would “seal the deal” and guarantee sex, whether she wanted it or not, then yeah. Rape. But if his intention was to grease the wheels in the hope that she might climb onto his lap and engage in consensual sex with him, has he really done anything wrong? Because at that point, we would have to conclude that any man who buys a woman he desires a few drinks has the intent to rape, don’t we? Again, it’s all about mens rea–the guilty mind.

However, even if we conclude that any consensual sex while falling-down drunk is rape, we must consider the corollary of drunk driving. Charging a sober man with rape because a woman consented to have sex with him while she was drunk would be analogous to holding the sober driver at fault in a collision with a drunk driver.

And if they’re both drunk? Though a legal argument may be made that she was too drunk to be capable of consent, well, so was he, wasn’t he? And though a legal argument may be made that a criminal’s willful intoxication is no defence for having committed a crime…if we are to keep to our completely nutty theme of holding both parties to the same standard of accountability, both parties would be rapists under the law, and both would be accessories to the other’s perpetration of rape.

This much should be clear. If intoxication vitiates consent but does not eliminate criminal culpability, then even enthusiastic, consensual drunk sex is a crime–one which two people participated in. If one’s own willful intoxication is no defence…well, if she said “yes” while drunk, she participated in the commission of a crime, and is an accessory. Hell, one could argue that her consuming enough alcohol to become so drunk that her inhibitions would be lowered was an act of intent to become an accessory to rape.

Regardless of who feels more harmed by the situation, when both parties are drunk, both parties are equally culpable. Charging a traumatized woman with rape and accessory to rape would be no more unjust than charging a man with the same, even if both had the required mens rea to commit the crime of having sex while too intoxicated to consent.

And this is where the alcohol/drug rape definition departs from reality. Because if we are to criminalize drunk sex, both parties should be charged even if both are pleased with the outcome the next morning, since consent must occur contemporaneously with the sexual acts performed–neither advance consent nor consent after-the-fact are in any way defensible legal concepts. And if one cannot legally consent to sex while drunk, then one cannot legally consent to sex while drunk.

And if the woman was drunk and consented, and the man was NOT drunk? Her drunken “yes” still technically makes her an accessory to a criminal act. By consenting to sex while drunk, she was engaging and participating in criminal activity, and her own willful intoxication is no defence.

A crime is a crime is a crime, even if no one was harmed by it, right? And the only way to avoid criminalizing the act of ANYONE saying “yes” while drunk is to hold both genders to the same standard of accountability for their decisions while drunk.

That is, to maintain the definition of rape as the conscious, intentional and willful forcing of sex on a clearly non-consenting person.

And if that is the only rational definition of rape that can possibly be enforced without applying differing standards of legal culpability and differing standards of conduct on people solely based on what reproductive parts they have, then when it comes to rape as a crime, it is ALL ABOUT mens rea. In which case, incidents of unwanted sex based on a woman’s consumption of alcohol/drugs or specific scenarios that do not take into account the intent of the “attacker”, cannot be described as rape.

Just like a car accident can’t be called murder solely because someone died, not every incident of unwanted sex can be characterized as rape.

Yet we do this constantly. When it comes to rape and rape alone, the legal requirement of mens rea as one half of the definition of a crime is utterly ignored, by feminists, by “experts” and, increasingly, by the law–but only when it comes to women and victimhood. And why? To protect women from their own decisions, from their lack of honesty and maturity, and from the consequences of their own irresponsible behavior.

In other words, reduce them to the level of children under the law, incapable of behaving responsibly or standing by their own choices and actions–whether it is a choice to fuck while drunk or the decision to engage in sexual activity while emotionally incapable of uttering the word “no”.

How on earth can this not be seen as misogynistic?

If you spot any other articles by uppity women (or men) that they’re busy purging, by anyone, please let us know so we can try to reprint them. And, as usual, you can find Girl Writes What here on YouTube. We will dedicate our work to republish these purged works to our good friends at Jezebel.com and most especially the Stalinistswomen at Feministing.–DE

About Karen Straughan (aka GirlWritesWhat)

AVfM Contributing Editor Karen Straughan "Girl Writes What" is a 42 year old, divorced mother of three who enjoys talking about herself in the third person. As "Girl Writes What" Karen is co-host and star of AVfM Radio, and possibly the most popular and visible MHRA in North America. Her writing and videography on gender issues features in classrooms in high schools and universities on three continents. But she still has time for the little people, like Paul, and those other guys.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Roland3337

    Good Men Project. Hah. Cowards.

    • http://www.shrink4men.com/ Dr. Tara J. Palmatier

      I think we’ve been confused about Matlack’s and Hickey’s use of the word “Project.”

      They don’t seem to be using it as a noun as in a “fixer upper project, but rather as a verb. Specifically, the feminist writers of GMP project their toxic psychological, hate-filled bullshit onto men and boys. In reality, they need a Good Feminist Project (n.)

  • http://www.shrink4men.com/ Dr. Tara J. Palmatier

    I’d wear being blacklisted by GiMP as a badge of honor. Congratulations!

    It’s like the Matmos (the lake of evil slime beneath the city of Sogo in Barbarella) burping up the angel and Barbarella instead of devoring them at the end of the film. The angel and Babz were so good that the Matmos rejected them.

  • Jay

    A couple of things, first the headline is not quite accurate. It’s probably not that women are being purged, while unwieldy it’s probably more accurate that articles that do not stand up to their *current* political positions are being purged.

    My guess is they probably still have plenty of the usual women writing for them.

    I would recommend that you go to Quiet Riot Girl’s GMP page, and Girl Writes What’s GMP page and a) mirror what is there, b) document the articles they have listed, and c) ask QRG and GWW if those pages are missing articles and if so, which pages.

    And I think you might formally ask GMP why they are disappearing these articles. What has changed since their original publication and now?

    If anyone wants to follow them, or ask them a question about this on twitter, they are at https://twitter.com/GoodMenProject
    Maybe a good hashtag would be #GMPPurge ??

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      Anything else? :)

      • Jay

        Yeah, I know. I always have lots of suggestions for things you could be doing…. Yet somehow my lawn remains unmowed.

        But I’m mainly just trying to suggest ways to make this public and nail them and preclude them from weaseling out.

    • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

      Title changed. That said, in my view, they’ve purged real women, as opposed to frightened schoolgirls who kowtow to bullies.

      • Jay

        I agree completely. And I think the new title is much better.

    • http://www.quietgirlriot.wordpress.com Elly Tams

      Hi Jay
      I have emailed Lisa Hickey, the CEO of GMP, but she hasn’t replied yet.

      My posts that are less ‘controversial’ than the rape culture one have been moved from the main GMP site to the ‘good life blog’.

      I agree it is to do with their current ‘editorial position’. But this position relates to how they published that piece by a man who admits once raped a woman. And the GMP got a lot of flak (to put it mildly). So my guess is they have gone through their site removing other articles which might inflame their readers/feminists.

      But my question is why are they, a site for and about men, kow-towing to feminist women?

      QRG/Elly

      • Stu

        Because it’s not a site for men, it’s a feminist site designed to train men to be manginas.

        Face it Elly, you’re on the outer well and truly now, ala Erin Pizzey and the women’s shelters. You have no choice but to become a fully fledged Honey Badger now :)

        • http://www.quietgirlriot.wordpress.com Elly Tams

          Ha ha.
          But seriously, though it always had major flaws, I think the GMP has changed recently. And one irony is that when uber-feminist Hugo Schwyzer was on board, there was more ‘editorial balance’. He was pro-feminist and the rest of the editors provided alternative viewpoints. When he left I think the GMP had a choice. And they chose to become more feminist to fill the ‘gap’ that Schwyzer left.

          I’ll leave them to it.

          • Stu

            More red pills Elly, take more red pills. Oh maybe, I’m willing to concede that they may have been “less mangina” at some point lol. But, did you ever see the conscious men video……that was it for me, that is TGMP. Their is just no coming back from that lol Terminal manginaism, 100% fatal, no treatment, no hope

      • Kimski

        “But my question is why are they, a site for and about men, kow-towing to feminist women?”

        You might as well ask what feminist women, or any women at all, are doing on a site specifically made for men?

        This is just another attempt to control the narrative of all men only spaces, as they have persisted in doing it for years, until there were finally none left, while at the same time demanding more and more women only spaces.

        Basically, just another example of the kind of “equality” that feminism peddles.

        The fear of losing control driving this mentality is another blatantly obvious example of projection of their own talks about men, in women only spaces.The only funny thing about it is their lack of ability to recognize it themselves.

        Their hatred must be immense, considering the level of energy that are put into these attempts at controlling everything we say, do and think.

        • keyster

          They’re trying to answer the question: How do men and masculinity fit into Feminist/Gender Egalitarian Utopia?

          Social engineering can’t change unalterable human nature – so it’s a circular question, with perpetual circular logic. That’s the business model. If they could answer the question, resolve the problem with men not adapting in accordance with feminist protocol – they’d have no reason to exist.

          What should and/or will a Man and Masculinity look like in a Gender Egalitarian Utopia? Emasculated and wholly feminized? Or disenfranchised and angry? What is the “new” feminized masculinity?

          That’s the TGMP question.
          Feminism has won.
          No what about the remaining Free Slaves out there?

          • Kimski

            I agree, but they’re working from the flawed standpoint that biology has absolutely no say in forming masculinity or femininity, and claim that science has not brought forth any evidence of such a connection, which is just not true.

            Scientists that study the forming of masculinity or femininity in infants have more than sufficient material to prove that there are quite obvious connections, and laughs at the theories that most gender studies come up with that says differently.

            So, gender studies are basically working from a model that totally disregards what scientific research has found, or as a minimum, gender studies are working from a standpoint of “what if” biology has no say in the process.

            You might as well base the science of astronomy from the starting point that the Earth was flat and centre of the universe.

            As long as females keep choosing ‘soft’ playthings, as well as educations based on communication and nuturing, there will never be any place for men or masculinity in their gender utopia, because the idea of women choosing differently is flawed from the beginning, if you think it is based on culture and learning only.

            You need to see this, Keyster:

            http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp0tg8_hjernevask-brainwashing-in-norway-english-part-1-the-gender-equality-paradox_news

            I want you to take a good look at the eyes of those two gender study teachers, at the end of the show, when they get presented with the scientific evidence. That’s the look of someone who feels threatened by reality, and are fearful of loosing their bogus jobs.

            As a sidenote, this was the program that made the Norwegian state cut all state funding for de facto feminist organizations and gender studies classes in public universities.

  • keyster

    You wander too far from the Feminist Plantation over there and they’ll banish you. The only reason these women were given a voice there in the first place was because they’re women. Once the editors/readership took the time to comprehend what they actually said – they realized they had erred.

    You don’t want actual REAL women questioning the narrative just when you’re trying to convince young men how “male positive” feminism is. It doesn’t pass editorial muster at the GMP.

    Besides, has anyone seen the number of views GWW videos have? I’d be scared of losing control of the narrative too if I were GMP.

    Mother of God, help us all should an articulate, intelligent and attractive contingent of female operatives mount an insurgency and gain mainstream traction.

    • TheMoralGodless

      I had high hopes earlier this year that conservative women were finally mounting a substantive, thoughtful challenge to femisupremacism, but that got quashed by Obama’s re-coronation by voting vaginas. Venker and Dr. Helen are both coming out with new books next year so maybe that will get going again.

      Ultimately traditionalism is just a different perspective on how to curtail men’s agency and pedestal women, but they have potential as allies.

      • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

        Dr. Helen has tentatively confirmed she’ll do an appearance on The Honeybadger Files. Who’ll be first, her or Dr. Tara? Oh such problems to have…

        • http://www.shrink4men.com/ Dr. Tara J. Palmatier

          H comes before T.

          • Stu

            C for chicken? ;)

          • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

            Haha. Well perhaps. But do bear in mind, the normal target for an episode of The Honeybadger Files is 15-20 minutes, not the hour I spent with Erin. There was just no way with Erin I was going to do anything but let her talk as long as she wanted about anything she wanted. No marathons for you, I promise. ;-)

      • Skeptic

        I wish I could agree, but ultimately I can’t see how anybody who pedestalizes women, as you point out, can be an ally of men leaving the plantation.
        I think their only potential is if they stop being traditionalists by learning compassion for men.

        • Raven01

          Look at it this way, you right now have a choice of consuming a shit-sandwich (or sammich depending on who made it) or a hotdog.
          Neither is the meal you actually want, both are likely detrimental to your health.
          One might get you by on a lean week. An unpalatable alliance or a bitter pill but, it can serve a purpose.

      • keyster

        Conservatives/Traditionalism lost the culture war.

        It began in the 1960′s with a Gramsci strategy, tactician Alinsky et al…you have to win the people, and thus it is now so. Just be patient while awaiting the collapse.

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

      “Mother of God, help us all should an articulate, intelligent and attractive contingent of female operatives mount an insurgency and gain mainstream traction.”

      It happened during prohibition and became one of the driving forces ending it.

      Of course, it was women “do-gooders” aligned with the Suffrage movement who heavily influenced prohibition’s passage in the first place.

      …as per Ken Burn’s DVD.

      • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

        And how is it even possible that women managed to get the 18th amendment banning alcohol ratified before the 19th amendment which gave them the vote?

        It’s almost like, by some secret means no one can possibly fathom at all, even more mysterious than The Trinity, even more mysterious than the origin of the Big Bang, somehow, some way, women managed to have some sort of magic power before the vote.

        No, no, such a thing is surely impossible! They were nothing but oppressed victims of the Patriarchal Jackboot before the 19th amendment, I tell ya! That 18th amendment, it just sorta HAPPENED, with men using their Patriarchal Privilege to… to… do what women demanded?

        No, it was men deciding to MAKE Carrie Nation run that crusade of hers! And those women who formed the Women’s Christian Temperance Union were BEATEN into it by their husbands and fathers. Of course, of course, it’s all just been blotted from the histories…

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

          I thought the part were Ms. Nation busted up bars, often without getting arrested was rather telling too. In one of her one-woman riots she actually had to ask to be arrested to get arrested. What kind of power did she possess that enabled her (and later other women) to walk into bars with impunity and throw rocks at whiskey bottles and mirrors with paintings of plump, naked ladies if “Patriarchy” was so oppressive to women of that era? Hmm, sounds like those passes have been handed out for a long, long time.

          • keyster

            The men were drinking and these raucous harridans offered up some brief entertainment to break the monotony.

            It was endearing at the time; much like the bra burnings of the 60′s were cute at first. “Oh let the girls have their fun if-in it keeps them off our backs for a spell.”

        • http://owningyourshit.blogspot.com/ Girl Writes What

          I logged in JUST to upvote this comment. Powerless, oppressed, subjugated, downtrodden women, indeed. Managed to amend the goddamn constitution of the US before they even had the vote. The poor, helpless darlings…

          • Raven01

            And, I notice it worked out just as well as every other charge led by Team Vagina.
            But, chubby, violent criminals like Capone did get richer and make those darlings tingle all the more due to their actions.
            We really, really, must start encouraging women to start voting with their heads rather than their genitalia. I know they are capable of it, just not how to make it an attractive choice for them.

          • Shadow7057

            Ironically, The Good Men Project has recently posted in support of a Jezebel article called “No One is Entitled to Sex: Why We Should Mock the Nice Guys of OK Cupid”.

            http://goodmenproject.com/sex-relationships/what-if-the-nice-guys-of-ok-cupid-is-harming-innocent-people/

            So they erase posts made by GWW, but support Jezebel? Very strange indeed…

        • Tawil

          Great point Dean. It reminds me of a book ‘Women and power in the Middle Ages’ that shows women always had power, even in the ‘patriarchal age’ when they supposedly didn’t. There was a second title put out by the same authors, ‘Gendering the Master Narrative: Women and Power in the Middle Ages’

        • keyster

          Dean – My Great Grandmother was a leader of the local chapter of the Temperance Movement in Philadelphia. She was a feisty broad. Lived to 98. I come from a lineage of “strong independent” women, for their time.

          • Raven01

            Sounds like she could be the subject of an interesting article Keyster.
            I know you and I don`t see eye to eye on some things. But, DannyBoy and I have had a few discussions on the differences we`ve noticed especially between much older `strong`women and the modern variety.
            Those old broads were something else, an entirely different species to modern women. Whether they were right or wrong they actually seem to have done stuff for themselves on occasion.

    • Tawil

      Keyster: “You wander too far from the Feminist Plantation over there and they’ll banish you.”

      Good choice of words Keyster- “banishment” is exactly the payback for women, and it’s designed to hurt. Imagine it like this; feminism showers women with greater entitlements and pleasures, including sisterhood emotional attachments. But then feminism banishes women to a void filled with lost community, lost emotional attachment, lost entitlements, lost pleasures, and no alternative community. That banishment must be agonizing…. and feminist know it…. its how they keep the racket going.

      • keyster

        The only thing that keeps conservative women united is religion and anti-abortion. The only thing that keeps feminist women united is pro-abortion and hatred of religious conservative women.

        Since single women are the majority, so are secular-progressive feminist women in general.

        For the outliers such as anti- or questioning of- feminism secular progressive women I can’t say…but they seem to be growing in number.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    The Good Grief Project. Corporate advertisers and authoritarian government rulers agree on the thought control agenda. The sheeple must be herded, then sheared and finally made into “socially useful” mutton.

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

    Didn’t publisher used to shout the term “Banned in Boston” like a badge of honor to drum up readership? Maybe “Banned at the GMP,” will become a clarion call for free speech in the MRM. :-)

    http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Banned_in_Boston
    “”banned in Boston” began to be associated in the popular mind with something sexy and lurid; many distributors of such works were happy when they were banned in Boston, as that made them have more appeal elsewere; some were even purported as having been banned there when in fact they were not in order to increase their appeal. “

  • Rog

    more feminist sponsored censorship,,,, coulda seen that coming a mile off im sure paul and AVFM have their backs along with many others and i do hope they get more views here than they did there…
    the good serf project can kiss my arse….

  • Stu

    More proof that TGMP is not a men’s rights site. It’s a feminazi site, promoting ultra mangina as an example of “Good Men”

  • http://vilo13.blogspot.com/ Lucian Vâlsan

    Oh… this article got purged from a Marxist-Feminist website such as GMP? Oh… I am shocked!

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com/activism-page/karma/ KARMA MRA MGTOW

    Off to the Gulag in true Marxist fashion.

  • Gamerp4

    Good Men Project, Ohhh I just love that name YOU KNOW, There is no Good Men according to feminist so they would like to invent or make amendment to the masculinity of manhood, So Men better get in line because feminist can fix you up and make you a “Good Men”, Your idol good men is Hugo Shywzer (The Rapist and Pedophile).

    Lolz I just can’t stop laughing after writing this comment and you better give me some upvote damn Evil Men of AVFM and MRM.

  • Mr.Zeph

    Not just bad girls, but bad boys as well. Mr. Elam’s articles is toast.

    http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/meet-the-mens-rights-movement/

    I posted an article one time based on an admin’s request. It’s really not worth it. What they do is get everyone else to provide the content while they make the money from the traffic.

    Comments that are not lock-step in line with their goals simply aren’t approved.

  • dazdnkonfusd

    Hey everyone. Just found this site (actually sort of stumbeled across it to be truthfull). After all, it’s not like the Gyno-centric ‘Mainstream’ media will even admit you exist! Anyway,as someone who was threatened with ‘Banishment’ from the GMP (by E-mail from Joanna Schroder) for daring to question their ‘Moderating’ me out 1/2 the time, all I can say is I’m glad to find this site and I’m glad to find where QRG and GWW disappeared to . It’s like an old Soviet Purge at GMP. These 2 fine writers never existed there!

  • JinnBottle

    As Rod Taylor said: “I’m going back to my own time!”

    And as Woody Allen said: “I’m going back to my own planet.”