Resolved: Feminism is evil

You can count on me to pretty much consistently call feminism an ‘evil ideology,’

…and feminists as a group as well, come to think of it. A lot of people consider this to be hyperbole on my part, but sadly, this is not the case. I truly do believe feminism is evil to its core, and awakens the evil that lurks within each of us, which then provides fuel for the fire.

At this point, I suppose my religious views come into play, so in the interests of full disclosure I guess I better tell you my views on God and such. Feel free to skip this next bit, if you’re so inclined.

I see almost no contradiction at all between religion and science. This requires an understanding that The Bible was translated and edited, perhaps hundreds of times, by fallible humans with political interests. Science provides excellent descriptions of natural laws and processes, and reveals nature to have a beautiful symmetry in the mathematical world as well; an almost clockwork precision; an underlying order.

I also find the claim that science provides a complete explanation laughable, since morphing from ‘primordial ooze’ to ‘life’ requires every bit as much faith as a belief in God. For that matter, so does the belief in infinite numbers of universes resulting in ours at random. And science doesn’t provide a causation; a ‘before.’

I believe if you don’t take either viewpoint too seriously, they dovetail quite nicely. After all, one would expect God to be pretty good at math, and planning, wouldn’t they? Especially considering that ‘God’ could very well be nothing but the collective consciousness of the universe itself.

Life really is that weird, after all.

Ok, so enough with the religious stuff (and hopefully avoid fixation on the subject), and on to why I call feminists ‘evil.’

Ok maybe not quite yet, because first I have to let you know my definition of ‘evil.’  This is not as straightforward as it first may seem. Some people think ‘evil’ and they think Friday the 13th, or Dahmer, or child rapists. Many people define ‘evil’ as destructive, chaotic, and heartless. Cold, calculating, acid….evil.

I don’t. If these are the definitions, how does one account for the rapist/murderer who loves his mother, may even have a wife and children they love? How does one account for the evil mastermind who collapses in grief at the death of his squeeze? This hardly seems like the type of thing Freddie Kruger would give much of a shit about, don’t you think?

“Denial of the suffering of others, and in some cases while openly delighting in it, is a feminist hallmark.”

And what about the ‘petty’ evils? The false accusations, the spreading of malicious lies, the mundane violence (bar fights, arguments/challenges, etc.), the plotting and popularity of daytime TV? Are these simply ‘Freddy Lite,’ the precursor to the Real Evil(tm), where they haven’t gone over to the Dark Side yet and all that jazz?

Or, as is more likely, is it possible to be a truly evil person, and yet still have a spouse you love, and children you love, and parents you love, and friends you love. Being evil doesn’t mean being devoid of love at all. It can’t, given the degrees of evil easily seen every day.

So evil isn’t hate or aggression, or for that matter indifference, because a person consumed by this would quickly burn every bridge in sight. Evil wouldn’t progress. And evil begets evil, as the saying goes.

Upon much reflection, I’ve landed on a candidate, and it’s served me well so far. Here it is:

Evil: unmitigated self-interest.

It allows for all of the ‘tender’ parts, while still allowing the evil person to torture, kill, maim, defraud, destroy, whatever at whim. After all, that person is nothing to them. Well, except a plaything. And they only matter as long as they mean something to the self-absorbed. And only in the way the evil person cares about, be it friend, victim, or both.

I think you can see where this is going, but I’ll spell it out for those unfamiliar with the facts:

Feminism is gynocentric in the extreme, and will tolerate all manner of injustice to men, indeed will increase those injustices when possible, to serve the selfish ends defined by its upper echelons. The ideology literally REQUIRES it’s adherents to believe their interests are paramount whenever in question; that ‘helping women’ is always the right answer.  It requires a foundation of selfish thinking to begin with.

Denial of the suffering of others, and in some cases while openly delighting in it, is a feminist hallmark. Feminism appeals to the selfish little girl in women, with demands that she should ‘have it all’. And that anytime she doesn’t, it’s men’s fault. And it’s that scapegoating, the ‘othering’ of men that marks feminism as truly evil. As truly, unmitigated self interest on an industrial scale. With nothing good planned for men, that’s for sure.

Traditionalists talk of autonomy as the main characteristic of feminist thinking. Funny, even religious folk don’t recognize evil when it’s staring them right in the face.

And smirking.

  • reasonable

    In the future can we leave religion out of the articles? It only muddies the real issues. Especially when some lacks understanding of basic concepts like abiogenesis and that science professes anything other than limited understanding of the origin of life.

    There is a stark difference between “some evidence may lead to such conclusions but we simply don’t know yet” and “THIS IS HOW THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED AND I NEED NO PROOF.”

    • Snark


      He said nothing of the sort.

      Why are some so hostile to simple discussion.

      Dan Moore was hardly trying to convert people with that short paragraph.

      Certain folks respond to any religious reference, however politely made, as if it were a new Crusade being launched against them.

      • reasonable

        There is nothing polite about an attempt to undermine decades of research by equating it to belief. The paragraph was based on a false premise that “science provides a complete explanation” and adds nothing to the rest of the article other than the author’s blatant ignorance.

        Religious references (e.g. The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe allegory) is fine. However, that is not what paragraph was at all.

        • Wulf

          81. One of the most significant aspects of our current situation, it should be noted, is the “crisis of meaning”. Perspectives on life and the world, often of a scientific temper, have so proliferated that we face an increasing fragmentation of knowledge. This makes the search for meaning difficult and often fruitless. Indeed, still more dramatically, in this maelstrom of data and facts in which we live and which seem to comprise the very fabric of life, many people wonder whether it still makes sense to ask about meaning. The array of theories which vie to give an answer, and the different ways of viewing and of interpreting the world and human life, serve only to aggravate this radical doubt, which can easily lead to scepticism, indifference or to various forms of nihilism.
          In consequence, the human spirit is often invaded by a kind of ambiguous thinking which leads it to an ever deepening introversion, locked within the confines of its own immanence without reference of any kind to the transcendent. A philosophy which no longer asks the question of the meaning of life would be in grave danger of reducing reason to merely accessory functions, with no real passion for the search for truth.
          To be consonant with the word of God, philosophy needs first of all to recover its sapiential dimension as a search for the ultimate and overarching meaning of life. This first requirement is in fact most helpful in stimulating philosophy to conform to its proper nature. In doing so, it will be not only the decisive critical factor which determines the foundations and limits of the different fields of scientific learning, but will also take its place as the ultimate framework of the unity of human knowledge and action, leading them to converge towards a final goal and meaning. This sapiential dimension is all the more necessary today, because the immense expansion of humanity’s technical capability demands a renewed and sharpened sense of ultimate values. If this technology is not ordered to something greater than a merely utilitarian end, then it could soon prove inhuman and even become potential destroyer of the human race.

          • Gendeau

            Wow, no wonder church attendence is dropping.

            So, to paraphrase, we must believe in god otherwise it’s confusing.

            “You little people should leave thinking to us clever people, wot can use bullshit phrases like “sapiential dimension” and not break down in laughter…is that right?”

            The last time I saw such weak shite dressed up in such a grand manner, a feminist wrote it – thought you should know.

            fucking pretentious bollocks

          • Benjamin


            The guy you are bashing did not write from a religious perspective; but you are bashing him about his religious views.

            If you could read, you would see that he was writing from a perspective analogous to StarTrek and the Terminator movies.

            You need a good dose of humble, before you’ll be able to see even a few feet in front of your face.

            I hope (for your sake, cuz it doesn’t effect me either way) that you’ll get some of that humility.

          • criolle johnny

            Gendeau doesn’t “need a good dose of humble” to poke a balloon full of hot air, which I think he did nicely.

        • Factory

          “There is nothing polite about an attempt to undermine decades of research by equating it to belief.”

          I’m pointing out a simple FACT or two. Don’t let your ideology cloud your mind. That’s the kind of thing we’re fighting AGAINST, not for.

          The fact is, there are SEVERAL ‘spaces’ in scientific theory..for example, the creation of life, or for another, the evolution of a circulatory system, that Science says “We don’t know yet how this happened, but trust us, it happened”. How is that any different from Catholic Priests telling illiterate peasants that they ‘don’t need to know’ anything the Priest doesn’t want them to know?

          Science is positively LITTERED with articles of Faith…they call them “mysteries”.

        • Benjamin

          Appeals to your offended feelings, because someone undermined other people’s blind faith in your “decades of research” (oh you poor dear, slaving away at your research), are best posted on the feminist websites.

          Don’t come on here, and cry like a manipulating girl.

    • Gendeau

      “I also find the claim that science provides a complete explanation laughable, since morphing from ‘primordial ooze’ to ‘life’ requires every bit as much faith as a belief in God.”

      And this added what to your (otherwise excellent) article?

      I was force fed religious crap at school (UK) lessons and hymns every morning. Even as a pre-teen I could identify bullshit.

      “as much faith as” absolute fucking bollocks.

      Intelligent Design is just a gutless attempt to fit creationism around what science can plausibly say. Basically ‘we can’t fight facts and plausible theories, how about we don’t confront them and you leave us the shrinking bits in between’

      • Gendeau


      • Patrice Stanton

        I’m glad to see the inclusion of an author’s religious-worldview is accepted here, but I do agree the quote ‘Gendeau’ refers to is poking the proverbial tiger. I hope Mr. Moore intended it that way.

        To ‘catch-phrase’ a Jew’s or Christian’s beliefs as ‘crap’ is as useless as ‘catch-phrasing’ the Intelligent Design movement as ‘gutless’. As much thoughtful, fact-based investigation ought to go into dismissing either of them as has gone into most of the posters’ dismissal of “Feminism”.

        Otherwise it’s Bigotry, pure and simple…IMHO.

        Personal reveal: I was ‘traditionally-trained’ (Darwin, etc. at UCONN) and degreed in Geology there, but have spent a lot of time reading related materials and considering the I.D. movement’s contributions to Science (yes, they are scientists, and they do ‘legit’ science) and find the arguments compelling. Please, force yourself to spend 3.5 minutes watching this ‘trailer’ and then can you tell me honestly you’re not awed?

        • Denis

          Honestly, as a scientist and an engineer I thought this video was very simpleminded and severely lacking in awe. However, I do understand that most humans are not comfortable with complexity and are seeking simple answers.

          • Benjamin

            Denis, I can at least commend you for the fact that you stated your handicap, up-front.

            Since the vast bulk of the scientists and especially engineers I have met, and even heard about second-hand, are some of the least bright people in the population, that does extend a little more understanding of why you continue your emotional ad-hominem insults, rather than having understanding.

        • Denis

          Dismissing belief systems is not bigotry. Until you provide satisfactory evidence to support YOUR beliefs, I will continue to dismiss them.

        • Gendeau

          I haven’t got the connection to do that right now, but as you ask so politely, I will (this weekend).

          Perhaps I lack the gene that means:

          awe + lack of easy to understand story => there must be a god.

          I’ve been taught quantum mechanics (as an under-grad), I can’t say that I find it attractive (in fact Einstein didn’t like ‘god playing dice’ either), it doesn’t ‘feel’ right to me. BUT that doesn’t mean that it’s wrong. It doesn’t mean we can just ignore the evidence for QM, just because it’s hard and doesn’t feel fair.

          I would SERIOUSLY like someone to explain the difference in religious attitudes between the US and the rest of the anglosphere (yes, this is an effing huge generalisation, please bear with me). I do NOT mean we’re right, you’re wrong (in either direction). But religion appears to have a huge holy cow value in the US, the country that was invented to separate church and state. Also a major centre of scientific excellance.

          How come?

          • Denis

            “Three quarters of the American population literally believe in religious miracles. The numbers who believe in the devil, in resurrection, in God doing this and that – it’s astonishing. These numbers aren’t duplicated anywhere else in the industrial world. You’d have to maybe go to mosques in Iran or do apoll among old ladies in Sicily to get numbers like this. Yet this is the American population”
            -Noam Chomsky

          • Gendeau

            I am seriously interested in why this is (apparantly) true

            Is it nature, or nurture?

            Did a specifically religiously oriented gene-set leave europe for the americas? Did it die out here, or did they mostly leave?

            I know that the founding fathers were, and I can see religion as a great comfort when embarking on a new continent with just a flintlock musket and a book to keep one’s values alive (no, I’m not bullshitting here).

            I’ve passed Lourdes a few times, so I know that religion is still alive here (europe), but it just doesn’t get the same reverence and protection – why / why not?

          • Benjamin

            The rest of the anglosphere is dying out, literally aging away until death.

            Faith/faithfulness didn’t just die out in England and other anglophonic places. The populations of those places are proceeding to die, immediately afterward.

            Folks who bash the religious are regarded with a sort of pity, because people like that literally will not exist, a short time from now.

            No one’s religious faith is based on a need for comfort, flintlock continents or otherwise. Statements like that reveal your bias, and no small bigotry… whether you’re cognizant of it, or not.

            Of course, you’re right that books are useful in perpetuating one’s values. They’re useful for maintaining bad sets of values, as well as the right ones.

          • Patrice Stanton

            “I would SERIOUSLY like someone to explain the difference in religious attitudes between the US and the rest of the anglosphere…”

            I suspect it has to do with the connection/allegiance the rest of the ‘angloshpere’ (cool word by the way) has to Europe. This I think is why Canada is so much more ‘European’ (Great Britain being influenced by Europe & passing that influence on to Canada) than we are even though we share a border.

            Give us time (the USA) and we’ll get there – baby steps, you know. (And for me, I do not see this as a good thing.)

            You seem to not like the old school religiosity of the USA (Judeo-Christian). Trust me, ‘church & state’ are plenty separated here: “Chief U.S. District Judge Fred Biery’s order against the Medina Valley Independent School District also forbids students from using specific religious words including ‘prayer’ and ‘amen.’

            Read more:

            Something about a student fearing “irreparable harm” if forced to hear such words. I bet that same charge could be leveled against a whole lot of ‘course content’ those h.s. students had to sit through for four years, too…

            Whatever. I suspect both Europhiles and the USA will be singing a different tune when the ‘new school religiosity’ of Islam dominates in a few generations.

          • Gendeau

            “‘angloshpere’ (cool word by the way)”

            Yes, it is a cool word…a complete typing accident…good things can just come about by accident, no guiding spirit required… :) (sorry, couldn’t resist).

            I don’t think that the US will arrive at the same place. I don’t know when the same attitude existsed in the UK, the 1930’s perhaps? Victorian era?

            Clearly I’d approve of separation, and as we’ve seen religion vs atheism is an ongoing, bitter fight. From my point of view religion keeps being raised as the one-true-morality; with us, or against truth, justice, mom and apple-pie.

            Funnily enough, I’d agree with teaching more right-from-wrong / do unto others / coveting neighbour’s ass etc.

            “irreparable harm” – yes! Shakespeare – ban the bard.

            I thought islamification was europe and latin america was america?

            They’re having the kids and birth control is verboten by the religious leaders of the third world…it’s not going to end well.

            Star Trek? (plenty for all, science as a boon, exploration to fill your boots), nah, we’re off to 4 toed nebishes (The Godwhale & Half past human by T J Bass), Bladerunner, Brave New World, 1984 and Soylent Green.

            God bless you mean-spirited marxism & feminism

          • Gendeau

            Patrice Stanton,

            oh damn it, I thought that you were saying that I’d mistyped anglosphere and thus I created ‘angloshpere’.

            Now I find that you mistyped it and created it.

            So what happens to my copyright application?

          • keith

            Let me first apologize for having an opinion that overlaps.

            Dan great article. I liked the interjection of religion, I suffer less from fixation and it allows me to understand that feminism is a religion.

            I tend to view religion as an instrument for organized feeding, much like feminism. I also consider both a science but social science.

            It takes a sophisticated ideology and belief system to reduce people to a level of stupidity that neutralizes a primal logic structure designed to compare pleasure and pain and result in a reflex. If that’s not science I don’t know what is.

            Particularly in this day and age with our current technology, anyone that reads the bible should be able to correlate most of the “miracles” with technology.Dare I suggest, making new people with body parts.But I may just be ribbing you.

            Of course a good reason for the church to reject science for so many centuries and even outlaw it is that technology may demystify the teaching of miracles. Further neutralizing the wrath of the church.

            Another method of censorship is to control the compilation of the bible, the books it contains.

            In order to adequately blaspheme and piss off the religious I include 2 quotes from the Gnostic writings of “The Gospel of Thomas” found in the Nag Hammadi Library. Which I’m sure many here have read.

            114. Simon Peter said to them, “Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of Life.”
            Jesus said, “I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”

            98. Jesus said, “The Kingdom of the Father is like a certain man who wanted to kill a powerful man. In his own house he drew his sword and stuck it into the wall in order to find out whether his hand could carry through. Then he slew the powerful man.

            As to the religious nature of the USA, if you want to be a good imperialist conqueror and not half assed about it, you need your own religion. Britain turned protestant cause you can’t be free to murder in far off lands while waiting for approval from Rome. USA has evangelist Christianity, cause you can’t be free to murder in far off lands while waiting for approval from Rome or London. It fucks up your schedule.

            To Dan: for your contemplation,
            EVIL : unmitigated self interest.

            Consider the possibility that evil doesn’t exist.

            When two forces compete they are both equally good. Evil is an assignment to the loser.

            In Closing:
            What does a born again, dyslexic, insomniac do?

            Sits up all night wondering if there is a dog.

          • Gendeau

            Ahhh, something for everyone there;

            “For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”

            Well…not feminists, perhaps…shame and all that. Never mind feminists, chin up

          • Gendeau

            “USA has evangelist Christianity, cause you can’t be free to murder in far off lands while waiting for approval from Rome or London. It fucks up your schedule.”


            I was expecting something deeper than that, but it has the ring of truth. Wasn’t there a messy divorce involved in the uk going private?

            Have you a suggestion for an appropriate word to use in place of good / evil?

            Is altruism (for example) allowed without a god context?

          • keith

            1. motion…….it’s very scientific
            cause and effect also works

            2. yes for preventive automotive care, it’s also referred to as insurance or warranty

          • Factory

            “Consider the possibility that evil doesn’t exist.”

            Well, here’s my thinking on that one…

            The old saying goes, “Satan’s greatest trick was convincing the world that he doesn’t exist”. Then I consider “Satanism”, which is essentially bullshit to the ‘devotee’ since Satanists tend to not believe in God, or even the Devil, in the Christian sense (obviously). A large number of Satanists are really Atheists, but they get off on the rituals. Many of them view the world much like you say, that Good and Evil are simply perspectives, not absolutes.

            In fact, NOBODY likes to think of themselves as the ‘bad guy’, so yes, as far as History goes the good and evil thing is pointless. But when talking about daily experience, the reality you face from morning till night, and the choices you make – absolutely I think there is such a thing as good and evil.

            Evil is self-serving, entropic, painful and oppressive, and leaves chaos and strife in it’s wake. Merciless societies are evil societies, no matter how much they tell themselves they are on the side of Right.

            In ‘controversial’ current political terms, the United States could legitimately be called an Evil Regime, if the plurality of opinion standard is applied to Good and Evil, since there’s absolutely no question that were the World polled, they would on balance renounce America as an aggressor, an Imperialist nation (both cultural and military), a Godless nation, and all manner of other reasons why citizens of other countries dislike America.

            And what do Americans do? They tell themselves the rest of the world is ‘just jealous’ – not really considering the idea that the rest of the world may have a more legitimate viewpoint than they. America is ‘on the side of right’.

            This is all really just a roundabout way of saying ‘no one is above the Law’, including us, in these circles. We should question precepts which give us comfort as much as we question the ones that pain us.

            As to whether or not Evil and Good exist as absolutes, there can be no doubt that they do. Good results in comfort, and respite, and gentleness, and justice. Good results in order and purity and peace. Good is compassionate and kind, and fair. Good leaves bounty and stability in it’s wake.

            I prefer that over the pain and harshness stuff, ergo, I’m a big Good supporter. As concepts, Good and Evil are likely human attempts to group various desireable and undesireable traits into umbrella concepts, and me being human, strangely I’m OK with that. I don’t need an insane level of exactness and specificity before I’ll take something as reality. I tend to use reasoning to fill in holes. Sometimes, that makes me wrong. Which is why I have learned to keep an open mind about many things.

            Among them, is the existence of God.

            And I don’t know if there is one or not. But I look up at the night sky, or focus in on the details of a leaf, or observe the activity around me, I just can’t see there being a possibility of this all being random chance.

            It seems to me too much of a rationalization. And frankly, the vehemence with which many Atheists jump down the throats of any religious views other than ‘there is no God’ makes me sick. The Dogmatic hate they spew is amazing, I have never even THOUGHT of a religious zealot that could be that offensively ‘right’ about a subject, but atheists do it every damn day.

            When I said no one has more Religious Zeal than a typical atheist, I bloody well meant it. An atheist society in the US would be brutal, bloody, and catastrophic, so frankly I think they need a lot more Church in their State, not less. That’s just self preservation though…I’m Canadian.

            I’m really not a religious guy though. I haven’t read the Bible (although I watch a lot of documentaries on Biblical stuff, so I muct be somewhat interested in it), but I do believe in a God – just probably not the flowing white beard guy on a throne thing.

            I think the whole argument is silly though, since no one will know for sure until it’s too late…

          • keith

            Well said an appreciated.
            My problem with evil is it’s application as a negotiating tactic. If evil is directed outward it becomes a self justification. If I deem you to be evil….you are fair sport.
            However if I also consider that I am evil, I am open to negotiate against being turned into fair sport. Hence I agree that “Feminism is Evil”. It is possible that this is the trick of Satan. If I can’t see evil in me, does not mean it is not there.

            I do believe we reside in a state of global entropy and addressing it is I believe the best green policy to pursue, if there was to be one. With all our technology you would think that we could better manage our choices globally rather than using good and evil as an easy out. I would just once like to see legislation introduced that includes a modeled outcome based on facts with logarithmic models that define the process. I’d love to see the economy expressed in an organic logarithmic visual model. I digress.

            I like atheists I find them very religious and entertaining. I like fundamentalist disbelief. It’s like getting the punch line before you hear the joke.

            In terms of a flowing white beard, I think we are predisposed to storing information in a visual context for easier retrieval. I chose self organizing spaghetti always in motion.

            I am putting a link here You might enjoy from Michu Kaku

          • Factory

            What I think you are speaking of there is perspective, not reality. I’ll use WW2 as an analogy to illustrate:

            There’s no question that the mass killing of millions of people was an act of widespread evil. This is an objective fact, which is only made palatable with the addition of a skewed perspective (elsewise, one would have to place their own value on par with murdered populations).

            This is where ‘othering’ comes in. The horrific act of gunning down toddlers en masse was ‘justified’ by first making sure the general population hated the victim population. The perception of the victim population had to be shifted to view them as non-human, or better, sub-human, or public sympathy would make extermination impossible.

            Even the NAZIs knew they couldn’t jump straight from getting into power to rounding up the undesireables. It took careful preparation and long years of propaganda, a long ‘othering’ process, before it became an unremarkable thing for the Jewish neighbors to suddenly go missing.

            The German population was propagandized into viewing evil as acceptable, a shift in perspective, but that did nothing to change the basic fact that the acts themselves were evil, and would be considered so if done to the ‘wrong’ group (ie, Aryans).

            This is the process men are in the middle of right now. Don’t kid yourself, we ARE on the same trajectory as Jews and Gypsys were…

            Anyway, I get where you’re coming from, but I think there’s a distinction between reality and perspective that needs to be made there.

        • Gendeau

          “Intelligent Design is a theory that attempts to fit creationism around what science can plausibly say. Basically ‘how about we don’t confront [creationism and science]'”.

          So, everybody plays nice and ignores the fundamental dishonesty, because it’s friendly and nicey-nicey.

          Tried to do it with minimal changes to the words.

          In all seriousness, this looks like the whole point of intelligent design; to not fight where the battle is already lost, just invoke the very human reaction of awe and say “go on, there’s room for a bit of a god”.

          It’s using the moral fibre of scientists being required to acknowledge any lack of absolute proof, and saying “there you go; our ideas are just as valid.” This reeks of feminist / child opportunistic argument against men to me.

          The christian fundamentalists are right, as soon as you doubt a word, you lost the battle. ID is a slow giving in of territory rather than just admitting defeat.

        • Gendeau

          Perhaps you could look into something by Dawkins?

          I’m not a follower of him (atheism isn’t a religion to me, agnostic is just too weak a term) but he’s intelligent and coherent. He also swears less than me too, which is nice…

          • Patrice Stanton

            I am not an elegant ‘defender’ of I.D. but it is NOT about ‘creationism'; it’s about seeking a theory that more adequately accounts for the evidences. But let me see if (w/o resorting to Google) I can state a couple of areas that sparked some of the originals scientists (in the early 1990’s I think).

            1) It is about ‘positing’ (after statistical study) alternatives to the statistically improbable random organization (chance-over-time) of functioning simple (short-chain) proteins from amino-acids;

            2) It is about ‘positing’ the origins of the infinitely more complex information, such as what is contained within/required in the DNA strand (and needed RNA for replication) even in ‘primordial-slime’ dwelling one-celled critters; (it’s all about chains-of-amino-acids becoming functioning proteins which do that cell’s ‘work’);

            3) It is about ‘positing’ the alternatives to Darwinianly-evolved cellular ‘machines’ in living systems (even single cells) that are irreducibly-complex (i.e. remove one part of a cellular-machine and none of the cell will ‘work’).

            That’s about all I can recall off the top of my head.

            By the by it’s not necessary to be ‘religious’ to get a sense of ‘awe’ at the awesomeness (redundant, I know) of the Universe. The folks who produced that ‘Privileged Planet’ have a new one on a topic I bet others besides myself, here, have pondered to no avail: Butterflies and how the heck do they do that metamorphosis thing… how the heck could THAT have evolved, Mr. Dawkins?

            Another by the by: there is a ‘religion’ called Deism. Tom Paine wrote the definitive ‘pamphlet’ in its defense: The Age of Reason. Available free at Check it out. If I recall he wrote the first half while in prison and years later he died a poor, hated man because of it. That’s the thanks he got for all his ‘Common Sense’. Then again, “Age…” was a scathing rebuke of the Bible, old & new testaments.

    • BeijaFlor

      As I read it, Dan intentionally left the doors wide-open on both ends of his brief “science vs religion” admission of doubts. That is, doubts plural.

      “Science doesn’t provide a causation;” science is about the physical universe and its manifestations. One can admit ignorance of “prime cause,” or evade the question entirely, or … wonder.

      And I would respectfully submit that it is unreasonable to be so disdainful of something presented, as Dan’s remark was presented, to “get that question out of the way.”

  • Paul Elam

    Good article on feminism, as usual, but….

    Ok, so enough with the religious stuff (and hopefully avoid fixation on the subject)

    ROTFLMO. Fat chance.

    Stick the word God in any 3,000 word article and at least one fanatic, either atheist or religious, will perseverate on it, missing the other 2,999 words altogether.

    Every fucking time.

    • Eff’d Off


      Thanks Paul bloke, you just inspired me :


      • Alphabeta Supe

        There’ve been periods in these precious MRA pages, some dark, some crushingly depressing, some buoyed by the joy of another brother saved from the dragon’s maw, that have left me agitated, restless and punchy.

        Not today. Today I saw this ‘ere toon and laughed so hard my nanny goat went into heat.

        In fact, not a day has passed since your saucy scribbles and ascerbic wit began adorning these walls that I haven’t cracked a nut with laughter. I do hope you always use this power for good instead of evil.

        Thanks for the bellylaughs. My kids thank you too. My ex-wife, as usual, can go fuck herself.

        • BeijaFlor

          You realize, of course, that from the perspective of feminism, Eff is unquestionably using his power for Patriarchal Evil!!!


        • Eff’d Off

          Your kind words mean much to me, thank you.

          I do wonder sometimes what happens after I shoot these bastards out.

          I think Paul Elam may be asleep as it’s pretty late, but should you see him when he wakes can you tell him to check his email as I have sent him DR F number 6.

          It is one I am very happy with.

          Here’s hoping you get a laugh out of it and your kids too eh. :)

          [img] F 6 logo .jpg[/img]

    • J.G. te Molder

      Which makes it good to avoid bringing it up! Which is it he was saying.

      In fact, what exactly did his talk about his beliefs of god and science have anything to do with the subject of the article?

      I didn’t see it having anything to do with god. The article went: Feminism is evil, oh, yeah I believe in god, and here’s why feminism is evil which were all secular reasons having nothing to do with anything god.

      The whole side tangent about god was pointless, so don’t use it. It puts the article better on point, shorter, and you can’t rub on anyone unable to see past their pet peeve.

      • Gendeau

        It’s a clasic female debating tactic; this doesn’t matter, but you’re wrong and I’m right. (fuck you).

        Even intelligent design smells pretty fishy to me, in more ways than one

    • Rad

      God damn it.

  • Mark

    Not sure if anyone saw my previous posting on this. Not directly related to this article, but what do you make of this video that claims feminism is a Jewish conspiracy?

    • Paul Elam

      Personally, I make it out to be a pretty lame video. Pictures of female Jews who are feminists rotated through with some bad musical out takes from some B-rate satanic cult movie in the background.

      And nothing more. Nothing of substance at all.

      Proves what, that Jews can be feminists, too?

      Plenty of shiksa’s in that group, and more than a few Jews working toward men’s rights.

      Seriously, when I see this stuff it reminds me of the Arabs who came out saying that no Jews were in the twin towers when the planes hit.

    • Tom

      I don’t know about it being a “Jewish”conspiracy, but certainly if one wanted to depopulate the planet and destroy the family unit, feminism is a very good means to that end: .

  • Mark

    Doesn’t it disturb you that almost all of the major female feminists are Jews? Doesn’t it make you wonder? I mean do you see even one Gentile among that group?

    • J.G. te Molder

      Sarah Palin is a feminist, and she’s as Christian as they come, she’s a friggin’ creationist.

    • Paul Elam

      Barbara Jordan
      Susan B Anthony
      Martha Collins
      Elizabeth Cady Stanton
      Sojurner Truth
      Hillary Clinton
      Harriet Harmon
      Julia Gillard
      Aileen Hernandez – former president of NOW

      Now, I was not able to 100% authenticate the names on that list in terms of religion, but my guess is that most of them are not Jewish.

      Still, it is true that a large portion of feminist leadership is Jewish, but the question is, what does that mean?

      Plenty of western Jews have always been active in liberal politics. That much is certainly part of their culture.

      Again, what is that supposed to mean? Are we now to imagine a vast femmijewish conspiracy at the root of all this?

      Personally I would not bother for several reasons. One, we have more to worry about right now from non Jewish males than we do either Jews or women or women jews. Two, there are Jewish men working for men’s rights. Three, 98% of all women, and almost that many men, are mindless adherents to feminist dogma, not because some of it emanates from Jews, but because jews can practice Jedi mind control, but because corporate deities want it that way. (Yeah, I know, there are Jews there, too) Along with every other flavor or human being.

      Ask a couple of popular male feminists, like Obama and Biden.

      So no, it doesn’t disturb me in the least.

      Feminists do.

      • Mark

        “Plenty of western Jews have always been active in liberal politics. That much is certainly part of their culture.”

        But what does feminism have to do with liberal politics? I’m a liberal, and I hate feminism. Feminism isn’t about liberalism or conservatism, it’s about persecuting men.

        Paul, you do make some good points, though. You’re right that there are many prominent non-Jewish feminists, and we have more to worry about from non-Jewish manginas and white knights.

        But for such a small ethnic minority, it does bother me how many of their women support this feminist rubbish. The Jewish aspect of feminism is rarely, if ever, discussed here. You don’t have to believe in conspiracy theories or be anti-Semitic to find something troubling about the number of Jews in that evil movement.

        • Gendeau

          Perhaps we don’t see the ‘jewish’ aspect as being very relevant?

          It’s what the femitwunts do that worries me more that their enabling lies. Whether a particular religion underlies it? What differance does it make to some poor schmoe going under the divorce bus / FRA / AA whatever?

          Your conspiracy isn’t going to fly around here (because it makes no difference to real men with real problems).

        • Paul Elam

          But for such a small ethnic minority, it does bother me how many of their women support this feminist rubbish.

          And I am sure it bothers some feminists who many MRA’s are white males. But then, I don’t care about that either.

          I think it is really kind of funny that you would ask me what liberal politics has to do with being feminist, citing your status as a liberal as evidence to the contrary, but then you remain fixed on the idea using that exact rationale to look for feminist roots in Judaism, despite being given a (short) list of non Jewish feminists.


          What you are doing here Mark, is trying to frame a “let’s point at the Jews,” argument. It’s instant quicksand that would have every anti-semitic lurker out there cluttering up our forum with Jew bashing.

          Nope. Not here.

          • Aharon

            Paul wrote: “Nope. Not here.”

            Hi Paul,

            Thank you. One of the reasons that I appreciate and respect your site (besides providing great content on the MRM) is that you take a stand on the comments and don’t allow any just lunatic or agenda-driven manipulator to comment here. One of the reasons I seldom comment anymore at another well-known MRM site is that it provides an unchecked place for the anti-Semites to post their conspiracy paranoia.

            I once wrote to you that the reason I was holding off making a donation to AVfM is that I have been out of work for a while and am on a budget. That’s all true. I’m not working by choice as I’m working out some difficult personal issues. I have decided that if I can afford to eat out at casual restaurants I sure as hell can afford to send you a donation which I will do soon.

          • Paul Elam

            And thank you for that. Since I am not Jewish, I don’t have personal access to the federal reserve.

            JUST KIDDING! LOL!

          • Aharon

            You’re welcome. We can make arrangements to put you through the conversion process to Judaism so that you too can have equal access to our private bank and free source of fiat money the FED. I’m sure some Jewish feminists would gladly offer to circumcise Paul Elam free of charge. :)

          • captive

            Even the poor guys in the Talmud need men’s rights:

            “There was a story of a pious man who gave a coin to a pauper during years of famine. His wife became angry with him, and he went to sleep in the cemetery.” – Talmud (

        • Aharon


          You either have a hidden-agenda to stir-up and smear this site as anti-Semitic or you are focusing too much on one portion of the picture.

          Jews are also way out of proportion to their numbers as doctors, novelists, comedians, engineers, scientists, actors, financial planners, accountants, developers of Internet technology, and owners of hot dog joints.

          • Gendeau

            Oh noes!

            an international hot dog stand conspiracy – WHY WEREN’T WE TOLD?

            On a more serious note, best of luck. Glad to hear things are on an upturn.

          • Aharon

            Hi Gendeau,

            Your comments gave me a good laugh…international hotdog conspiracy… :)

            Things are taking an upturn. Thanks.

        • captive

          One of the most famous feminist sites is named “Jezebel.” There isn’t a religious Jewish person in this world who respects someone who idolizes Jezebel or Lilith.

      • TDOM

        “Still, it is true that a large portion of feminist leadership is Jewish, but the question is, what does that mean?”

        All it may mean is that Jewish women may be more susceptible to feminism. Judaism is matriarchal in many ways. One of which is that it is passed down through the MOTHER, not the father. A Jewish man can have all the children he wants, but if they are not born to Jewish women, they are not Jewish. conversely, a Jewish woman can have children with several different men and all will be Jewish regardless of their father’s religion. This type of matrilineal heritage may make feminism more appealing to the Jewish woman, but that doesn’t make feminism a Jewish conspiracy.


        • Aharon

          True. Judaism has strong matriarchal leanings within the home and strong support for protecting and providing for women outside the home, in the Jewish communities, led by the mangina/white knight Rabbis. And nowadays aggressively being also pushed by the feminazis within Judaism.

          Many liberal Jews, especially women, put down their support of feminism out of the Jewish teaching for ‘social justice’. IMHO, that’s a rationalized way to support their self-serving values and egos.

          BTW, if anyone is wondering, I was born and am Jewish.

          • Avi

            “…led by the mangina/white knight Rabbis…”
            I disagree with this point. Being an atheist in Israel – which is no picnic by the way, in a state that has a ministry of religion, mandatory religion classes at school and no secular marriage or burial among other points: – I have been paying some attention to what is going on in the orthodox Jewish community. It appears to go along those lines:
            The rabbis need to maintain their control over a large population (about 20% of the Jewish population in Israel). This is achieved in different ways for men and women. The men are forbidden to study anything but religion from a very early age by means of a state-sponsored orthodox (mis)education stream, which leaves them sufficiently indoctrinated by the time they reach their mid-20s, with no professional skills whatsoever.
            However, there is a problem with this – namely, that someone has to bring in some money for the families. This is where the orthodox women come in. For them, the ban on professional training has been lifted. They are allowed to study (to a certain extent) and are then sent to work in between having babies. The latter, along with social pressures inside their respective communities, provide the rabbis with means of controlling the female orthodox demographic.
            In this context, the rabbis are neither manginas nor white knights. They are, rather, autocrats, alphas if you will, who are willing to keep their communities in poverty and ignorance in order to keep their grip on power. (As a side note – I don’t know how many religious leaders, rabbis included, actually believe in god, other than instilling in their believers the idea that their authority derives from that source. “God is what I say he is” is not really faith, IMO, but it is a basis for most religions.)
            Lastly, not wishing to create the impression that I am posting this on the wrong site, I would like to make the following point: The fallout of this system, among other things, leads to the creation of a group of women who,
            1. Are better educated than the men in the same community and thus are,
            2. More likely to have the means and motivation to break away from the existing power structure within the same.
            3. Used see authority as patriarchal – it really is, in those communities, nominally at least.
            4. Consider non-alpha males to be pretty close to useless.
            5. Upon breaking away from said communities, are likely to be clueless as to what to do next, becoming “rebels without a cause”.
            6. Have the pattern of of domination through ideology firmly set within their minds.
            All of the above may, I think, cause those women to gravitate towards feminism. Even those Jewish women who were not born in orthodox families are likely to be exposed to this pattern to a greater extent than non-Jewish women. Furthermore, this community structure is not unique to Jews in Israel, nor was it created recently. Maybe this accounts, in part, for the relatively large proportion of Jewish women who tend to gravitate to Feminism.

          • Aharon


            Thanks for your reply. It was interesting reading your insights about Israel. I think you’ve brought up some good points and perspectives. In America, we are dealing with at least somewhat different social, legal, and political realities.

            In America, the Jewish Reform movement’s values are essentially aligned with whatever the latest values and priorities are of modern liberalism, political-correctness, feminism, and the Democratic Party. Certainly, among secular liberal American Jews, there is a push within families to equally educate, allow contributions, and show respect children of both genders in a similar way. Yet, as a community, there is clear bias in favor of the female over the male among the Reform. Of course, within a feminist family, the females are probably prized. I believe about seventy percent of Reform’s new rabbis are female and here that means liberal thinking Jewish American females (yuk!). Until recently, the Reform movement had eighty-plus programs of personal empowerment and growth for females, and not one program for males. Perhaps that is the reason why Jewish males are quickly disappearing from the Reform movement once they have had their Bar Mitzvah. Christian or Jewish, it is sadly interesting how liberal religious practices lose males. Obviously, religious organizations are increasingly embracing female values while deriding male values.

            Among the American Orthodox, there have been too many cases of their rabbis running to defend a divorcing woman who is seeking to unreasonably keep the father from having access to his children. At (the Chassidic website) I have read article after article that worships the feminine as being overall superior to the masculine along with how women are by nature spiritually and morally superior to men. The articles at go on to accepting the feminist propaganda about how difficult women have it (Jewish American females having life difficult?!, what?), the bogus stats about domestic violence and rape, etc. The traditional Jewish marriage contract and laws, written for an era long ago, is clearly biased in favor of the wife over the husband. I wrote twice asking why has a women and children’s section on their website but not one for men. They never replied.

            Myself, I’m mostly agnostic and I have little regard for following the rabbi fraternity.

          • Avi

            Agreed, things are different in the U.S. In light of what you are saying, those male rabbis can indeed be classified as manginas. Please keep in mind that what I was referring to is the orthodox community. I am very much surprised to hear that Chabad, one of the most fundamentalist sections within the Jewish orthodox community, can openly declare women’s superiority. Perhaps I should not be surprised though, as it only seems to confirm what I have written about – that the leaders of that community would compromise on (read: sell) their previously held values in order to maintain their power. Arguably, they cannot use in the U.S. the same control structure as they do here, so they placate the women in other ways.
            As for female rabbis I should note that, to the best of my knowledge, they would not be considered legitimate in Israel. This means that they would not be allowed to legally conduct weddings or perform conversions into Judaism (“GIYUR”), both of which are the mainstay of the religious control over the secular Jewish population is Israel. Consequently, this phenomenon has not taken root here. Their success in the U.S. can possibly be attributed to an attempt by some women to combine the feminist and religious ideologies to consolidate control over the more liberal portion of the Jewish population at the expense of the orthodox – and male – rabbis.

          • Aharon


            I’m not even aware of any Orthodox Rabbis (or others) here having the balls to publicly or openly state how feminism is destroying the American Jewish families and communities. The blame for it is usually attributed to assimilation, modern social corruption, and political correctness. puts women on the pedestal and worships them though they won’t let them be rabbis…yet. I’ve read articles at probably over-analyzing Torah quoting a patriarch or two who asked his wife for advice and/or saying that she said abc, claiming that there is then the proof the patriarch’s wives were deeper and more spiritual than their husbands. Another article, written by yet another Rabbi, lectured how men are responsible for buying their wives jewelry if it makes her happy. Some of those guys even get into the esoteric mystical stuff teaching how the first earth (before this one) and first wife of Adam was replaced by Eve who was a more open minded and evolved human (than the first wife or even Adam) yet Adam remained and was the same primitive male therefore women are more advanced then men blah blah blah…

            It gets really silly. I think those guys must live in a play that exists within a bubble.

            Also, keep in mind the Jewish teaching that females are born on a higher spiritual plain than males therefore they have less need of study and religious training. I’m not sure if that is to create defined family roles and duties, and a manipulated ego boost to keep women from wanting to study while tying men to a rabbi etc. I’ve met plenty of chassidic women who believe they are above needing to study or do self-reflection on their behavior simply because they are female.

            I have also spoken with Chassidic Rabbis outside of the ones who write at the main website who have no problem sharing with me their dislike and non- acceptance of feminism and modern women. Maybe some of the problem are simply the idiots who work at and write for … just more mass media journalists who simply wear black clothing styled after Polish Jews of two hundred years ago.

            I wish someone would start up a Jewish MRM site.

    • Tom

      Fred Reed wrote a piece back in 2004 to answer similar thoughts, Mark. It’s worth reading:

      “Letters About Jews
      In Search Of Conspiracy

      August 24, 2004

      From time to time I write about the cloacal morality of the media as they go about wrecking civilization and annoying hell out of me. For rhetorical convenience I use “New York” and “Hollywood” as a sort of abbreviation for the news racket and the screen trades.

      This column gets a lot email. Some of it assumes that “New York” and “Hollywood” are code words for “Jews,” and excoriates me mightily for not saying what I am assumed to mean. Let me give you a typical example, the subject line being “Fred Sees No Jews in New York and Hollywood.”

      “Dear Fred,

      Good greetings.

      Your column on Television Tyranny and Degeneration is strong and important, as your columns usually are. But it also shows you’re unwilling to mention that Jews dominate these industries–again, as your columns always are scared to mention Jews.

      You’re not ignorant that Hollywood and New York, movies and television, are Jewish. You’re unwilling to say so. You’re unwilling to state publicly the hatred consistently pumped by Jews into the Gentile populations they dominate, degrade, and destroy.

      The fact that even Fred Reed submits to the taboo not to criticize Jews–no matter how obvious and ubiquitous is the power of Jewish degradation of Gentiles–is proof of the ruling power of Jews.

      “Hide the truth–protect Jewish power and degradation of Gentiles.” That’s the policy Fred Reed follows, together with and everybody else.

      Best wishes,



      I didn’t just get admitted to MIT – I got a PhD from there.

      Now that I’ve got your attention, I’d like to tell you just how spineless I think your last column was in omitting the very obvious fact that JEWS have played and continue to play the largest role in television’s slow destructive agenda.

      Jews have both a genetic and cultural desire to subvert and destroy their host civilizations – it is part of their survival instinct and it is what has caused their genetic strain and culture to survive for millennia.
      The prevalence of Jews in television and advertising provides a powerful channel for those destructive urges to have their effect. One wonders whether this unprecedented opportunity for their hatred and contempt to be actualized will deliver the final blow to the tired host.

      You’re no tough guy – forget the cigar and the leather jacket. I will take you seriously when you have the guts to offend the execrable self chosen.

      Why are you so scared of Jews? Are you just a realist? Do you know more than I do about what they could and will do to you? Or are you just paranoid?


      I admire the fearlessness of John and Vince in having me take on the Jews. “Let’s you and him fight” is an old call. Being weary of this stuff, I am going to do a doubtless overlong column on the subject, and then go back to better things, such as drinking beer with colorful reprobates.

      Now, the conventions of discourse being what they are, it is hard to talk about Jews at all. If you say, “Some of my best friends are Jews,” it means you hate Jews. If you say, “I can’t stand the freaking Jews,” it means you hate Jews. If you don’t say anything, it means you secretly hate Jews.

      If you say anything good about the Jews, it means that you are a tool of the Jews, or afraid of the Jews, or have had your mind clouded by Jews. Where does one go from here?

      but wotthehell wotthehell.

      The premises of letters such as the foregoing are invariant: (1) that Jews want to destroy all that is good and holy, and eat Christian children, and (2) that I know it. It then follows that, since I don’t say it, I must be either cowardly or collusive. The matter is always phrased as a manhood issue: Either you stand up to the Jews, or you lack balls. The Jews of course are a monolithic and conspiratorial group who rub their hands and say “Heh-heh-heh.”

      Permit me a different interpretation.

      Jews may be exotic in Peoria. (Or may not be: I have never been to Peoria.) In Washington, where I worked for years, they are as rare as automobiles. I have known lots of Jews. I have dated them, gotten drunk with them, danced with them, argued with them, gone on junkets to weird Asian countries with them. I liked most of them.

      My favorite lunch buddy for a long time was a retired Harvard professor, Jewish, as decent a human being as I have ever met. My favorite dance partner was a Jewish radical feminist (I know, I know, but we liked each other) who was on an undefeated College Bowl team in the Sixties. My dentist was Jewish. The biochemist I used to windsurf with on the Potomac was Jewish. Beth, the pediatrician I dated at NIH, was Jewish, and an absolute sweetheart. I learned the Texas two-step from a Jewish carpenter (no, another carpenter) who moonlighted as a dance instructor. And so on.

      Familiarity—not fear of invisible radioactive death-needles from Mossad, or of being run out of journalism—is why I don’t devote my life to obsessing about the maleficence of Jews. Are there Jews who do things politically I don’t like? Yes. Are there Jews who do things politically I’m not sure whether I like? Yes. Is there an Israeli lobby? Yes. Yet I have never encountered the evil Jews of The Conspiracy. I simply do not see them as bad people. I am not going to pretend otherwise to establish my virility for John and Vince.

      In particular, I do not rave against the Israelis, because I don’t know what I think they should do. I note that their treatment of the Palestinians is indistinguishable from American treatment of the Iraqis and Vietnamese. Virtue does not exactly flood the world’s streets, anywhere.

      Further, Jews as I have known them are not monolithic. Politically they have been all over the place, though running to liberal: a professional conservative (Herb Berkowitz, the PR guy at the Heritage Foundation, a raucous Boston Jew and delightful loon), a couple of AIPACers, (Seth Carus and Steve Glick, pro-Israel but, I’m sorry gang, not anti-American), libertarians, Greens, several with little or no interest in politics, some who in varying degrees disapproved of Israel.

      I spent my high-school years aboard Dahlgren Naval Weapons Lab, living on Mathematicians Row (Caffee Road, just off the Circle). The names along the street were Cohen, Reed, Strauss, Kemper. I don’t know how they voted, but they designed armament for the Navy. I’d guess Republican.

      I don’t see the Jews of the email. That Jews are tremendously influential in the media is a fact, easily verified on the Web. However, the leap from “Jews are powerful in the media” to “Jews are responsible for all social ills, the collapse of civilization, and everything I don’t like” is a bit of a stretch. Those I know have no idea why John and Vince loathe them, incidentally. Being hit on the head by a piano imparts little understanding of pianos.

      Further, never do I encounter from the Johns and Vinces the idea that any Jew, ever, might have done anything good, however inadvertently. My experience is distinctly otherwise. For years I was a science writer in Washington. I spent countless days crawling through NIH, COMSAT, NASA, talking with Bell Labs and IBM Research, and places you have probably never heard of. (The PET lab of NIDA, National Institute on Drug Abuse in Baltimore, for example, then run by a very bright Jewish woman.) The number of Jews in research, and in high-tech industry, is wildly out of proportion to their number in the population. They are a mainstay of the American lead in technology. This is bad?

      Let me tell you a story. In the early Fifties, polio was a nightmare for parents. Lots of children clunked around in braces or sat forever in wheel chairs. In summer, the epidemic season, our mothers wouldn’t let us go to public swimming pools because they were thought to be focuses of infection.

      One day a fellow named Salk came out of a laboratory somewhere and said, “Hey, I’ve got this vaccine….” A bit later, a guy named Sabin came out of another laboratory, and said, “Hey, if we do thus and so and put it on sugar cubes, see, it will be oral….” You can’t imagine how welcome that vaccine was. Parents grabbed their children by the hair and sprinted through doors, sometimes not bothering to open them, to get to the clinic. Polio just flat disappeared.

      Hint: Salk and Sabin were not Rastafarians. (“Jews Destroy American Iron Lung Industry.”)

      Does none of this count for anything?

      So many of the Jewish crimes popular on the email circuit don’t stand up to examination. For instance, I hear repeatedly that during Vietnam America won in the field but that Jews stabbed Our Boys in the back by means of the anti-war movement, thus seeking to promote godless atheistic communism.

      Not quite. The leadership of the anti-war movement was heavily Jewish. The movement itself was overwhelmingly Christian. At the conservative Southern college I attended, the studentry to a boy wanted no part of the war. It wasn’t because of Jewish anything. It was because they didn’t want to get shot. Their girlfriends didn’t want them to get shot, nor did their parents.

      People didn’t need help to weary of an endless, bloody, pointless war, in which their sons were dying, in a place they didn’t care about and could barely find on a map. Christian kids in huge numbers did everything they could to avoid Vietnam, which is why the draft was needed to force them to go. Christians like Dan Quayle, George W, and Bill Clinton sought student deferments or ducked into the National Guard. Check how many of the Christian elite from the Ivies served in Asia. The anti-war movement wasn’t a Jewish plot. It was a national revolt.

      Most of the things Jews are supposed to be doing, on examination, they aren’t. Is globalization a Jewish plot (as I’m told), or the inevitable result of advancing technology? Is destructive feminism a Jewish plot, or the result of sweeping social changes in which women have found themselves thrown into unaccustomed and unsettling roles? Is the decline of education a Jewish plot, or the consequence of having teaching in the hands of intellectual dregs, of pandering by politicians for racial votes, and of the fact that Americans don’t really care about schooling? Etc.

      That’s why I don’t gnaw at myself about Jews.”

      I agree with Fred (and Paul) on this one. There’s a difference between correlation and causation . My issue is with the feminists no matter what color, race, religion, sex or other characteristic one might ascribe to them because those details are irrelevant — and further, I only loathe the feminist ideology not all women as a class. I loathe chaos and despair, NOT the attributes of individuals: Jew, Gentile, Christian, Moslem, Buddhist, Rastafarian, Pastafarian, or whatever.

      A final thought:

      I wrote a three part post on FRS in January 2010 here

      which said in part:

      “As one falsely accused, my current life reminds me of a quote from Babylon 5 from the episode: Z’ha’dum. “There is a greater darkness than the one we fight. It is the darkness of the soul that has lost its way. The war we fight is not against powers and principalities, it is against chaos and despair. Greater than the death of flesh is the death of hope, the death of dreams. Against this peril we can never surrender. The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.” …. “

  • Rad

    “I see almost no contradiction at all between religion and science. This requires an understanding that The Bible was translated and edited, perhaps hundreds of times, by fallible humans with political interests. ”

    The bible does not hold a monopoly on God.

    • Snark

      But did he say it did?

      Or was he just explaining his own point of view?

    • Rad

      Dan, you have made a straw man argument against self-interest. Self-interest doesn’t just mean not making sacrifices for others — it means refusing to collect the sacrifices of others, too.

      Feminists are not self-interested, they are merely “other-sacrificers”, demanding to collect from the “self-sacrificers.”. The solution is to reject the morality of sacrifice entirely.

      Altruism is THEIR language. And feminism’s particular manifestation of self-sacrifice is chivalry. You can’t prop-up sacrifice and then demand and end to chivalry, as they come from the same place.

      • FascistOrigami

        The word “evil” is problematic because of the difficulty in defining it without referring to religion or religion-inspired morality. Unless one believes that human beings are the center of the universe, “good” and “evil” have no absolute meaning. In other words, “good” and “evil” have applicability only in the human domain. Is an earthquake or hurricane or supernova “evil”?

        However, within the domain of human existence and human social interaction, it is possible to conceptualize “evil” as a process or (applied to individual acts) a quality that degrades human social bonds. In other words, evil is pretty much synonymous with the modern concept of sociopathy. With this definition, “evil” subsumes the ideas of extreme self-centeredness and indifference, but includes other more calculated acts that may appear on the surface to be altruistic but have long term corrosive effects (sound familiar?). “Evil” is social cannibalism.

        • Gendeau

          Morality exists just fine outside religion, thanks for your concern.

          Dan Moore’s definition of ‘evil’ worked just fine.

        • Alphabeta Supe

          Evil = no God = social Darwinism = genetic imperative = me first = self-centredness = sociopathy = dog eat dog = social cannibalism = antipathy = unmitigated self-interest = jungle rules = womb worship = gynocentrism = feminism.

          Evil, like Dan said.

          Any questions?

          • Alphabeta Supe

            Could Darwin be called the father of feminism, I wonder?

          • Gendeau

            Great scientist.

            Started as a christian, facts and events in his life (death of a favourite daughter being one) killed off his faith.

            Don’t be a feminist; just because someone doesn’t toady up to your every utterence doesn’t put them beneath your contempt.

            The bible is simplistic (it was fine in its day, up to 200 years ago, say), but reality is more complicated – get over it.

          • Stu

            Since Paul is an atheist then, he must be a feminist

          • Alphabeta Supe

            Evil = no God => social Darwinism = genetic imperative => me first = self-centredness => sociopathy => dog eat dog = social cannibalism = antipathy => unmitigated self-interest = jungle rules => womb worship = gynocentrism = feminism.


            Many reasonable exit points for the atheist anti-feminist.

        • Rad

          To define good and evil you need a standard of value.

          Mystics call that standard the will (edicts) of God. i.e., dogma.

          The standard is in reality, is man’s life.

          Morality comes from the requirements of our survival in this world, not from the requirements of our entrance into some make-believe afterlife.

      • Factory

        “You can’t prop-up sacrifice and then demand and end to chivalry, as they come from the same place.”

        Wow you equated “Good” to “sacrifice” really fast there…

        Good means doing the right thing. The maybe more difficult, but ultimately more rewarding path. Good is not being a doormat, just ask Jesus…er, it’s in the Bible somewhere. I seem to recall he was supposed to be a bit against taking advantage of others though.

        I can understand wanting to take a hard line, but not out of hate or anger, but out of desire to educate and discipline.

        Except for the feminists…them you can hate all you like.

        • Paul Elam

          I think feminist hating is an honorable political act.

          • Factory

            heh… Love to see them argue against that one…

    • Rad


      “”Denial of the suffering of others, and in some cases while openly delighting in it, is a feminist hallmark.”

      The consideration of suffering and sacrifice to be virtue is mystical and in origin and particularly Christian. By those standards, since it is virtuous, what would be wrong with delighting in it? If I observed someone take what I thought was an exceptionally moral action, I would be delighted too.

      • BeijaFlor

        Rad, you might praise the virtuous suffering of someone nailed to a cross. Do you take delight and praise the actions of the person who nailed that victim to the cross?

        Would you praise the actions of someone who was nailing YOU to a cross, planning to leave you until your bones were picked clean by crows?

        Feminists carry the nails and the hammer. White knights put the cross on the victim’s shoulders. The story doesn’t end well.

        • Rad

          I was simply accepting the OP’s premises and drawing the logical conclusion to show what I see as a contradiction in his beliefs. I don’t believe that at all.

          Suffering is not redemption.

  • !!SPARTA!!

    To me, Feminism is more clike an extreme case of NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder)

    The cause of this disorder is unknown, according to Groopman and Cooper. However, they list the following factors identified by various researchers as possibilities.

    An oversensitive temperament at birth is the main symptomatic chronic form
    Being praised for perceived exceptional looks or talents by adults
    Excessive admiration that is never balanced with realistic feedback
    Excessive praise for good behaviors or excessive criticism for poor behaviors in childhood
    Overindulgence and overvaluation by parents
    Severe emotional abuse in childhood
    Unpredictable or unreliable caregiving from parents
    Valued by parents as a means to regulate their own self-esteem

    (most of those are part of the Princess Culture)

    NPD is considered to result from a person’s belief that they are flawed in a way that makes them fundamentally unacceptable to others. This belief is held below the person’s conscious awareness; such a person would, if questioned, typically deny thinking such a thing. In order to protect themselves against the intolerably painful rejection and isolation that (they imagine) would follow if others recognised their (perceived) defective nature, such people make strong attempts to control others’ views of them and behavior towards them.
    People who are overly narcissistic commonly feel rejected, humiliated and threatened when criticised. To protect themselves from these dangers, they often react with disdain, rage, and/or defiance to any slight criticism, real or imagined. To avoid such situations, some narcissistic people withdraw socially and may feign modesty or humility. In cases where the narcissistic personality-disordered individual feels a lack of admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation, he/she may also manifest wishes to be feared and to be notorious.

    (Feminists feel like they’re inferior to men, which is why they’re all about being PC. It’s also why when the woman asks if she looks fat, she has a tantrum if you say “yes”)

    People who are diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder use splitting (black and white thinking) as a central defense mechanism. They do this to preserve their self-esteem, by seeing the self as purely good and the others as purely bad. The use of splitting also implies the use of other defense mechanisms, namely devaluation, idealization and denial.

    (Yeah…NPD is too perfect of a term for these women…manginas on the other hand have their own problems)

    • !!SPARTA!!

      I find it interesting that most sources about NPD say that it’s mostly males (75% of the 1% of the population with NPD) when you can go for a walk on any day and see several women who show damn near all of those traits.

      • Gendeau

        Big smile…loved this comment.

      • Paul Elam

        :) Perfect.

      • Tom

        Yeah, but remember that NPD at least under “Cluster B” in the DSM-IV-TR which includes narcissistic, histrionic, and borderline personality disorders. What you’ll find is that histrionics and borderlines are predominately women and further that it is like a slice of a pie in that NPD characteristics can be found in histrionics and borderlines and vice versa. Also, Dr. T wrote a great piece on the DSM-V which is worth reading because the diagnosis of NPD as such is going away in favor of a more granular approach to diagnosing personality disorders:

        she says:

        “Does this mean that there will no longer be such a thing as narcissists, histrionics, borderlines and antisocials?

        Hope springs eternal, but no. The APA (American Psychiatric Association) seems to be collapsing the existing 10 diagnoses into 5 diagnostic buckets, which means it will probably be even more difficult for the average Joe or Jane to figure out what is going on with their loved one/tormenter. Just because the current members of the DSM committee are doing away with a particular disorder in the Manual doesn’t mean it no longer exists. If only it were that easy!”

        The DSM-V will collapse the 10 Personality disorders into 5 groups (as Dr T. wrote in her article above):

        ” …
        1. Paranoid Personality Disorder
        2. Schizoid Personality Disorder
        3. Schizotypal Personality Disorder
        4. Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD)
        5. Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD)
        6. Histrionic Personality Disorder (HPD)
        7. Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)
        8. Avoidant Personality Disorder
        9. Dependent Personality Disorder
        10. Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder

        They plan to collapse these 10 into the following 5 buckets:

        1. Antisocial/Psychopathic Type
        2. Avoidant Type
        3. Borderline Type
        4. Obsessive-Compulsive Type
        5. Schizotypal Type ….”

        which will have untoward effects because changing the diagnostic model will help hide and mask current and historical statistics that show women are crazier than men:–us-adults-in-past-year

        Of course the feminists are trying to counter the “women are crazier” label with their particular brand psychobabble and faulty statistics:

        Now and in the future, psychology/psychiatry and the diagnosis of mental illness is another area where men will need to be vigilant because sound categorization and diagnosis of mental illness may end up being replaced by cherry picking and the feminist ipse dixit to make men appear more crazy than women.

  • Nancy

    Thanks for an interesting article. It can’t be said enough that feminism is inherently evil. I like your idea of extreme self interest as being a part of the culprit. The self interest can become so narrow minded and tunnel visioned that all other’s needs become inconsequential. “But, but, but, we are only trying to help women”….fuck sake.

    I would add Scott Peck’s definition of evil from years ago. Peck said that you can spot evil by seeing the chaos it leaves in its wake. Feminism has left a freaking tsunami of chaos in it’s wake and continues to focus on the me, me, me of women’s needs while completely disregarding the wake of chaos. Seems very similar to the evil parent who focuses only on their own needs and leaves their kids in a wake of chaos.

  • Red0660

    Evil: Unmitigated self interest.

    I like this definition but think it an all encompassing term for something that is not evil in it’s own right but certainly can and is indeed so when exercised without restraint and that is GYNOCENTRISM. Gynocentrism, given forth with no restraint has proven to have the propensity to manifest itself as “unmitigated self interest”. I have great interest in understanding it because I believe it to be a part of something integral to females. This is to say I believe it to be related to the process of sexual selection and hypergamy as well.

    I do know this much, it has biological origins without a doubt. I do know that males have a predisposition to feed it what it wants. I do know that of all things, it is men\males that give it its power. I do know however that when made systemic through political agency it is a run away train. This is so because ordinarily, in the personal realm, gynocentrism is kept in check by male options. Male options are it’s natural governor. The more options a man has (to select other females other than her) or simply options given forth by equal protection under law, the more gynocentrism is kept in check. However, when it is given agency in government it is no longer males that have control over whether we serve it or not and to what extent.

    Government is the be all and end all arbitrator of ALL male options.

    “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

    -President George Washington

    Gynocentrism, when given political agency, but more importantly, DOMINANT political agency, the nature of government as a functional organism works in a symbiotic fashion with it. This is to say that government by nature seeks to grow itself as does any social organization of function built by human beings. Personified within it, as in any representative democracy is the tendency to seek approval and direction from the majority Will of the people.

    Under a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, a representative democracy is supposed to be kept in check. There is supposed to be equal protection and representation under law. “Democracy (in and of itself) is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.”

    So here is the crux of the matter, females are the majority vote in the political realm and yet also they are a socially dominant force in the public realm and this includes the domination of the dialog of our social fabric, the public conversation if you will. Their representation as a social class united towards it’s interests is unparalleled by men. Furthermore, without the natural limits of male options, gynocentrism is dominant over men as it is the case that naturally we too seek to serve it.

    When all three realms of female dominance are combined, the social-personal, the social-public and the public-political, gynocentric nature becomes the driving force of social, political and cultural movement. It is in this way and in this fashion that it becomes consumptious and consummate. It is by the superior representation of females as a socio-political class in the realm of public (non governmental institutional policy) combined with her superior representation in the governmental realm of political and lawful policy that confounds the personal and private process of male options.

    Ironically and most of all PARADOXICALLY it is male options that served her in the first place, it is male options that enfranchises men and most of all it is male options that keeps gynocentrism moderated. It is in fact the violation of the personal through secular and separate representation in the realms of public policy but also political and lawful policy that exacerbates the break down of the common felicity we naturally form with her. Subsequently, through her own actions she nullifies the very male options that served her. Her response… reach out further with outstretched arms to the cold metallic arms of the government.

    And so it is the case that without male options, we no longer have the power to serve her which incidentally is where male power always came from. The ends of female agency IS gynocentric in that the ends of feminism and female nature itself is to serve her needs and in so doing, perhaps inadvertently, makes her “independent” of the need of men to fulfill them. Without male need there are no male options.

    Feminism is the vehicle of female nature itself. Feminism IS the manifestation of collective female gynocentrism and it is the synergy given to it in the personal, public and political realms that makes what we are experiencing now, a self compounding, self consuming and ultimately a self destructive process. Ultimately, power is ceded from the BOTH of us toward that of State and working industry. In past history this process has never ended well.

    Idealogues in our human history who have, of all things, seen this process as a good thing, knew that female nature was the key. They were right…….

    “Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.” -Karl Marx

    • Eff’d Off


      Will you please write something in an OP format and send it to Paul.

      You carve a mean scribe I tell you – wow !

    • Eff’d Off


      You write it, send it to Paul and if it suits he may send it to me and I’ll illustrate it.

      “Her response… reach out further with outstretched arms to the cold metallic arms of the government. ” I can’t stop thinking about that bit.

      I mean that is e x a c t l y the stuff that gets my pen dripping.

      Phwoarr ! ( double entendre chain pulled )

      • Red0660

        You got it buddy : ) How long does it take to make this illustration? (take your time by the way) just wondering.

        • Red0660

          In fact if you like you can give Paul your contact information (email or facebook) to send my way and we can work more directly : )

          Failing that I will keep Paul in the loop as to our intentions.

          • Eff’d Off

            Paul has my information and Paul, yoo hoo, you can send it to this Red bloke anytime, ok.

            Illustrating the cartoons varies.. Some I scribble in about 10 minutes and others can take up to half an hour.
            One I did (see illustration) took about an hour and a half.

            A Dr F strip takes about three hours or so. I spend more time on each panel because I fucking love that guy so much. If he was real I’d go gay.

            In more serious moment, even though I am pretty new at this fledgling stage, I am able to see the writing here of such a caliber it makes my goofy brain spin a wee bit. (Mr Elam, our M. Dexter and many others.)

            It’s absolutely astounding, I mean it’s gob smackingly in your face for real.
            I read this stuff and here in my flat alone and loving that btw, and I fire up the site and woah look at it.
            How can someone write stuff like this… how is it possible ?

            There is absolutely not a day I am not somewhat dazed by the sheer CPU grunt of brains here.
            I will never be in this orbit and so be it.

            I have no money, in fact there are times when I choose vitamin supplement over food as it’s cheaper. Bleah ! I am not whinging, there are many worse than me but my point is this:
            If you have talent in s o m e way that can help in any way with our mission then it must be harnessed.
            If you can teach others to write as you do it’s important and wonderful if you do so.

            I’m ok for sure with a pen but not as much at all with a keyboard. So with no money to donate and not the skills as yourself in the word that weaves, I call apon the only thing I have that might make a difference in some small part.

            My thinking is to make my illustrations as popular as possible in order to draw traffic here. Period.

            If it was to make you laugh as it’s only end then I’d push off and spend time on painting for a few bucks, you know ?

            I went on a tangent there didn’t I ? Oh well, it’s relevant in so much as our passion here is our motivation.

            I know you have reams of writing tucked away in draws or hard drives somewhere… pull them out will you and send them to Mr Elam.

            P.S. I still don’t know how you come up with the stuff you do, fucking awesome and so damned honest it just about takes my breath away.

            [img] Burns.jpg[/img]

          • Gendeau

            “If he was real I’d go gay.”

            nice, quality nice LMAO.

            So, does having Paris model for you, speed things up?

          • Eff’d Off

            I emailed Paul regarding just that.

            Also to do with Karma.

    • Red0660

      I think what we have all intuitively and logically figured out here is that female nature naturally seeks to nullify the need of men. Gynocentricity, hypergamy and sexual selection naturally do this toward the weeding out of the lesser male variables.

      When her nature is trans-positioned from the personal, to the political, it quite naturally does the same. So it is the case that when her nature becomes systemic, it therefore becomes paradoxically compounding, that is, it creates its own need to do more of the same by the paradoxical element of the (disenfranchisement of males) and as such, her nature moves forth toward the increasing power of the State. It then that it becomes destructive. In the end it will be us both who lose Liberty and us both who lose security. In the end it will be us both that lose independence and Freedom.

    • Denis

      Yeah, that was good!

  • Lovekraft

    Gus Van Sant made a movie a couple years ago called “Anti Christ” starring Willem Dafoe which touches upon this very theme. I’ve seen it several times.

    Basically, a woman and man are making love while their toddler, a boy, crawls out of the crib and proceeds to jump to a death out of an open window. He is a psychiatrist and she gets drugged up and inconsolable, so he decides to treat her by taking her to a cabin in the woods.

    The metaphorical themes and peeling away of the woman’s motivations (spoiler: she watched the boy jump out of the window while continuing to have sex) show how the female mind is deep down anti-male, reinforced by inherent and sociological messages that men are evil.

    At least that’s what I took from the movie.

    A favorite (or revealing?) part is when she realizes he is going to leave her so she knocks him out, drill a hole in his leg and attaches a millstone to it.


    Good article Dan.

    • Factory


  • codebuster

    Dan’s interpretation of self-interest ties in neatly with my recent Spearhead comment:

    Individualism motivated in self-interest is logically contradictory to true individualism because it has within it the seeds of groupthink, with the need to define one’s purpose according to the terms of others – you can never completely escape the need to negotiate with morons.

    Let me provide an example of what I mean here. Game, as the PUA industry markets it, implies that what women think of you matters. But here’s the rub. A man with authentic Game shouldn’t give a flying toss what women think of him. As soon as we enter into any kind of social transaction with another, we are validating that transaction, what it means, and what it implies for our identity. If you want to form transactions with narcissistic, self-indulgent women, then you will be living life in terms of validating these kinds of women, and what they think of you. It doesn’t matter how “tough” you are, or how aloof you pretend to be… as soon as you define that someone has something that you want, you’re trapped, irrespective of whether you go alpha or turn beta.

    So what does this mean from Dan’s perspective wrt evil? It means that every social transaction is a kind of pact with the devil. It’s a compromise. You can rise above it, or you can sink to its level.


      “But here’s the rub. A man with authentic Game shouldn’t give a flying toss what women think of him”

      Very true.

    • Gendeau

      “But here’s the rub. A man with authentic Game shouldn’t give a flying toss what women think of him”

      I think that you’ll find Roissy agrees with this. I think he’d call it ‘inner game'; you truly are ‘alpha’ in your core.

      I’m not sure that Roissy belongs in exactly the same camp as the PUAs, though there are shared core beliefs.

      I find Roissy far more interesting (particularly the archives) than PUAs. It’s about understanding how women work, PUA stuff comes from this understanding.

      YMMV but you probably should have a look at Roissy’s archives.


    Enough debating, and more off line work guys we need to grow the movement.


    1000 bumper stickers.

    • Eff’d Off


      Please tell me you’ll be on the Colarado summit.

      I want to meet you.

    • Paul Elam


      Just fucking beautiful. My apologies that AVfM is still does not have these kinds of stickers available. But there is a reason for it that will be announced very soon.

      I wish I had an evil, sinister laughing smilicon to add here. :)


        I let out a evil sinister laugh every time I post one!


    I am in Australia, been thinking about it though.

    • Eff’d Off

      Yeah, I know you are,
      I was thinking you and I could go on a blitz one night in our home town and post hundreds and hundreds of these all about just everywhere.

      I am pretty central – Swinburne area and as you know there is a hell of a lot of people traffic there for instance, students and shoppers.

      I’d like to coordinate with you and Paul as in all matters like this has both our direct contact details. He has my permission to send my info to you.

      Could be a hoot I’d say, and the sum of both of us on a sticker/poster run is way more than the whole.

      • Paul Elam

        I will connect the two of you. And I want to say again how absolutely huge it would be to have you both at the Summit repping Oz.

        If I were more solvent I would buy you both tickets, and Snark, too, so he could bring the UK to the bash.


          Well I have thinking of an holiday so a good chance.


        I am going to plaster Melbourne and Monash as well!

        • Eff’d Off

          Kings Cross and Spencer St station might be the go.

          Another place we could hit is the Southbank walkway. There’s a hell of a lot of Sunday foot traffic there from the punters going through the stalls to the monolith with the crown on it.

          I’m sure you’re onto this as well, foot traffic coupled with a high posting surface area.

          Doing a blitz in the Northcote and Clifton Hill areas would be a waste of time for the obvious reasons and places like Toorak and Brighton would have many jacked-off blokes who have had their married muffs swiping their plastic cards like a girly feeding frenzy at a shoe sale.

          Let’s hook up and blitz away sir – I stand ready and waiting.

          • KARMA MRA MGTOW

            Sounds good!

          • KARMA MRA MGTOW

            Also might get some good donations.

  • Atlas

    Good piece.

    “As of 3 June 2011, the world population is estimated by the United States Census Bureau to be 6.922 billion”

    If, so far, just 5% of the world’s population are supporters of feminism and are misandrists then that is one large religion of evil witches out to harm men.

  • Herbal Essence

    No, Dan Moore.

    This is completely wrong. See, Feminism is good, and wonderful, and equality for all, and magic unicorns that poop rainbows.

    Any Feminist who does a bad thing isn’t really a Feminist, and any bad result of Feminism wasn’t caused by feminism. I know it’s true because I keep saying it over and over.

    In conclusion, feminism is whatever I say it is, as is convenient in the moment. And magic unicorns.

  • ScareCrow

    @Dan Moore

    Watch the movie, “Expelled” by Ben Stein.

    Excellent documentary type movie.

  • Newfoundman

    Evil = unmitigated self-interest? I’m not so sure I am ready to call newborns (or most lower animals) evil.

    • Gendeau

      Curses! Foiled again!

      Would have got away with it too, if it weren’t for you pesky…erm…newfoundman…with your damn logic

      (With all due regards to Shaggy and Scooby Doo)

      Damned reasonable (which makes it worse) point.

  • Rad

    Anyway, IMO, articles like this making it to “print” does not bode well for the MRM.

    Whatever changes will be effected can only be minimal and then ultimately harmful to men when the ethics underlying the movement remain unclear.

    If an ethical cruade cannot be defended consistently internally, expressing it externally is like creating a building without a foundation. The end result will simply be to destroy those it was meant to protect.

  • !!SPARTA!!


    I wonder who’s making these comics… they don’t have a name or website anywhere…

    • Aharon

      Not sure, but this seems to be the popular name for the comic strip:

      “The Unfortunate Truth About Women”

  • Ray

    What’s with that really annoying “contact” button at the left of the screen that blocks out portions of text one is trying to read, or write? Is that spam, or something to click on to leave a message for AVfM? I kind of wish it would just go away.

    • scatmaster

      asked and answered in another thread.

  • Jade Michael

    Act 1: Castle in Romanian countryside. Young, impressionable female knocks on door of castle.

    Old feminist vampire speaks in Transylvanian accent: “Come…step into my lair young lady. Mwaahahaha. Watch this movie for your enjoyment. Drink this Kool Aid, little one. Know that you are a goddess; the center of the universe. All you ask for you shall receive. I wish you no harm, for it is not your blood I want. Just let me feed on your dignity, your intellect; let me stunt your emotional growth in ways unimaginable to you right now. Let me steal your ability to love and nurture. In return I give you the keys to the kingdom. I bid you farewell to run freely and wreak havoc with no personal consequences. Everyone must bow down to you, my special one. If they don’t you must steal their freedom and take everything they own for yourself. Then bring themmmmmm to MEEEEE…”

    Eh. Nothin’ evil about that.

    Damn, I feel bad for young women growing up today.

  • Matt

    After I became totally disabled in line of duty, my wife had always demanded to break the lease transfer the HUD voucher and move to New York to be near her 2 brothers who live in Montreal Canada (actually I found out her motive to marry me in just a few days after we met to obtain US green card and live in America a place within a few miles near her 2 brothers).

    Her next demand was to take my 2 kids to Iran for summer vacation. I am 62 years old with heart disease, lung disease, sleep apnea, Tardive Dyskinesia, 2 ruptured disc in lower back and my left leg has numbness, tingling and pain radiating from my lower back all the way to my L-toes, bi-carpal tunnel syndrome, left cubital tunnel syndrome, asthma, depression, anxiety attack, bleeding ulcers, hemorrhoids, chronic chest pain and almost near dead.

    She has been abusing me physically, verbally, mentally, psychologically and financially for 15 years while I was making good money as General Manager we had no problems at all. Just one year after, I became disabled in line of duty she slashed my face &neck neighbors called police she was arrested and taken to Metro jail, I had to pay to bail her out and attorney fees after she pleaded guilty and sweared in front of Judge and signed statement that she would never mistreat, injure, insult and abuse me again and would take care of disabled husband like a nurse. I also begged the Judge not to send her back to jail because I was disabled and had no one in Mobile, Alabama then Judge reduced her sentence to only one year probation.

    Few years later she attacked me with a toolbox and hit my L-shoulder that permanently disabled my L-shoulder even after total rotator cuff muscle surgery from more than 80% tear, I still can not lay on my L-shoulder for one minute and have been suffering from pain and discomfort since then have not been able to use my left shoulder, L-arm and L-hand to do daily activities.

    In 2008 she fractured my left pinky in several places when she threw a 20 lb weight to my finger and has been threatened me to poison me, turned my CPAP off at midnights to suffocate me many times. First I thought there was something wrong with my CPAP machine, I ordered a new CPAP machine, but it was her turning it off nothing was wrong with CPAP machine. After I was not able to meet her demands she threatened to make my life a living hell.
    She has been calling police several times for non sense to establish a fake domestic violence case for me. Finally I survived a fatal car accident in 4/4/11 when someone hit my car hard flipped it over badly and totaled it and I was unconscious for long time with severe pain referred to orthopaedic department and I am still under physicians care and still suffering from that injury with severe pain.
    A few days after my accident 4/13/2011 she punched me in my achy head for blocking her friend (these Iranian friends of her were interfering in our life, always encouraged her to get divorce, get kids’ custody take them to Iran) number called police that I blocked her friend phone police told her that was personal then she falsely claimed he also pulled my hair police didn’t see any evidence for her claim (I was suffering from pain on my bed that time with neck brace, L-arm brace and back brace and 2 I was hardly could move from bed) she begged police to take her to shelter because she was tired of living here with me any longer (ONLY BECAUSE HER DEMANDS WERE NOT MET), but police told her you have several hours to make up and become friendly with you husband and keep your family together and if it didn’t work after your 2 kids come home from school call police and police would take you to a shelter.

    Because I called 911 the same time she called, one police asked me if she hit me I told him physically mentally, financially and for sake of my kids I never wanted her to go back to Metro jail again last time cost me too much to get her out with her criminal record I thought they would keep her in jail for long time (I never intended to harm our relationship or for our kids sake break up the family so remained patient all the time while she was abusing me physically, mentally, psychologically, verbally and financially) put her in jail even if there were hundred opportunities for me to do that.

    With all my suffering and pain, I spoke to her, begged her for another chance for each other and kids future. What she demanded this time a notarized letter from me to break the lease and move to New York and also facilitating her travel to Iran with my kids for the summer vacation which was impossible for me in my present situation.

    After my kids returned from school about 4:30 pm she called police and waited outside, took the only car we had in our household and followed the police car to a shelter.

    I haven’t seen my dear kids for 45 days their school called many times regarding their tardiness and send me letters that my kids had unexcused absence for days, library books were over due I had to pat to clear them up and I received a letter from HUD section 8 that my voucher was terminated in May 31, 11. After 14 years Section 8 Mobile Housing illegally made that unlawful decision based of some false accusation of Domestic Violence and lies that my wife presented to them.
    The voucher was offered to me due to my total disability and was transferred to my wife due to false allegation of Domestic Violence and her being in shelter. I had to borrow some money and hired an attorney to appeal their decision before the HUD informal hearing they never provided any documents for discovery to my attorney no witnesses were presented to be crossed exams, basically a police report and few fake pictures part of an arm with a small bruise from several years ago while she was cleaning and moving household around for New Years and other holidays she always inflected a few bruises on her body parts (seems like she took a picture of few of them and saved it for these rainy days).

    I have to refer the facts that until 3 years ago, before I taught her how to drive and we bought a Toyota car, she always demanded me to escort her in all her appointments and grocery shopping or other things outside the apartment she claimed language barrier. So I was her driver, translator. I also translated for her doctors during her visits (for 14 years I attended to all her doctors with her during her visit, her doctors were aware of her sensitive skin (it runs in most her family), by her body parts touching anything such as door, sofa, patio or inside closets, freezer, refrigerator exercised with machines, storage room, ran track or used outside play ground or so on, easily she would inflect a bruise) and a picture of a foot (supposedly of my wife foot) without any explanations she wasn’t present to be crossed exams either. She also had history of trying to fabricate self inflected bruise to blame it in neighbor’s son whom she had fought with, but I mediated and stop that scenario to happen.

    For sure Mobile housing did not follow the Fair Housing Act and HUD rules and regulations in my case at all. Seems like if you are a women they only listen to your lies and false allegations and you are automatically victims in Mobile County.

    Then after 5 weeks, I received a call from police department that my wife pressed charge against me for that day 4/13/2011 she left with my kids. Mobile Police never spoke to me that day regarding any charges of abusing her or any thing else regarding her, what so ever.
    I am 62 years old have been living with honor & integrity all these years, my son from ex-wife is a TRUE AMERICAN HERO for serving almost 3 years in Iraq war (unfortunately he was disfranchised from our family simply because his mother (my ex-wife was partially African American) my wife always told my kids they did not need a nigger, S O B brother.

    Even if my son and I had a good father and son relationship prior to new marriage but she never let him visit us “dad, his sister& brother whom he loved so much” or even communicate with him). I paid taxes and voted in each election, worked very hard with 2 Masters and partial PhD education (couldn’t finish my doctoral degree program due to severity of my illnesses and disability) who never bothered/abused any one in my life and have been always a good law obidian citizen of this great country, living with integrity, helping victims all my life and long supporter/member of Amnesty International, ACLU.

    With lots of major illnesses and 100% disability, I am only receiving about $650.00 SSI& SSA which I spent my last dime for kids and her and paid all the bills & other expenses many times I had to borrow money to fulfill my obligations towards my family and never purchased a pair of socks for myself in past 14 years.

    I married her unfortunately while visiting Iran in 1992 without back ground check from her and her family. I was not aware of her motive as she rushed me to marry her in a few days of meeting her, it was not because she fell in love with me and intended to live as a true partner and wife for me and share happiness and sadness with me, but to come to America and simply to live near her 2 brothers after obtaining US green card.

    She has been a huge consumer of taxpayer money for 15 years, refused to attend school, never worked a minute or earned a penny since I married her and brought her to America from Iran.
    She has been in charge of my EBT card for buying only her favorite food; she abused $215.00 TANF kid’s money for herself and her family in Iran & Canada as well, by purchasing long distance phone cards to call those 2 countries for many hours per week.

    The DHR officials had tried unsuccessfully very hard for several years to send her to school and find her a job but she refused to follow up by giving fake excuses such as fake headache and fake depression abusing taxpayers’ money, Medicaid and myself as co-pays for her doctors and medications expenses to reach her ambitious& goals of getting SSI and other Government benefits.
    Lots of medical records of abusing me and government and audio tapes are also available.
    After some research I found out in Iran some women are faker of domestic violence by self inflecting wounds to gain upper hands in divorce, child custody and other government benefits like Food stamps, Housing Voucher, TANF as well as establishing cases based on false allegations, lies and fabrication against their husbands even if they are like myself near dead.
    Please advise me what to do next? Thanks for your time and God Bless America and God Bless You.

  • Angry Harry

    For what it’s worth …

    1. Despite being an atheist, I agree with Dan Moore that feminism is ‘evil’. And if this surprises anybody, I will try to explain my view in an article soon – because it is something that has been bugging me for a very long time.

    2. It is of considerable interest to me, as an MRA, to learn about (or at least to have some awareness of) the religious views of other MRAs; particularly the views of ACTIVE MRAs like Dan Moore.

    a. it lets me know whom I am dealing with.

    b. it helps me to understand their other articles.

    c. it’s always wise to know what your friends think and believe.

    d. it’s always wise to know what those who become involved in gender politics think and believe.

    My point being that Dan Moore set out his religious beliefs simply in order to help the reader understand where he was coming from.

    What’s wrong with that?


    May I respectfully contradict. has an entire section about Evolution, Dawkins, evolutionary theory related to feminism, etc.

    I also find the claim that science provides a complete explanation laughable, since morphing from ‘primordial ooze’ to ‘life’ requires every bit as much faith as a belief in God. For that matter, so does the belief in infinite numbers of universes resulting in ours at random. And science doesn’t provide a causation; a ‘before.’

    Repressive sex laws in the "Land of the Free". Polygyny in birds & human meddling in other people’s sexuality  

    Evolutionary Psychology Primer & Reading List

    Female evolutionary Superiority in social manipulation causes feminist Language Distortions’ universal acceptance

    To justify our moral judgments, we invent victims even if there are none


    To add a bit more: evolution is a science, animal behavior is a mathematical science.

    All attacks are based on the fact that every science has some unclear points, that does not devalue the rest of the science.

    Due to religious restrictions in the USA, most people lack BASIC elementary school knowledge in evolutionary science. That makes things difficult

    Discovery channel animal movies still propagate false notions of predators striving to cull the diseased animals to strengthen the prey population.

    • Factory

      “All attacks are based on the fact that every science has some unclear points, that does not devalue the rest of the science.”

      I do not hold an “All or nothing” mindset. Actually, quite the opposite. I firmly believe that BOTH religion and science are ‘right’. I do not see a contradiction, since there’s absolutely no reason God’s hand couldn’t have been the guiding force behind evolution. There’s no reason not to believe that Science merely describes the physical processes God used to form the Universe.

      In fact, I would think that is the LOGICAL conclusion, would it not be? I mean, it’s pretty well-known that The Bible (or The Koran, or whatever) isn’t the ACTUAL ‘unadulterated Word of God’…how COULD it be when they differ from translation to translation in the same edition, let alone over centuries?

      I look at the Bible as a mixture of parable, instruction manual, History lesson, ethics instruction, and religious edict. Sort of like a Universal Textbook for Home Schoolers circa 0 BC.

      See, I told you I wasn’t religious.

      As for Science proving or disproving the existence of God, I doubt it will happen in my lifetime, and I frankly choose to believe there is a higher existence and purpose, since the ‘you’re worm food, the end’ approach is utterly depressing.

      What you do with these beliefs is your own choice. There is no reason to suffer, or be meek, other than it might be the right thing to do at the time (by choice). This too, I believe, is a Biblical precept…God’s greatest gift to man is the freedom to choose.

      I choose to believe in A God…but I think the real thing is far stranger than anything we can comprehend. I don’t need a Priest to help me figure it out.

  • Rogue4

    A small personal aside for the sake of illuminating a larger point, and damned if everybody and their brother didn’t turn dipshit and make the entire comments section about the small aside. Way to go “rationalists”.

  • Rachael

    I don’t think you understand what a feminist is.

  • King of the Zombees

    Feminism and booze/drinking make American women the most toxic asset in America today…even worse than housing!
    End of story.

  • Mark M

    One of the few consolations to this is that I think most extreme feminists are bitter, sour faced, hate-filled women who will end up dried out bitter old women. The same goes for most other activists who seem to be full of hate. I hope most feminists will see that it is better for us to work together to solve problems and get things in perspective rather than behave like a pack of vultures waiting to pounce on any man that ever says or does anything that “offends” them.