The Core Values of Feminism

When discussing men’s rights, men have a tendency to discuss issues down the line: false rape accusations, domestic violence, chivalry, abortion, and sexual harassment- everything neatly, cleanly divided into nice, symmetrical topics.  This is a good thing.  Brain scans show that the average male brain is highly compartmentalized when performing certain functions. When doing A, part A lights up.  When doing B, part B lights up.  It’s as though every part of a man’s brain has its respective job that it does extremely well and that is all it does. (This is an oversimplification, but it works for my purpose here.)

Could this division of labor in the male brain give us clues as to how men came up with science and mathematics?  We all know that there are no such things as the number 2 or an inch or a foot, but yet some guy drew an arbitrary line in the dirt somewhere and now we have things such as measurement, physics, mathematics, engineering- oh, and don’t forget civilization!

The female brain scans differently. When doing both A and B, the female brain lights up over a bigger, more general area.  Some would say that women use more of their brains than men.  I suggest that this functional ambiguity makes the female brain slightly less decisive.  One who is not decisive does not have a tendency to act.  This could explain why men took charge of history- that and physical strength.  It could also explain why so many women seem to find postmodernist drivel so appealing- with its fuzziness, its hatred of measurement and data and facts, etc.  And finally, it could explain the greatest social bane of the last fifty years: radical feminism.

With this piece I take you close to the edge without dropping off.  I take you as close as I can to feminist thought while still having a brain left to think with.  Won’t you come with me on a tour of this haunted mansion, the feminist cranium?  I don’t pretend to have distilled feminist thought in its entirety.  You’ll notice that many of these bleed together, but like the female mind, things aren’t so distinct and separate.  These are the core values of feminism:

Revenge, lack of remorse, and threat of retaliation– Whenever women hurt men, they are “turning the tables” for past oppression.  Women need not feel guilty if they treat men badly.  Their abuse is justified, because they were wronged by men historically (“Men deserve it.”).  Also, men better watch what they do in the present and future, because women can and will punish them for any given transgression (as defined by them).  This is part of what feminists call “empowerment.”


Dishonesty– If facts don’t motivate women to join their cause, feminists make things up to stoke female anger.  Postmodernism- the idea that there is no such thing as objectivity- and revisionist history are a great way to put marginalized people (women) at the center of things.  That way, we all can pretend that women played a larger role in shaping the world than they actually did.  Feminists also distort data, misuse studies, and tell outright lies to spread the idea that women are actively persecuted by a demonic patriarchy that wants nothing more than to eradicate women.


Blurring the lines between belief and reality, saying and doing– This is also related to postmodernism.  Feminists and women in general are so verbally gifted that they convince others and even themselves that their opinions are literally true.  If they say they are oppressed, this makes it so- according to them.  If they say women should be paid more, this makes it so- according to them.  Also, feminists will equate a catcall from a construction worker with a criminal violation such as rape or interpret the rape of a woman by a violent loner as a statement of male purpose.  If we allow feminists and women in general to do this, it will encourage a new kind of discourse between the sexes that renders everything we say to each other meaningless.


Lack of empathy– Feminists never ask themselves how their accusations and condemnations make others feel. It never occurs to them that anyone else is capable of having feelings.  Feminists are very sensitive to feelings- their own feelings.  They can see how they as women suffer, but it never occurs to them that men also suffer.  This leads to all matters of unfairness and hypocrisy.  If feminists convince women that their pain is worse than men’s, then women will always demand special treatment.

Exaggeration of female suffering, marginalization of male suffering– Let us suppose that a man and a woman carry out a dangerous task.  During this task, the man loses an arm and a leg, while the woman loses half of her pinky finger.  It’s obvious the man is suffering more- yet newspaper headlines will go on about the woman’s suffering!  This is because women have advocacy groups that make sure the world knows about female suffering.  No one argues on the man’s behalf.  We’ve been conditioned to believe his suffering is unimportant.  Nor does the man argue on his own behalf.  He’s also been conditioned to believe his suffering is unimportant.  (Besides, complaining won’t reattach his severed limbs.)  The feminist thinks that complaining is the same as suffering, but it isn’t.  Her complaining creates the appearance of suffering, which helps her elicit sympathy from others.  (However, her complaining does increase everyone else’s suffering.)  Women do suffer, but when we deny male suffering, we get a distorted vision of reality.  And with this distorted vision, we pass legislation that offers yet more protection for women but none for men.


Convenience– This too is related to postmodernism.  Women should be able to do whatever they want without any consideration for logic, consistency, or cause and effect relationships.  If the rules are to a woman’s benefit, then enforce the rules.  If not, ignore the rules.  All that matters is that it benefits a woman.


Passivity, feigned powerlessness, and lack of responsibility– Feminists don’t hold women responsible for anything, which makes them believe they have no power.  If a man makes a mistake, it’s because men are bad.  If a woman makes a mistake, it’s because men are bad.  Men are expected to apologize for everything, but women aren’t expected to apologize for anything.  They didn’t do anything, after all.  But this also convinces women that they have no control over their situation- not exactly the “empowerment” that feminists talk about.  And if women believe they have no control, then they have one of two options: 1) do nothing (“Why bother?”), or 2) overcompensate by trying to control everything and everyone around them.


Replacing self control with government control– Feminists don’t control themselves but want to control others.  They equate total lack of self restraint with self expression.  (Never mind that being an asshole is a poor way to express one’s individuality.) Because feminists don’t control themselves or their actions, they assume that everyone is the same way.  They believe that, to restore order, we need a large government (i.e. Daddy) to control all of us.



Commiseration– Women should share each other’s burdens.  The burden of one woman becomes the burden of all women.  The slogan “The personal is the political” becomes a way for maladjusted women (feminists) to foist their personal problems onto women who are otherwise happy and well adjusted.  Feminists often try to disguise commiseration with innocuous activities such as women’s studies classes, book discussion groups, or quilt making.


Resentment and misandry- Feminists are hypersensitive.  They see female victimhood everywhere because their perceptions are colored by an overabundance of emotion.  They are on a constant lookout for any perceivable slight against women and take everything personally.  Feminists do not hold women responsible for anything and blame men for everything.  They believe men are the demonic source of female agony. This resentment gives way to a hatred called misandry.


Paranoia, belief in conspiracy, and alienation– Men are innately dangerous and untrustworthy.  They are the source of female agony.  They comprise a group (called patriarchy) that is making every effort to marginalize (and possibly destroy) women. This leads to a terrifying worldview which not only causes new converts to break away from mainstream society, but makes it impossible for them to rejoin that society.  (Such “drinking of the Koolaid” is the same strategy that cults use to amass lifelong followers.)

Female superiority and male inferiority– Women are morally, spiritually, psychologically, and biologically superior to men.  Maleness is a disease for which femaleness is a cure.  Feminism strives to make men more like women, not make women more like men. Men aren’t good enough for women, while women are too good for men.  Men do not make enough effort to meet female needs.  Women do too much to meet male needs.  Men should expect less from women.  Women should expect more from men.  Female sexuality is beautiful and highly evolved.  Male sexuality is ugly and primitive. 


Male servility- Men are the ipso facto servants of women. All social customs (such as dating and courtship, clothing, and etiquette) and all laws with regards to marriage, divorce, child custody, child and spousal abuse, reproductive rights, rape, assault, murder, and sexual harassment should reflect this inferior status.

Male utility– Men are only good in an expedient or a materialistic sense.  Not only should men serve women and expect nothing in return, but they should be grateful that they are used rather than useless.


Female autonomy and male obsolescence– Men and women traditionally needed each other in order to have children.  A man’s sperm met a woman’s egg, and the process that results in life began.  With the advent of cloning, reproduction without sperm (parthenogenesis) will create a situation in which men will need a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, but women won’t need a man’s sperm to become pregnant.  Men will need women, but women won’t need men, rendering males obsolete.  This is something that feminists are clamoring for.


Homosexuality and sexual segregation– Feminists are on a campaign against heterosexuality, because they see it as the core value of the patriarchy.  Not only do they constantly attack heterosexuality in the media and the classroom, but they constantly exalt homosexuality- particularly lesbianism.  Most feminists are lesbians, so by pushing lesbianism onto heterosexual women, feminists simultaneously discourage marriage and open more avenues for female companionship.  They praise male homosexuality, because they see it as a subversion of patriarchal, white, heterosexual, male values (whatever those are).  Homosexuals are seen as a safe alternative to threatening, violent, predatory, heterosexual men, and are thus “honorary women.”  Here, feminists prey on the occasional alienation that gay men feel at the hands of heterosexual men who have been raised to think that homosexuality is immoral or even pathological.  However, this support is only in theory, and feminist love is entirely conditional.  If a homosexual chooses to live his life as a proud man rather than a feminist lapdog, feminists have no use for him and quietly reject him.


Choice– Women should have choices, but should not have to actually choose anything. However, if a woman does make a choice, and it’s a good one, she should be praised and allowed to reap the rewards of that choice. If she makes a bad choice, not only should she not be criticized, but she should be protected from the consequences of that choice. Also, women should have limitless options, while men should have limited or no options.

About Dusty

Dusty was inspired to submit this article after reading A Voice for Men. If you too have ideas or experiences you would like to share with our readers. please click here

View All Posts


    I wish I had written this. A great summary, neatly written. And in depth explanation for all observations of the feminine brain.

    I have written about the verbal superiority of the female brain

    But the way you summarize it all. Congratulations.

    • Dusty

      Thank you! I’m checking out your article. It looks like it’s right up my alley.

  • Pankaj

    I think the point “Male servility” is a bit mangled.. Might need some editing to fix that.

    • Dusty

      “Servility” is a word that means “slavery.” Perhaps “servitude” would’ve been better.

      • Pankaj

        Its not as simple as that. Really needs a edit. Feminists expect male servility, At the same time, feminists do not believe that males are slaves just yet..(which is a problem!) and hence make efforts to “make things right”

        • Dusty

          I disagree. Feminists do know that men are slaves but purposely deny this because they have no intention of “making things right.”

          • Dusty

            I understand what you’re saying. Feminists misrepresent the status of women- saying that they are much worse off than men- to gain them special privileges and to solidify the second class citizenship of men. The situation you are describing is a mixture of “male servility” and “dishonesty.”

          • Pankaj

            “male servility” and “dishonesty.” sums it up.

            Another way of putting it is underlying and covert belief in necessity of enslavement of males.


    you say>>

    Let us suppose that a man and a woman carry out a dangerous task. During this task, the man loses an arm and a leg, while the woman loses half of her pinky finger. It’s obvious the man is suffering more- yet newspaper headlines will go on about the woman’s suffering!

    **it is much worse.
    Men die in wars, get killed as firefighters and hazardous waste workers.

    Women suffer from catcalls. And from having to see naked playboy cover girls. Any verbal or visual offense to a woman is worse then poison, bombs or torture for men.
    Catcalls and having to endure male looks: This is much more suffering then men getting blown into pieces in Iraq.

    • Dusty

      Hah! You’re absolutely right! I was understating the situation! :)

    • John F.Vervoort

      “Firefighters” is such an unrealistic term and does these men the least bit of justice.Even many firemen are politically-correct and often use the word “firefighter”.I have no problem saying “firemen” or “motorman”,mailman,etc. (if it is true).

  • Alphabeta Supe

    Nice work, Dusty. Now, gentlemen all, there are 1684 universities around the world that have a Women’s Studies program. This is an excellent article to send (with permission) to the heads of these ‘schools’ in 2011, which I hereby declare the Year of Men.

    The school details are listed here:

    Here’s the email thread of an (slightly amateurish) challenge I sent to Tracy Isaacs, Women’s Studies Chair, Department of Women’s Studies and Feminist Research, The University of Western Ontario, Canada. Hopefully someone can do better:

    On 2010-12-28, at 7:06 AM, Alphabeta Supe wrote:

    Dear Dr Isaacs,

    The quote on your website by Lya Sorano pines impatiently thus:

    “When we talk about equal pay for equal work, women in the workplace are beginning to catch up. If we keep going at this current rate, we will achieve full equality in about 475 years. I don’t know about you, but I can’t wait that long.”

    Now, correct me if I’m wrong, Dr Isaacs, but talking about equal work for equal pay is not the same as doing equal work for equal pay. Likewise, extorting concessions from the state under the pretense of catching up is not the same as ‘catching up’ (if that’s what feminists are calling the privileged life of Western women these days).

    I’ve got it – instead of working towards abolishing alimony, ensuring equal father custody of children, supporting mandatory paternity testing, supporting the male contraceptive pill, supporting jail terms for false rape accusers that are equal to those meted out to rapists, supporting full public disclosure of rape accuser identities, teaching young women to shoulder equal burdens and responsibilities as men and how to produce more than they consume, and anything else that would render them truly equal, why not run a Women’s Studies and Feminist Research school at a prominent university, teach young women how to distort history, avoid accountability, evade responsibility, lie to themselves and their loved ones about almost everything they ‘need’, produce narcissistic, self-rationalising, entitlement princesses who think nothing of exploiting legal privilege to break the spirits, backs, balls and bank accounts of hard-working, loving men who make the world sufficiently prosperous, comfortable and safe for women to be able to actually go to college, then coerce them under threat of ex-communication from the sisterhood into believing that unbridled self-interest and unabashed self-expression are virtues, call all of this ‘work’ then sit back and let ‘equality’ come rolling in on the next wave of state-sponsored wage inflation, sociological distortions and cultural misandry?

    Oh, sorry, you’ve already done that. Never mind.


    To: Alphabeta Supe
    Subject: Re: Clarification of website quote
    Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 21:47:55 -0500

    Thank you for being interested enough in what we do to read the quotes on our website. Based on your expressed (mis)understanding of our discipline, It looks as if you never taken any courses in women’s studies. If you do wish to comment intelligently on this discipline, you might benefit from some wider reading on the relevant subject matter. If you want to further educate yourself in this area of study so that you may make a more informed comment on it, I would be pleased
    to suggest a list of readings to help get you started.

    Best wishes,
    Tracy Isaacs
    Associate Professor
    Department of Philosophy
    Chair, Department of Women’s Studies and Feminist Research SH 2319
    The University of Western Ontario
    London, ON N6A 3K7
    Ph. 519-661-2111 ext. 84548

    On 29-Dec-10, at 12:33 AM, Alphabeta Supe wrote:

    Hi Tracey,

    Thank you for your email. I must say your use of shaming language was as delicious as it was anticipated. The more widely I read in the discipline of Women’s Studies, the more it becomes apparent that the capacity to increase academic knowledge in this astonishingly preponderous field is neither a function of intelligence, as you’ve suggested, nor wisdom it appears. Indeed, my experience suggests that intelligence, in particular, is of less benefit than the ability to manipulate facts to suit the mission of the day and the ability to rationalise feelings. Thankfully, however, I’ve been blessed not only with intelligence and feelings but also reason and accountability, being a man, so I expect this will allow me to slow the endlessly-spinning hamster wheel of feminist rationalisation long enough to examine the thin axle of truth at its centre. I’d therefore be delighted to consider your proposed list of starter readings and decide for myself whether or not they qualify as ‘education’.


    On 30/12/2010, at 1:19 AM, Tracy Isaacs < wrote:

    Dear Dick,

    A good introductory text is: An Introduction to Women's Studies: Gender in a Transnational World by Inderpal Grewal and Caren Kaplan (McGraw-Hill, 2001).

    More recently, a wide-ranging anthology worth looking at and available on Google books is: Handbook of Gender and Women's Studies edited by Davis, Evans, and Lorber (Sage Press, 2006).

    For some historical context in the political liberalist framework about women's social position, see: John Stuart Mill, The Subjection of Women,1869 (also a google book).

    If you are interested in some philosophical essays by Martha Nussbaum on feminist philosophy in a global context, see: Sex and Social Justice, 1999.

    I do hope you find these readings worthwhile and interesting even if they do not reflect your understanding of the way the world is.

    Best wishes and happy new year.
    Tracy Isaacs

    On 30-Dec-10, at 3:33 PM, Alphabeta Supe wrote:

    Hi Tracey,

    Thanks for the reading list. I've come across the Mill's work several times, as well as a number of Nussbaum's muscular rationalizations about power inequality. I've not given the latter much credence due to her apparent lack of recognition of the functional role of the power differential in most successful relationships – i.e. as the primary contractual motivator. I will, however, take this opportunity to delve deeper into Mill and opine about whether Nussbaum's work qualifies as Women's Studies, or 'philosophy' or 'ethics' that happen to be written by a feminist, or merely the echoes of an intelligent woman calling out in the endless empty chambers of academic self-interest. Hopefully, I'll then be in a position to understand from whence comes the perception that a Women's Studies professor in London, Ontario, is a reliable arbiter of "…the way the world is".

    I'll revert in a short while with an analysis of this material from a rationalist, non-feminist perspective. Please accept my best wishes for the season in the meantime.


    ….one down, 1683 to go. Any takers?

    • Snark

      Your last response was pure gold.

    • Perseus

      This is totally awesome.

  • Alphabeta Supe

    Just an afterthought for those that might want to take this ball and run with it. It might be worthwhile putting in the ‘Subject’ line of your email – “Celebrating the Year of Men”. Or something to that effect.

  • Jean Valjean

    I do not agree with most of what you said but I’m glad you are asking these questions.

    I’m sure you’ve read “The Woman Racket”, and in this book Steve Moxon explains the affect TRP2 has on the sexes. This gene activates upon sex detection of males. For males encountering males it triggers domination and competition. If you want to know why the Men’s Movement can’t get together like the feminists it is because of this gene. We are all in competition with each other which is why we use terms like Mangina and White Knight to refer to men who don’t agree with us or have failed to escape their genetic and cultural programming. However, we are vilifying these men (just as feminists have vilified us!) who we would be better off persuading. After a million years of competition, each of us know instinctively that every man is a threat. We must create a philosophy and code of behavior to overcome this conditioning.

    When women encounter males TRP2 triggers discrimination. Women have always needed to discriminate or else they would just go making babies with any nice guy who whipped it out. Not a good way to ensure the survivability of offspring.

    (As an aside, my definition of feminism is, “The politicization of the female’s genetic predisposition to discriminate against men.” I’m still working on this one)

    However, when men and women encounter females TRP2 remains dormant. Men defer to women; we do not compete and we do not dominate (despite what feminists say!). Women accept other women. This is why women accept whatever other women say even if they believe it to be false. It’s also why women have such a problem with female bosses. They don’t like it when some women rise in the hierarchy above them. They aren’t genetically programmed to deal with that kind of competition and domination. (Cognitive Dissonance occurs–see below)

    What makes it all work? Cognitive Dissonance. This is the anxiety one feels when their actions do not correspond to their beliefs or in our case when logic, justice, and reality, do not match up with our genetic predisposition to defer to or accept women.

    Women do not care about the suffering of men because men are ultimately either winners or losers (relative to their own mate value and status). If you’ve been painted as a rapist or if you lose your job because some woman got affirmative action then you are a loser and most women are unconcerned. Any man who is not above a woman in status is not even on her radar. For thousands of years women have developed a thick skin when it comes to the suffering of men. How many sons and husbands have come home bloody and mutilated from battle or broken from working in mines or fields? If women really cared about the welfare of men they would find it too difficult to allow us to do the hard dirty dangerous things that we have always been forced to do. Think of the way men react when women are in danger? That reaction is the default reaction when TRP2 is dormant. When we see 100 men die in an action movie our reaction to that is the way we feel when TRP2 is activated.

    TRP2 is the primary reason feminists have been so successful and men have been so pathetic at countering this movement. We simply fail to see women as competition or as threats. And because men have always been a threat to each of us we have occasionally joined the feminist movement because of the power that ideology gave to weaker men to denounce and control other men.

    Much of the attributes you mentioned regarding women are not quite accurate. Remember that feminism utilized the same tactics that the Nazis and the Maoists used. They shouted down anyone who opposed them, labeled them sexists, which destroyed many men’s reputations and silenced the rest. (For feminists destroying men with words and accusations was more effective than killing us with guns and bombs. After all, men can band together to defend themselves from war, but not from the words of women.) Both men and women fell to those oppressive ideologies in Germany and China and so did many women and men in the U.S. Without an effective rebuttal from men each generation of women were themselves indoctrinated in feminist theory and became even more corrupt, selfish, and jaded. Today, most women believe feminist theory and history even if they do not consider themselves feminists. The indoctrination is so complete that the feminist mindset is now the status quo not some radical pedagogy.

    Another very important factor weighing in women’s favor is the fact that they control reproduction. If men are deemed to be unsuitable then we may be denied access to reproduction. Think of the man falsely accused of rape. He loses his family, job, reputation and even if cleared is never whole again. Men fear becoming a genetic dead end. All the abuse, aggression, violence, and hardship that men endure during their lives is all so we can earn the right to reproduce. To go through all that and have it taken away by someone who ruins your name through false accusation or just publicly labeling you a sexist is more than many men are willing to risk.

    All this said, I think the key to making our movement is not to attack women but to attack the message. To pick apart the message and compare it to other aspects of our society which have been deemed unacceptable. The moment we put women into the equation we activate TRP2 in the minds of listeners and even if they might be inclined to believe and agree they may still reject our message because of cognitive dissonance. And in large groups, if just a few people (men or women) complain that we are being unfair to women then it will sway the entire group to either disagree with us or to remain silent in fear.

    I think we can get away with taking on the most vicious of radical feminists since even most feminists don’t agree with them but it’s a fine line and we will have to test the waters to see what is acceptable.

    Right now we have the greatest advantage against feminists that we have ever had. The country is desperate and the economy is in shambles. Millions of men are out of work and women are beginning to realize that being a wage slave does not make them powerful.

    We should focus on those men who are out of work and have plenty of time to ponder their situation.
    We should remind the government that they have billions of dollars in programs for women and many of these do not have transparency. For instance, DV shelters have not had transparency for many years. Few people know what goes on there.

    We should remind women how spending is power and work is not power. As well as remind them of a time when almost all women could stay home and raise her kids and how families were strong and stayed together.

    We should show the link between the incarceration of millions of males to the ambitions of feminists to demonize men. The “Get Tough On Crime” is a euphemism for getting back at men.

    Millions of unemployed men need to know that their chances for love and family have been destroyed by feminists and not just the economy.

    We need to show how the education systems favors girls and has resulted in the decline of male academic achievement. We need to show how feminists in control of the school systems are directly at fault.

    We can do it all, but it starts with living by a code of ethics towards all men. We simply cannot vilify men as feminists have and consider ourselves any better. And vilifying women is out of the question.

    Well I’ve rambled on enough. It’s late and I’m still a wee bit drunk. Happy New Year everyone.

    • Alphabeta Supe

      Lots of interesting points, JV. I have just one criticism of the early part of your post, which was the implication that civilised men and women are just a function of their genes. It’s obvious from the second half of your post that you believe there’s more to life than this, so it’s not a strong criticism by any means.

      Our behaviour is a reflection of so much more than just the biochemical inducements of the body – it has much more to do with the workings of our minds, hearts and (if you believe we have one) our souls. We exist much more in the realm of relationships than in the realm of biochemistry, despite what the prophets of science say, as anyone who truly loves another will know. In the relationship realm it is the duty of men to vilify selfish women and men alike. The selfish gene is not an excuse for the civil.

      The code of ethics you propose already exists – in the Bible. In the bible, the physical realm is given precisely 50 verses – in Genesis 1 and 2. The other 30052 are about how we relate to one another as individuals, as couples, as a community and as a species. In a very real sense, then, the rise of feminism is the rise of Eve’s Eden – i.e. Social Darwinism, a.k.a. the law of the jungle. It coincides precisely with the elevation of Science to the religious pantheon and the abandonment of the holy scriptures as the primary source of public ethics in the West.

    • John F.Vervoort

      Trying to convince Manginas & White Knights to see things from a masculist perspective is a complete waste of time.This will never,ever happen in a million years;keep dreaming.Also,it is NOT nice guys that women want to have children with,it is the bad guys ! Hello,is there anybody home ? Women say they prefer nice guys,but marry the rotten-apples and then complain about how bad they are.After that they ask “Where are all the good men ?” Do you not know by now that women talk crap from both sides of their mouths ?!

  • Snark

    Great piece, Dusty – I think you summed it all up!

  • Ray2447

    “With this piece I take you close to the edge without dropping off. I take you as close as I can to feminist thought while still having a brain left to think with. Won’t you come with me on a tour of this haunted mansion, the feminist cranium? I don’t pretend to have distilled feminist thought in its entirety. You’ll notice that many of these bleed together, but like the female mind, things aren’t so distinct and separate. These are the core values of feminism:”

    I think this expresses my feelings about that better than any words I could put together:

  • Kevin/New York

    @Alphabeta Soup: Perhaps Ms. Tracy Isaacs would benefit from a reading list that you provide her. Written viewpoints other than the misandry that she has been consuming for years and years could be much like chicken soup for a cold. It may not help, but it couldn’t hurt.

  • Pingback: Linkage | Deansdale's Blog()

  • Man From The East

    @ Dusty, Do you write any blog? if yes please let me know.

    BTW, What is your take on female victim mentality which refuses to die no matter how many effective actions are taken in favour of more important gender?
    As Dr Warren Farrell describes it ” Honing victimhood as fine art ”

    On a recent visit to India lady Obama said the following to a group of school girls when asked ” who apologizes first when something goes wrong between her and Mr President ?

    Lady Obama, ” Of course it’s him I am a woman why should I? I wait for him to apologize to me. Girls, only you can make this world a better place always help other women”‘
    Female stupidity at its best and natural feminine lack of accountability at its finest. Have any thought?

    • Dusty

      I don’t currently have a blog. This is my first MRM article!

      I believe female victim mentality is almost an inevitable part of the female psyche. Women really do love to talk about problems rather than solutions. They can wrench all kinds of raw emotion from problems. Once a problem is solved, they move on to the next problem. This also explains why women resent it when men try to solve their problems.

      It sounds like Mrs. Obama is hopelessly caught up in the idea that men are feral, primitive creatures who need to be refined and whipped into line by women. That’s bullshit. If anything, women are the ones who need to be refined! Throughout their lives, average females have everything handed to them on a silver platter. Because of this, they miss out on character building experiences might prepare them for the real world.

  • Capt. DaPoet

    Feminism Defined

    An ideology that intentionally promotes such intense hatred for the male gender…That once lodged within the average female’s brain like an incurable virus it causes: Irrational and delusional thinking, emotional instability and intellectual insanity along with extremely low birthrates incapable of sustaining a viable population…That eventually leads its adherents to consciously, intentionally and deliberately with malice and forethought to either commit the ghastly crimes of murdering their own children (both born and unborn) as well as their husbands and/or to support those who do so by excusing their crimes against humanity…

  • AntZ

    Feminism has only one core value:

    The one and only core value of feminism is to seek ever increased power for feminists, at the expense of men and of women, by blowing more hot air into their make-believe “depraved predator” male construct. This familiar fantasy, that all men are either harmless simpletons or dangerous monsters, results in ever increasing financial resources, political resources, and institutional resources being made available to feminists – not to women, to feminists.

    One of the biggest winners in this war of defamation is a man, a feminist toady by the name of “Christopher Kilmarten” who makes a good living by vilifying his own kind.

    Some of the biggest losers in the feminist war on men, are the millions of women who drop off of the ladder of success each year, due to exhaustion, as “depraved predator” men are barred from contributing to nurturing roles such as father, home-maker, and caretaker.

    Never confuse women with feminists. Feminists (both men and women) have been hurling their fellow women under the bus for years, in order to increase their own power.

    • Dusty

      There is a difference between women and feminists. The purpose of my piece was to wake up uninitiated guys to the way that feminist thought poisons the female psyche. To a greater or lesser degree, every woman demonstrates at least some of the traits I have mentioned. The woman who doesn’t is rare indeed.

  • Attila L. Vinczer

    The feminist “cranium” has a fundamental flaw! In that it has at least one gear and many circuits missing and could never, does not, and will NEVER function with any usefulness!

    Why we allowed this disastrous social experiment upon civilization by women aided by pathetic men has one part of my mind so overloaded, I had to shut it down to save the rest of my mind! Likewise, feminism must be shut down and sealed from human eyes for it has served NO good purpose in any way upon men, women and children. Feminist success is at the gross expense of men, children and society as a whole! Not one feminist has EVER been able to tell me what good feminism has bestowed on civilization to benefit men and women equally, not ONE!

    I compare feminism to “The Witch’s Hammer.” It is a witch hunt with men indiscriminately earmarked as evil and targets of decimation! Are we going to tolerate this insanity? No we are not! The time has come to change, put women back in their place and stop the attack by them on good men!
    [img] feminist.jpg[/img]

    • AntZ

      I wish feminists wanted merely to decimate men.

      More like demiate.

    • j

      Hi Attila L. Vinczer, you’ve helped me with one of my toughest single parents on facebook and I appreciate it.

      Without knowing, you’ve made an impact on many other tough women that I couldn’t crack. God bless you and now that I know you’re here, I can work somewhere else. (not that I much good, lol)

      • Attila L. Vinczer

        Thank you for your kind words J. I am glad that I was able to help you and that my endeavours has a positive impact on others as you say. To have that sentiment come back here makes it all worth while and tells me it is also making full circle. That is very important as my intention is to spread the good word and to shed light on the truth about men and women! Your comment is one of the nicest things I could see! :)

  • john

    yesterday on the evening news in dallas texas on channel 8 john McCaa said that men do the majority of domestic violence !!? I think we men on here know better than this feminist talk. Why don’t we all email him and give him some truth in a friendly way. I did ! this is how women , liberals and feminists protect their rights and so should we !

  • Red0660

    WONDERFUL COMMENT Jean Valjean : )

    After reading a discussion on I began to realize how important it is to define more clearly the phenomenon of the Mangina.

    We have to accept that male value in sexual selection is external and as such we are the primary variable from which to choose. This being the case men will always be a class divided in this gender war we find ourselves in.

    We will find ourselves on two sides of the fence for this very reason. Men like Garcia join the women’s team. He is adapting to be selected for by females. In MRA vernacular it’s called a “Mangina” though I believe we should take from Paul Elam’s dichotomy and begin to use something more palatable as we move forward. Anyway, the point is that men WILL NEVER organize as a collective class for our interests as women are able to do, it is simply biology at work… It is important that we define and recognize this phenomenon.

    It is important that we begin to deconstruct the Mangina into respective components or “tells” so that the MRA can define and identify them. A major one being that NO CULPABILITY OR CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM IS ALOUD IN REGARD TO WOMEN, this is always the most definitive give away. The mangina phenomenon is something unique to male biology in regard to sexual selection.

    Moving forward it is important that we define the Mangina so as not to delegitimize our argument into ad-hominem when we identify such a man. This is very important.

    More examples of a Mangina:


    -“Even if you’ve never disrespected the feminine yourself, the first step is still to say “I’m sorry. I’m sorry for what we have done. I’m sorry for what my gender has done. And I come to you with a fresh start.”

    I think as male studies moves forward, men will be able to slowly but surely reconstruct history to reflect reality. A real holocaust has happened here and it is up to men to rebuild from the rubble.

    “The first took place less than 100 years ago with suffragettes demanding the right to vote. At that time men moved from denial and ridicule, to violent opposition, to acquiescence and finally to support.”

    Actually IN REALITY, the largest objection to women’s right to vote was OTHER WOMEN. Men never organized against women’s REQUEST to vote.

    It is the job of MRAs to set the record straight and to develop concrete and factual historical curriculum in male studies. The male gender owes women an apology for nothing. Men are limping around wounded and confused from the gender war battle field. We need to collect our wounded and evacuate them to the small plot of territory called Male Studies to nurse men and boys back to health from the gendercide that has taken place against us.

    By helping the Foundation for Male Studies with a tax-deductible gift, you will be personally responsible for making a change which will help our sons, fathers, brothers, grandfathers, husbands, and uncles, as well as the women in their lives.

    Simply visit and fill in the form to choose your 100% tax-deductible gift as allowed by law. You can also mail a check here:

    The Foundation for Male Studies

    333 Mamaroneck Avenue – 444

    White Plains, NY 10605 USA

  • Daniel Martínez

    Paul, this is a great article, you really said it all.
    Everyone should know this piece.

    • Jean Valjean

      Paul didn’t write the above article Daniel. It was written by Dusty.

  • Dusty

    I grant anyone permission to repost this piece as long as I get the writing credit!

    • Daniel Martínez

      I understand and I will do as you said. Thank you Dusty, and congratulations for a fine work. It is trully excellent. You said it all.

    • Dusty

      One amendment: If anyone does repost this, also say it was originally published at!

  • Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: New Year, New Leaf Edition()

  • Anonymous

    “The female brain scans differently. When doing both A and B, the female brain lights up over a bigger, more general area. Some would say that women use more of their brains than men. I suggest that this functional ambiguity makes the female brain slightly less decisive. One who is not decisive does not have a tendency to act. This could explain why men took charge of history- that and physical strength. It could also explain why so many women seem to find postmodernist drivel so appealing- with its fuzziness, its hatred of measurement and data and facts, etc. And finally, it could explain the greatest social bane of the last fifty years: radical feminism.”

    Very interesting. Nice read

  • Steven DeLuca

    Someday someone will take the best of: And this article will be at the start …

    We could look throught the archives of MND and Transistions, find the best from each, add thoughts from different men’s groups, fathers/prison reform/military-work-suicide death articles, and more. And then demand that our high schools include the views of men and of women who like men… and who don’t like MSinformation for balance. Students could then work out what’s true or not.

  • Dr Tara J. Palmatier

    This article brings back memories or, rather, flashbacks of graduate school. My grad program claimed to be a post-modern social deconstructionist…what do I call it…think tank? No, definitely not that. I didn’t really know what that meant when I arrived on the first day of classes. I read it in the handbook and it seemed like a bunch of abstract, philosophical mental gymnastics, so I skimmed right over it.

    Then I began to understand what it meant. The first thing that stuck in my craw was the whole, “an individual’s internal subjective, reality is just as valid and real as the objective, external reality. In fact, it may be more important.” I asked, multiple profs, including the chair, “but what if an individual’s internal reality is delusional, distorted or just wrong?” They never were able to answer this satisfactorily, at least not for me.

    Many faculty members were indeed feminist lesbians who shamed me when I tried to stand up for the handful of males in the program when they engaged in gender bashing. Most bizarre was my professional seminar prof—a man—who tried to be supportive when I described the hell that was my part-time job at a D & A crisis/sobriety maintenance center.

    I explained the bullying and abusive treatment of my co-workers toward me and he said, “You’re a young, educated, independent single woman making it on her own. This is very threatening to the patriarchy. They’re trying to keep you down.” When I explained that the center staff was all female except for the overnight guy (I think I saw this guy in person maybe 2x in the 18 mos I worked there) and the ambiguously gay male director who was never there and was essentially the butt of the all female staff’s jokes and that it was my female co-workers who were bullying me and playing games with my schedule, he kept trying to get me say that I was being oppressed by the “patriarchy.” I flat out said that I had never been held back by any male authority figure or otherwise and he told me “that’s what they want you to believe.” It was insane.

    The field of Psychology truly is the Estrogen Ghetto. There is no patriarchy. There are barely any men in the field. I’m still confounded by this and the intellectual masturbatory BS that is post-modern social deconstructionism. I actually had one female prof who neither identified as straight, gay or bi. She claimed that she “transcended gender.” Okay. I’ve got nothing against anyone’s sexuality. To each his or her own. However, my program was almost like being in a mass delusion/psychosis. I couldn’t wait to get my ticket punched and get out.

    These people truly are taffy pullers.

    • Primal

      I’m not sure which is worse taffy pullers or craven careerists who have taffy pullers punch tickets for them. That said, I sure do like how well worded this is. Thank you Dr. T but next time we need your ‘o’s as well as your words.

      • Dr Tara J. Palmatier

        What are ‘o’s?

        • Paul Elam

          I am curious about this one, too. Anyone out there know what ‘o’s Primal is talking about?

          • Primal

            The male equivalent of balls. I didn’t want to tell her to bring balls to the ‘Estrogen Ghetto’ because she has no balls. But I do know that women with wise ‘ovaries’ can confront ‘confounders’ with ease.

          • Dr Tara J. Palmatier

            I did confront the hypocrisy in my program and various clinics I’ve worked in and have the scars to prove it.

          • Primal

            Confront “yes”, scars “no doubt”, poetic potency “for sure”. That’s necessary but not sufficient. Strong, consistent, passionate stands for sanity (and challenges to insanity) are what endear me to females who purport to secure males from predatory females. Were fine women like Daphne Patia (What Price Utopia?) or Christina Hoff Sommers to go into the shrink business for us, I’d say please (and thank you) but to profit on the victims of feminism before publicly confronting your “taffy pulling” Sisters or publicly gutting the Estrogen Ghetto (on say your website) is hardly encouraging to me. You are worth far more to me for your potent (and amusing) poetry than your are for your more profitable (white knight-ess) gig.

            ‘Craven’ was an over-the-top characterization that I will gladly take back but ‘careerist’ stands. One cannot BOTH profit ON us and pretend to battle ‘taffy pullers’ FOR us. To be seen as credible one must do one thing well before one does another thing poorly… and be ever so careful to choose first things first. Women who have your ‘O’s need to be publicly smacking down the Hanna Rosins or Amanda Hesses of the psychological world for us so we don’t have to dirty our hands and minds with filthy female predators.

            We have more important predators to protect YOU from… public predators like “Helicopter Ben” Bernacke, to name one among many. To waste precious male time on Taffy Pullers is very dangerous for both sexes. Besides, hunting hyenas is tedious, utterly unrewarding and ridiculously (reverse sexist) risky business that no sane male should ever even have to consider seriously. Thank goodness we have Cathy Young watching our backs in the political/academic world.

            You showed great promise (here) battling the feminist perverts in your profession but careerism will hardly suffice for hyena hunting.

            Of course, you can call this paternalistic for which I have no problem because I’ve done the work. Should you ever do the work, I’ll be happy to call you maternalistic. The day that males can depend on genuine female protection will be one very happy day for me.

          • Paul Elam

            Man, O’ Man. LOL!!

            If that isn’t the dumbest fucking post I’ve read in a long time.

            I spent years in that profession confront both female and male taffy pullers. In fact, while I agree with the idea of the Estrogen Ghetto, it does tend to overlook all the testosterone in The Hood.

            Confronting those people wasn’t a waste of time. It was sad, in fact, that there was not more of it.

            Perhaps that is because there was too many armchair quarterbacks trying to call plays after the fact.

            Between naps that is.

          • Primal

            This kind of retarded ridicule is precisely why the MRA movement is stillborn so far. I never called ANY of your posts the dumbest fucking posts I had read recently although some did indeed qualify. As the editor of VOICE For MEN, I had hoped you’d shoot for a higher standard.

            The response above wasn’t even TO you. No one is questioning your days fighting “titty hall” for us or your important work for us here. YOU (and other MALE confronters) aren’t even the point of this post. Nor did I ever imply that Dr. T’s confrontations were wasted. In fact, I did the opposite. My response to Dr. T seems to have gone right over your head.

            That’s ok because I wasn’t writing to you in the first place. She is likely to be intelligent enough and hopefully strong enough to not take things too personally. You might let her speak for herself rather than play the big bad (Man, O’ Man LOL!) dude here.

            As for football, here’s a quote you might like from Nassim Taleb’s The Bed of Procustes: “Sports feminize men and masculinize women”. I had high hopes that you were in masculinity game but now I’m not so sure. As for me, interesting people matter more than interesting plays because interesting people will be the ultimate antidote to the ugliness we face as males.

            Guess I’ll have to go back to napping (where you are concerned), so I don’t ruffle to your feathers unnecessarily.

          • Alphabeta Supe

            I hope readers can see past the prickly shell of Primal’s post here to the nut of truth at its centre.

          • Denis

            Dr. Tara has bigger balls than most men that I know.

          • primal

            Yes bigger ‘O’s and more intelligence too but that’s no compliment to the men we know. We are in one sad situation when the biggest people protecting traditional male standards of free speech, scientific inquiry, and rule-based reason are objective members of the heretofore subjective sex. Did we males go totally asleep for five decades or are we secretly so terrified of female predators that we cannot even stand for the priceless freedoms that our forefathers (and our brothers in close combat now) bought in blood, sweat, and tears over thousands of years…against girls who pull taffy for goodness sake.

          • Paul Elam

            Sorry, but it has to be asked. In all your great efforts at being awake and standing up for our priceless freedoms there surely must be some sort of vapor trail.

            Where is it? Or is it contained to comments on the work of others?

          • Primal

            Ridicule and more ridicule. This time cloaked in insincere apologetics. Is covert sneering sarcasm the only game you use for posters you disagree with or can you respond with your penetrating wisdom so we can all benefit?

            For a minute there, I thought I was back in some feminist Gulag or the ‘Estrogen Ghetto’ rather than VfM. Is this how you choose to run your gig? I had hoped for better from VfM…in time that is.

            As for asking personal questions: Not sorry and no it doesn’t have to asked until you deserve an answer, until you know how to look for vapor trails right in front on your nose (in LOL posts), or until I start to like you.

          • Paul Elam

            There is no wisdom in entertaining insults from the peanut section levied against advocates that have proven their willingness to put their neck on the line about truthful matters that affect men.

            Dr. T is an asset, and a widely respected person in the MRM. Your crits are welcome here, but your personally insulting vagaries are out of line.

            We have several people post here from time to time that do a boat load of advocacy, in visible positions. All of them do it for next to nothing.

            AVfM is your worst choice where it comes to talking to any of them with condescension. Last guy that talked trash at Harry is out of here.

            Show some respect, or show yourself out. Matters not to me.

          • keith

            Interestingly, there is some observational histrionics in this comment. You remind of a previous poster by the name of wanderer. Nice to see you finally located a position to emanate from, even if it’s a fetal position. How’s that primal therapy working out for you, has it led to any additional breast feeding, or are you still sucking latex. Nothing worse than being Gestalt’ed by the gynocentric gestapo.

    • Pankaj

      “The field of Psychology truly is the Estrogen Ghetto.”

      It would be a great service to truth and reality, if Dr. Tara (and any other psych professionals), would let non-psych folks about the unconscionable deluge of publications in the field. I am not psych but I have worked with psych folks and reviewed lit. A whole lot of it seemed a whole lot of hand waving.

    • Dusty

      Derrida is rolling in his grave right now. :)

  • Aimos

    Bravo on your general assessment. Especially about homosexuality. All too often conservative anti-feminists are bigots and call homosexuality pathological. I’m glad there are still MRAs who are intelligent enough to realize how full of BS that is. It’s also nice to see that others recognize how gay men are useful to feminists only when they are lapdogs to them. I’m bi and it’s hard being my own independent man because way too many gay men are “honorary women”. I can’t date women because of the obvious problems, and I can’t date men because they’re all honorary women! Not being an honorary women and not being a lapdog to women/feminism is a good way to get yourself excluded from the gay community. Pro-male is just as “sexist” among gay men as it is among women.

    • Dusty

      I can’t take full credit for that. Paul suggested that to me about homosexuals, and I said “Holy shit! That’s true! Just let me find the words.” As that was the only bulletpoint I wasn’t completely satisfied with, his suggestion made it pop.

  • Robert in Arabia

    How is the ideology of feminism different than the ideology of President Obama and the Black community?

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention The Core Values of Feminism « A Voice for Men --

  • j

    Feminists hold women to account as mothers and they’re real tough. I think you’d be better off saying feminists don’t hold woman accountable as wives.

    • Dusty

      I don’t think feminists hold women accountable to anything but feminism.

      • Dusty

        What about mothers who kill their children? What about Munchausen’s by proxy, where a mother poisons her child to the point of hospitalization so she can appear heroic when her suggestions to doctors “save” the child? Feminists don’t hold women accountable as mothers. It’s all talk.

  • John F.Vervoort

    Simply awesome Dusty.Keep up the great work !

  • Robert in Arabia

    Israel stands up for G-d about women.

    Women are not allowed to testify in rabbinical courts, which handle divorce and marriage for all Jews. They cannot divorce without a husband’s permission, and childless widows need a brother-in-law’s approval for remarriage.If a woman has been widowed three times, with all three husbands dying of natural causes, she is declared the isha katlanit, the fatal woman, and is legally forbidden to marry again. If a husband simply disappears, no matter how long he has been missing; his wife cannot remarry without absolute proof of his death…”

    A man may commit adultery and eventually marry his lover, while a married woman is forbidden ever to marry her lover, and any children born from an extramarital affair are considered bastards (mamzerim). In Judaism a bastard is a pariah. He or she cannot marry unless the potential spouse is also a bastard. Neither can a bastard in Israel marry outside the faith as the exclusive control of marriage in Israel by the religious authorities precludes such a possibility.
    Israel maintains levirate marriage: a woman whose husband dies leaving her childless must be released from her deceased husband’s unmarried brother in a ceremony carried out in rabbinical court.

    • Dusty

      I don’t know much about Israel, but it’s the other way around here in the west and anywhere where feminism has taken hold.

    • Jimmy

      “Israel maintains levirate marriage: a woman whose husband dies leaving her childless must be released from her deceased husband’s unmarried brother in a ceremony carried out in rabbinical court.”

      You made this same point twice in your post btw. It sounds to me like more of a ceremonial formality than active “oppression”, but I can see how sometimes it could be used maliciously.

      “A man may commit adultery and eventually marry his lover, while a married woman is forbidden ever to marry her lover, and any children born from an extramarital affair are considered bastards”

      I don’t know anything about Israeli customs, but playing devil’s advocate for a moment, I guess you could say that this practice recognises the importance of a child having a good father. 😉

      btw, great article Dustin!

    • Denis

      I’m not particularly well versed on Israeli feminism but it’s hardly believable that there is no feminism considering the strong European and American liberal connections. As well there is the stereotypical image of the powerful Jewish mother figure and the complementary figure of the emasculated Jewish man-boy. There is also the stereotypical Jewish American Princess. What’s up with that?

      Israel is militaristic and has to deal with feminist pacifism interfering with nationalist survival. The implications of living in Israel are the very real threat of war and mandatory military service for men and women. Women serve less time but there is equality in death.

      The drum beats for war in western nations with men being shamed into action to save foreign women in the middle east. Yet, the arabs seem to be the most capable of dealing with feminists and liberals.

      • Pankaj

        Feminist pacifism? LOL.. what are you smoking? Feminists have been the allies of big govt in war too. Just look at the so-called crowning achievement of feminists.. Women’s suffrage.

        Please also note that you don’t know much about foreign cultures that you have not lived under for considerable time. Try not making blanket statements like “Yet, the arabs seem to be the most capable of dealing with feminists and liberals.” The most successful have been the tribes in Africa where feminists cannot even get enough support to stop actually bad practices like FGM, if you take their word for it. (I secretly doubt these people actually want that practice stopped.. its sympathy tap of infinite potential).

        One last thing. Today, the US military is to bring feminism to Afghanistan, including the ways of planned parenthood. I doubt the case is far different for Israel, after all it is Israeli men and Arab men killing each other- what could be too wrong about that from a feminist point of view?

        • Alphabeta Supe

          Good point, Pankaj. It might also be noteworthy that many African tribes are matriarchal. It would be interesting to see if there’s a correlation between the extent of matriarchal control and degree of resistance to feminism and, if so, why.

      • Denis

        Well from an Israeli POV, feminist liberals are interfering with the exertion of state power. They certainly aren’t on-board with the Israeli agenda.

        An opinion on arab countries is not a blanket statement, just an opinion. I am entitled to my own opinion whether I’ve live in these cultures or non. If you think otherwise, please explain.

  • Robert in Arabia

    Rap star Kanye West makes video where he kills white women.
    Two of the biggest black celebrities in the world got together to make a video glorifying violence towards women (in which most of the women are white). The images are shocking, especially considering the close connections between one of the rappers and Barack Obama.

    The song will appear on Kanye West’s new album titled “My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy.” Based on the video, his fantasy appears to be to kidnap, rape, and murder white women. The initial cover art, which has already been rejected by Walmart, features a black man holding a beer bottle in a sexually explicit pose with a naked white woman.

    In 2005 the NAACP presented him with an award for “most outstanding black male artist.” It remains to be seen if groups like the NOI and NAACP will denounce the video, which seems to re-enforce the most negative stereotypes about black men.

    Kanye Westis depicted holding the severed head of a white woman in his new video. The video also features Jay-Z, another big name, who campaigned with Barack Obama.

    West’s CD’s are released by Rick Rubin’s Def Jam, a subsidiary of Universal Music Group. MTV recently named Kanye West its 2010 Man of the Year.

    The video shows dead women hanging from the ceiling and several images of women being held captive. In one scene Kayne West is in bed with two dead white women positioning their bodies in a sexually provocative way. In another scene West holds the bloody severed head of a white woman.

    Sample of the Lyrics…

    Conquer, stomp ya, stop your silly nonsense
    None of you n*****s know where the swamp is
    None of you n*****s have seen the carnage that I’ve seen
    I still hear fiends scream in my dream
    Murder murder in black convertibles
    I kill a block I murder avenues
    Rape and pillage a village, women and children
    Everybody wanna know what my Achilles heel is
    LOVE I don’t get enough of it
    All I get is these vampires and blood suckers
    All I see is these n*****s, I’ve made millionaires

  • Robert

    I consider Feminist completely synonymous with Borderline Psychotic Personality Disorder. The problem is that somehow this behavior is being celebrated in the media. Everyone has become so PC that no one simply points out psychotic behavior (allowing the rest of us to duck & cover). Watch & analyze women’s behaviors on..

    Jersey Shore
    Keeping Up with the Kardashians
    Operation Repo
    Celebrity Rehab

    This is reality tv? Now go onto the web to sites like..

    Look in secrets & lies for stories like “I lied about being pregnant to try to entrap my boyfriend into marriage. He paid $1000 for an abortion & I dumped him & kept the money anyway”. The praise from the women there was 100%

    This is what “real women” (feminists) actually think? I am a 51 year old white male with a teenaged son & daughter. I have a BiPolar ex-wife (behaviors consistent with borderline). Dealing as best I can with the problems of life.

    Now if ALL women think along these lines? My world view will be shattered, I would never be able to look at my daughter, sisters (2), mother, any woman ever again without vomiting.

    Yes, feminist = borderline psychotic

  • Non

    Why do you hate men so much?

  • Chris Roy

    Wow, you must NEVER get laid to hate women this much. Either that, or you’re a complete homosexual. I hope you like it down there in your mother’s basement or the Castro neighborhood of San Francisco, wherever it is that you sit and ferment your hatred of the lovelier sex. Now, pardon me while I go enjoy the home-brewed beer and fresh baked oatmeal cookies made by my beautiful, intelligent, wonderful, sexy, horny, FEMINIST wife!

    • Dusty

      Finally, a comment based on stupidity rather than intelligence! The smart comments were wearing thin!

  • Carter

    You’re completely and utterly guilty of making the same mass generalisations you talk about women making. Also, you refute several of your OWN points in the discussions of later points.

    Show me some evidence (scientific or psychological studies, something) to back up this shit you’re spoonfeeding yourself before you expect anyone of consequence to pay any attention to it.

    • Dusty

      The evidence is out there. All you have to do is open your eyes. I don’t claim to know everything about women, but my article is a summary of the feminist worldview, not female. (I don’t pretend to speak for women like feminists do.) I wanted to show how feminist thought poisons the average woman. I certainly hope you can see the difference.

      I wasn’t concerned with impressing anyone with my article. That’s the difference between me and your type.

    • Dusty

      There’s a massive body of literature that criticizes or embodies the ideas in this piece: anything by Christina Hoff Sommers, Esther Vilar, Andrea Dworkin, Marilyn French, Mary Daly, Susan Brownmiller, Valorie Solanas, Maureen Dowd, Natalie Angier, Catherine MacKinnon, Jessica Valenti (to dumb it down), etc.

      I really hope you look into these writers. Maybe it will give you the perceptual lens necessary to understand this piece.

  • Stace

    This is so hilarious and off-the-wall that I can’t even get angry about it. This is seriously the argument that is the opposition to equality between the sexes? This is the argument of why some people are so afraid of feminism, the definition of which was provided in my last question? It’s just…so ridiculous, it’s hard to believe this isn’t a satirical piece. Thanks for the chuckle.

    • Paul Elam

      Actually, people that perseverate without actually making a cogent point of dissent are a lot funnier. The thanks go to you.

      • Dusty

        There’s also a hint of passive aggression, considering this thread has been dead for almost two weeks! Tackle a thread where there is a better chance of everyone responding, you know?

    • B.R. Merrick

      This is seriously the argument that is the opposition to equality between the sexes?

      Actually, I made the argument that is the opposition to equality between the sexes with the below link:

      Maybe you can get angry about that.

  • Ilphae

    Cool story bro. And here’s a link breaking down exactly why it’s so cool:

    • Dusty

      That’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. However, you and your readers seem unable to conceive of me as being anything but some angry loner who lives in his mom’s basement, looks at porn, and writes diatribes about women. I can assure you that that’s not the case. You bump shoulders with and talk to people like me everyday. When those guys finally have the words to describe what they’re feeling, things are going to get interesting.

      And they don’t have to be my words. I invite you to look at some of the things that the other men on this site are saying. You won’t agree with everything- you may not agree with anything- but you’ll have some new ideas swirling around in your head.

  • David King

    Ally, violence, even the ideation of violence, is forbidden here (“smilie” or no).

    And you feminists say men are the violent ones. Who, exactly, is the joke?

  • Jarvis

    As a gay man, I just gotta say, it’s inaccurate that feminists tend to praise male homosexuality. They’re more likely to tell us we are only gay as a means of rejecting women and that we need to examine “our gay male misogyny.” Though they will try to exploit us and do an unconvincing job of pretending to give a sh!t about us from time to time, they actually quite strongly resent gay men for not making women the center of our universe. The methods many women use to try to control heterosexual men will not work on gay men, which infuriates feminists. Good article overall, but the idea that feminists have ever really treated gay men well needs to be challenged whenever possible. Feminists love lesbians but they basically do nothing but disrespect and slow down progress for gay men.

  • Catalina Garzon

    Um…..I think that you have the term feminism confused with misandry……..
    Have you taken a current Intro to Women’s Studies class before? Or any Sociology course onto our own history and movement within women’s right? I don’t think so. Because this isn’t the feminism being taught in universities and colleges now, and feminism is inclusive of all genders. We can’t do it without the others. We love men. So I think you need to pick up a book and reevaluate yourself, in all due of respect. that’s all it is, its the same with racism and other forms of bigotry or hateful attitudes. Just educate yourself, or at least open the mind to.

    • Peter Wright

      We love men.

      I hear men make awesome housepets – the cute ones are really easy to love, long as they are litter trained. ROFL

    • fidelbogen

      You seem to be a feminist. Well evidently you never got the memo that other people are defining feminism now. I’m getting mighty tired of explaining such a basic thing to you people.

    • Catreece

      fidelbogen’s description is a bit confusing, so consider it this way: Actions speak louder than words. The dictionary says feminism is all about equality. In practice, we get feminists continually and constantly making simply being male illegal.

      The way the violence against women act’s written for instance makes it illegal for a man to have the shit kicked out of him by an abusive girlfriend and he’ll be arrested if she does it and he calls the cops, even if he never lays a finger on her.

      The way Mary Koss was able to get the CDC to define rape in such a way that a woman can tie a man down, drug him with viagra and hold a gun to his head while riding him is not actually rape – he’s just ambivalent towards his desires.

      The way men have now literally been arrested past midnight on a half-empty subway for having their legs spread because it’s biologically uncomfortable for them to keep their legs closed due to hip structure and what’s in between them.

      I could go on and on, citing hundreds and thousands of such incidents, from day care workers who feel the boys should be treated as rapists at 3 years old, to university professors who have literally asked for the genocide of men. The cheering of psychotic women who have murdered and/or mutilated men simply because these women were in a bad mood that had nothing to do with the men they harmed or killed. The false rape reports who keep rolling a clearly innocent man through the media over and over, or which lead to the murder of a falsely accused man because they don’t want to take responsibility for lying.

      Feminists have cheered these issues on, loudly and proudly from the rooftops. Oh, sure, there are a few who say “that’s not a real feminist” or “not all feminists are like that”, but you know what? You’re not saying anything against them. You’re not denouncing them or saying “WHAT THE FUCK!?” when it happens. The “good” feminists just quietly let the sociopathic ones do their thing, letting themselves be used as a meat shield against all criticism.

      The leadership of feminism is almost universally psychopaths and sociopaths. They’re crazy in a really bad way. And every time they do something even more crazy than the others to one-up themselves into the narcissistic heaven of the limelight, they point to all the “good” feminists as to why they’re not a terrible person, because feminism is about equality. Despite their actions clearly show anything but.

      Feminism is a tainted word, now, and it’s not just those within the men’s rights side of things that know it. Seriously, go out and ask someone at random who doesn’t identify as a feminist what they think of it. Pretty much anyone who isn’t a feminist at this point considers feminism to be off the wall insane. Because it is.

      I hate to break it to you, but your stating that feminism likes men is like a choirboy in the Catholic church saying that Christianity is all about worshiping Buddha. No, you don’t get to make that call, the Pope and archbishops do. You’re just the one they point to in order to claim innocence when another sex scandal pops up. I was going to say another metaphorical sex scandal, but then realized, no, it usually is a sex scandal when it comes to feminism.

      And that’s the whole problem. The fact that I can even say “usually”, because it happens so damned often. It’s not even once in a long while, it’s multiple times per week at this point. Seriously, fool me once, shame on you, fool me… what? A dozen times? One hundred? A thousand? At what point do you hang your head in shame and admit that maybe the people you’re supporting might be saying they like men, yet every action they take is condemning them simply for being born male?

      The fact of the matter is… the rest of us have witnessed their atrocities. Often first hand. At this point you have all the integrity of claiming the Nazis were about equality and that the ones who burned Jews, blacks and everyone else imaginable magically don’t count.

      You can’t ignore the blood on feminism’s hands. You can’t pretend it’s not a horrific monster that treats women like braindead infants too stupid to take care of themselves and men like they’re carriers of the plague.

      Well, I suppose you can, just no one’s going to believe you when the feminist standing right next to you is threatening to castrate all men via a rusty spoon without anesthesia just on principle. It kind of kills any creditability you had when that happens. Especially since it happens so damned often that you can’t brush the entire garbage pit under a doormat and pretend it’s not there. It hasn’t stopped you from trying, clearly, but you look like a lunatic standing atop a mountain of garbage on a welcome mat acting like you can’t see the filth which surrounds you.