The Non-Feminist Coalition Rejects Violence

Violence as a political tactic is both unnecessary and counter-productive. Clearly we don’t recommend it, and we don’t seek it.

But at the same time, we realize that if conditions x, y and z are in place and continue unabated, then violence, as a primordial force in the world-at-large, will be the probable outcome. This violence may channel itself through numerous subcultures, agendas, ideologies and so on. And yet, being primordial, it will transcend all of those. Such is the nature of a primordial force — natural, impersonal, chaotic, and not “political” as most people would understand that term.

Pragmatically speaking, this means that if a targeted demographic is subjected to x,y and z systemically and en masse, then “violence” in its limitless and twisted forms, will be the result. Therefore, without prescribing violence, we may safely (and quite ethically) predict its appearance in the world, as a natural consequence of certain conditions.

And so we, the politically activated non-feminist coalition, will find no profit in promoting, instigating or advocating violence. We are painfully aware that objective conditions will breed violence independently of anything we say, or don’t say, about the situation. So in effect, wedo not need to push the river. It is enough for us to sit upon the bank, gaze upstream, and make note of what the current will deliver.

Hence prediction becomes our weapon, or rather our shield. For it keeps us, the predictors, upon the moral high ground. The other side can either listen, and heed our wise counsel proactively, or carry on with business as usual. If they choose the latter, they will come down on the wrong side of history.

This is somewhat like the Mafia game of “making them an offer they can’t refuse.” But there is a vast difference because, when the Mafia does this, it is a threat of Mafia violence plain and simple.

But when we do this we are issuing no threat of any kind, since the only threatening element is a force majeure, beyond our control. The threat is, therefore, ambient, and we are merely directing attention to what should be obvious. Yet we are making an “offer”, namely, an offer to advise the other side for it’s benefit, and for the benefit of the world. And if they are wise, they will not refuse this. Rather, they will lend an ear. Are we not predicting the eruption of primordial violence, and making it clear how to prevent such a thing?

When we warn of an imminent danger, we discharge our duty. Thereafter, the onus falls upon the other side, and we have only to sit beneath a tree with arms folded, and make note of how the other side measures up. We have summoned them to accountability and responsibility, and our merit in so doing will characterize us, even as their failure to heed the summons would characterize them.

When the other side proffers violence — whether physically or spiritually, openly or by proxy — they choose to be the aggressor. And since the rule is that the aggressor sets the terms of engagement, the non-aggressor is morally entitled, in a pinch, to answer like with like.

Yes, violence becomes an acceptable method of operation only if undertaken in self-defense, and only if the onus of moral transgression is clearly seen to fall upon the other side.

In the end, we wish to keep violence, and all unhappy consequences of the present historical crisis, to an absolute minimum. Accordingly,  the other side confronts a  moral choice — to either collaborate with such a project, or to hinder it. And whichever road they follow, history will judge them.

About Luigi Logan (aka Fidelbogen)

Fidelbogen is a writer, videographer and webmaster of The Counter Feminist. He is co-host of The Vanguard Report radio show. He is not a member of the men's rights movement, but he thinks that MRAs are the blood of god!

Main Website
View All Posts
  • BioCan

    Great article, JtO.

    Every now and then it is important to be reminded of why this group is here and what we stand for. Ending oppression through non-violent action has been an effective means of accomplishing one’s goals within the last century (most notably in the western world). This time it’s a little more complex because it deals with undoing the oppression that has been created by another group that was supposedly formed to make society equal for all the people in it. It may take years or decades to foment the ideas that many have increasingly accepted and the result has been an overwhelming amount of support for men’s rights.

    For most, including myself, it takes a revolutionary idea or thought to change your mind about what is right. It feels like you’ve been lied to your whole life. There was a point in my younger days where I was told by my teachers (mostly female) that feminism’s cause is just and that I must kneel before the machine only to be chewed up and spit out into a “re-educated” young man ready to be used and taken advantage of whilst retaining no rights to claim for my own. But, I would think that I’ve grown a bit older and wiser to figure out that I’ve been tricked.

    Like I’ve said before, if feminists could explain to the average man why they are slowly eroding his rights away in court or reduce his chances in finding a job to support himself in a logical and rational manner than I’d cease criticizing them. But, I haven’t seen one yet and probably never will.

    On the topic of proxy violence. It’s a shame how they can go about their business spreading propaganda at every university or college across North America but the majority of us must live in hiding in fear for our jobs and even our lives. One group is actively suppressing the voice of another. If they had nothing to fear, than they’d let us say whatever we want, wherever we want to, and they’d know that over time people would ignore the MRM as any majority would ignore the opinion of an extremist minority. But that’s not the case, people are still supporting the cause in increasingly larger numbers. The cause is entering into the mainstream while it is still being actively suppressed. Just something to think about.

    By the way, from time to time I’d see an article on major news websites dealing with feminism. Some on blogs. 1 article on here is worth ten or more articles about feminism from those sites. The content is incredible. It sums up what I’ve thought and felt for a while now. Keep it up.

    • scatmaster

      Am I missing something here? Many posters on this thread have cited JTO as the author. I may be wrong but is not Fidelbogen the writer of this piece?

      • Tawil

        Shit, you are right! I was one of those who wrongly thought it was JTO who wrote the piece… think it might have been the reference above by BioCan that threw me off.

        • Raven01

          I think it is a corrected error.
          The thumbnail listed Fidelbogen but the 1st time the article loaded here it showed JtO on the byline.

          • Tawil

            Ah, ok that makes more sense. Thanks for the heads up.

          • scatmaster

            Thought about that when I woke up this morning. Good catch.

          • BioCan

            My fault. It is Fidelbogan. Great work, Fidelbogan. My last 3 sentences still stand for any article on here. They’re all well written.

  • Dr. F

    After reading this article I feel like that wise Asian bloke under that tree with my arms folded.

    I also feel like that English bloke that sat under a tree and got clocked on the head with an apple.

    I’m all Zen with a touch of “Ah haaa.”

  • jms5762

    I am scared. The anger and possible backlash as peoples minds unwind from decades of brainwashing on a pandemic scale. Struggles for power as some cling to the old. Ive had visions of civil war and a feeling that the western world will fracture into fiefdoms. People will have to integrate new belief systems. The cognitive dissonance creates fear leading to anger and violence. Especially with an election in the US this year. Maybe ill catch a flight to Scotland and hideout in the highlands until the dust settles.

  • Gamerp4

    That’s why i am always a believer in no violence, You can Call me a Gandhi Follower, I have a deep resentment against violence in MRM because not only this would give our enemies a chance to throw ‘water baloons’ at us but it sure give us a bad input which we deeply need right now to be recognized in society as legitimate.

    I am not a deep thinker, sometimes i try to predict the future but it isnt accurate everytime but if i say that we will be forced to defend ourselve in the near future THEN i am not wrong because “Gender-War” is real, there is no blinding covers that could hide that fact from us, but it isnt inevitable so lets just say that we GO FORTH and do things that are just for us, leaving our enemies to shriek for their uglyness.

  • Turbo
    • Tawil

      Greg is an inspiration to stand up for whats right… the university’s code of ethics is clearly being administered with inconsistent discretion… if a male staff member made the same comments about all women, ie. “there’s something not quite right about the female of the species” he would have been disciplined over the matter.

      Greg’s resignation forces the university to reflect on thier dubious use of administrative discretion in applying the code of ethics. Hopefully they will realize, in hindsight, that the code and associated penalties must be applied to all- even to feminists. Failure of the university to reflect on this risks more resignations by staff in future.

  • andybob

    How frustrating that the ‘Townsville Bulletin does not allow comments – otherwise we could have voiced our en masse support for Dr Canning’s courageous stand against James Cook University’s shameless blind eye to a pro-violence advocate like Betty McLellan.

    I remember listening to Dr Canning recount his public battles with this ‘psychotherapist’ charlatan on Dr F’s radio show. She denies her naked hatred of men despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Her contributions to Radfemhub vindicate Dr Canning’s condemnation of her as a dangerous bigot who eagerly poisons the young minds exposed to her influence. She is a menace.

    Dr McLellan asks, “How am I vilifying anybody, really?” This question has already been addressed by Dr Canning in several public exchanges. She knows this, but being a lazy, arrogant feminist, resorts to their signature move: shaming language. She claims that Dr Canning is just upset because, “…he’s not getting his own way,” and, “He’s not able to silence a woman who has an opinion.”

    What? Nothing about his penis size or getting laid? Not today. Betty’s on her best behavior for the ‘Townesville Bulletin’ cameras. She is pictured in the university library, wearing Hello Kitty pink while innocently reading – ‘S.C.U.M. Manifesto’ perhaps? She even manages to squeeze out what I assume is supposed to be a smile. It looks like it pained her. Good.

    While I am pissed off that Dr Canning had to resort to resigning to make his point, I am also very proud of him for taking a stand against this hateful bigot and the spineless university management that has no excuse for enabling her. Probably Radfemhub subscribers anyway.

    This action will have many repercussions. It will cause quite a stir and may inspire others to take a similar stand against misandry. Enough is enough. The Betty McLellans can smirk all they want. This is tangible proof that the tide is turning against them, and our very own Dr Greg Canning is one who is leading the way.

    Good on ya mate!

  • Auntie Pheminizm

    > “It is enough for us to sit upon the bank, gaze upstream, and make note of what the current will deliver.”

    Right. That did WHAT for 50 years?

    Sitting and gazing mostly makes one’s butt bigger, while the river rolls on and on.

    For decades ago men refused to get involved with the ongoing “gender war” because they said they didn’t want to fight women.

    As if actual physical fighting was required.

    There the same boyos who call the cops if a comedian said he “killed the audience” last night.

    Clueless literalists.

    The same folks damn Twain because he created a character called “Nigger Jim.” No matter than Clemens actually funded a black kid’s education.

    No sense of irony, allegory, poetry.

    There are “wars” of words, too. And many way to slice the feminist apple. But surely staring and pondering and palavering has little effect, save to let the cancer of fembotulism spread.

    • Fidelbogen

      A “clueless literalist” means one who does not know what is being talked about.

      For example, a clueless literalist will often have a tin ear for irony — whether his own or someone else’s, whether intended or unintended.

      Feminists are often clueless literalists. For example, they are often keen to shut up anybody who speaks out against feminism in any way.

      Like they think this will “literally” stop the spread of “fembotulism”.

      Why, they have even been known to go under cover, disguised as “anti” feminists, in order to carry out their work and spread trouble amongst their enemies who talk against feminism.

      But of course, they are silly because palavering against feminism has little effect. And yet, they are clueless literalists anway. . . aren’t they. 😉

    • keyster

      For decades ago men refused to get involved with the ongoing “gender war” because they said they didn’t want to fight women.

      That’s still the prevelant course today; little corners of the interwebs notwithstanding.

      It’s almost hilarious to think of men as a group being violent against women or feminists, when they’re scared shitless to even speak in anything but glowing terms…if they speak at all. This assumes they’ve either not yet been indocrinated or deprogrammed themselves to question feminist authority.

      Men are AFRAID of women, because women control the gender discourse…for the same reason men are AFRAID of mothers, they’re the “experts”!

      • Skeptic

        “Men are AFRAID of women, because women control the gender discourse…for the same reason men are AFRAID of mothers, they’re the “experts”!”

        If men were afraid to speak up to women then A Voice for Men wouldn’t exist, nor would Angry Harry, Man Woman Myth, nor would Fathers for Justice, MENZ, The Spearhead etc, etc……
        I could go on pointing to the fact that more and more men and women are gradually rallying in defense of males against ongoing bigoted feminist misandry, but I guess you get the point by now.

        Brother with your recent postings about loneliness amidst feminist culture and now this I’m beginning to imagine you are depressed and negative.
        Do you think you need to reach out, or take a break to refresh or both?

        • keyster

          Thanks for your concern Skeptic.
          The “Manosphere” is infinitesimally small in power and influence. True it’s grown awareness and even some “virtual” activism has taken place, from at most a couple of hundred worldwide to several thousand in just the last 10 years since the internet hit critical mass.

          Still the popular sentiment among average western men is that “you don’t mess with mama.” Don’t even THINK about criticizing team vaj.

          It’s important to spend time away from the Manosphere to gain some perspective and context. It’s so far away from what most average men think.

  • Auntie Pheminizm

    > “It’s a shame how they can go about their business spreading propaganda at every university or college across North America”

    They do it because they are not opposed. Talking about how bad what they do is doesn’t stop them.

  • BioCan

    That is true. But, I imagine these academic wings under the social studies departments at every university as large bureaucracies that have thousands of dollars infused into them. This is no easy task. The feminist professors involved receive bloated salaries and the administration behind all of it is organized to say the least.

    In my opinion, something like this does not start by taking these macrostructures on immediately (especially when family law courts are on their side). It requires a lot of time to change the minds of people on this subject. I’ve had many conversations with acquaintances and friends. They’ve agreed with me, and they’ve had a plenty to think about. Even discussing the most basic of things that are still pertinent works, such as marriage and how biased it is.

    Taking them on right away requires a lot of resources and support. As it stands there is still more ground to cover first. It has started to slowly climb out of the ideological stage. Laws will be enacted to protect men and boys from a violent and unjust system. Fairness in employablity. And so on. Look at Simon Fraser University and the men’s group created there. It’s a start, but patience is needed for things like these.

    Another point I forgot to add. This is not the type of debate I am familiar with and never will be. I prefer more formal ones with chances for all sides to speak until conclusions can be reached. Debating in this context seems more or less about stating something and receiving the endless ire and hatred of those who simply refuse to listen. It’s an entirely different ordeal.

  • Arvy

    One may, of course, “reject violence” in the sense of neither advocating nor endorsing it. But if, at the same time, violence is recognised and forecast as a likely and perhaps even inevitable consequence of prolonged oppression, what then is the real significance of its so-called rejection?

    Would it not be more straightforward simply to say that, in the long run, oppressors are likely to bring violent consequences upon themselves. No matter how reluctant the oppressed may be to engage in violent overthrows, they often seem to be the only kind that actually work in the real world.

    Gandhi was, after all, the exception not the rule, and there were many other factors at play in that case. Even he ultimately admitted that it wouldn’t always work in other circumstances such as those imposed by truly determined fascist regimes.

  • Dean Esmay

    No John. No.

    This is the sort of thing that allowed people to shrug when the IRA was bombing school buses full of children. This is the sort of stance that allowed people to fold their arms and shrug when Palestinian terrorists bombed Israeli schools, and when Kahanist miltants in Israel cheered when Palestinian children got hit by bombs and called it God’s righteous vengeance.

    It is the sort of thing that would shrug and say “see, I told you so” in the aftermath of Anders Behring Breivik massacring 93 people in Norway because he thought he was doing something heroic to protect his country.

    “Well, there’s an injustice here so what do you expect?” No, no. At its best, this is excuse-making: “I didn’t advocate for the violence, I just told you it was a result you were going to get.” At its worst, it winds up (fairly or unfairly) perceived as tacit endorsement, a sort of sideways, snarky, “Well I TOLD you this could happen, ha ha” when you know full well some idiot(s) might read that and conclude “you’re right, and I’m going to do something about it” and then goes and does something horrid.

    The first time a real MRA (not some guy who once attended a PUA class) walks into a Feminist Studies department and starts spraying bullets, they aren’t just going to blame him, they’re going to go after you, they’re going to come after Glen Poole, they’re going to go after Glenn Sacks, they’re going to go after and curse the memory of Asa Baber… as I’ve said to my good friend Girl Writes What, if you demand that every feminist own the likes of Valerie Solanas, or haters like Gloria Allred or Andrea Dworkin, then you must EXPECT to have to own any MRA who goes apeshit. If you can point to evil feminists who do or say evil things and make every feminist own that, then YOU have to own it when and if any MRA does or says something horrible–and smugly folding your arms and saying “Meh, I told you so” will not make you look in the least bit better.

    Who is the hero, Winnie Mandela, who murdered and rationalized it, or Nelson Mandela, who refused to endorse or excuse it?

    This movement is beginning to make unbelievable gains, gains I thought impossible just five years ago, and as marginalized and demeaned as it still is. Want to set it back 20 years? Fold your arms and shrug when someone quoting you, or this site, or a related site, does a Valerie Solanas.

    Don’t be the passive-aggressive excuser. Don’t be that person. The fallout will be horrendous.

    • Tawil

      I think you have some valid points here…. JTOs article is technically correct in the points made, but it skates close to the edge of casting MRAs in the role of passive and silent voyeurs of violence (“taking note”). Not that men should ever get in harm’s way nor should they take any responsibility whatsoever for the violence that feminism initiates. However, the MRM should always make the effort voice it’s non-alignment with violence -go further than sitting and silently observing- and avoid eroding the platform we have established. Paul Elam’s stance is less equivocal and much more direct: no fucking violence, we are actively against it and actively condemn it.

      It’s a political leverage point we need to voice.

      • Tawil

        Correction- the above comments are directed to Fidelbogen (who wrote the article), not JTO (who I mistakenly thought wrote it).

    • Zorro

      Personally, I despise violence in all its forms.

      That doesn’t change the fact that I am perfectly fluent in that language, and if put to it, I do have the gift of gab.

      • Sting Chameleon

        The power of science will also be of great help.

  • Dean Esmay

    That should be “Winnie Mandela, who rationalized murder”–see her comments on “necklacing,” amongst other things.

    Don’t be Winnie. Be Nelson. Please.

    • Sting Chameleon

      All I see here is a concern troll with no real meat.

  • Dean Esmay

    I may be flogging a dead horse but as a leader, John (and you are one) you have a responsibility here.

    I can give you other examples of what I’m talking about; after Tim McVeigh did what he did in the Oklahoma City bombing, for YEARS anyone who talked even a little like him got him thrown in their face. The murder of Dr. George Tiller didn’t just hurt him and his family, it hurt every single person in America who was opposed to what Tiller did for a living.

    I don’t want to argue about any of those specific cases. But what I’m urging you to, in the strongest possible language I can, is to send a consistent message not just that you don’t endorse violent, not just that you are non-violent, but to say, whenever opportunity presents itself, that violence and even talk of violence HURTS THIS MOVEMENT. It is not enough to just say “we don’t endorse,” it needs to be a much more vigorous, “Not only do we not endorse, we condemn, and we want anybody out there reading or listening to know that if you go out there and hurt someone in our name, you hurt us and everything we stand for.”

    You can’t control what people do, but you can control what people hear you say. Say this loudly, loudly, loudly: “ANY form of violence can only hurt this movement. If you do anything violent in the name of this movement, you are not our friend you are our enemy.”

    I’m not saying anyone has or will be violent, but if the horrible day ever comes when some crackpot sets off a bomb or goes on a shooting spree and they find literature with YOUR name on it in on their computer, or that they even had an account here, you know damn well what will happen, and it will NOT be pretty.

    I urge you in the strongest possible terms to take a proactive, not just “non-” but ANTI-violence stand.

    Anyone who does violence in the name of men hurts all men. We need to say that, as soon as possible and often as possible.

    • Arvy

      Well-intended advice, I’m sure. Isn’t it strange, however, that the actual violence perpetrated daily by and on behalf of women doesn’t seem to hurt their cause much, if at all, and even seems to be accepted and applauded in many cases as a celebration of the strong “liberated” woman. And I don’t mean just by Hollywood producers of popular fantasy either.

  • Zuberi

    Unfortunately, violence is too expensive and best we can do is use our voices and convince men and boys to steer free of the social cancer known as feminism.

  • TPH

    Violence is an entity all it’s own. It’s alluring, sexy, powerful and stimulating. It’s so easy to go down that path when fighting feminism and it’s deleterious effects on society. The core issue is that feminism, governments, and the courts EXPECT men to react violently. THEY want men to react with violence so they can react with violence in turn, either by proxy, or by all out naked aggression via the police and government authorities.

    We’ve seen mountains of violence by proxy from the feminists, women, and the courts. They need men to be violent because their very existence is predicated on reacting to violence by males.

    By not reacting to their violence, we sap them of their power. By constantly advocating a peaceful agenda, we sap them of their carnal instincts and force minds to consider the alternative paths other than violence.

    When facing an ingrained power structure with our forces lacking in numbers and a voice, the option of consistent pressure on the power structures is our best option. Agitate, demand we be heard, and never relent.

  • Rper1959

    Love the article Fidelbogen.

    BTW thanks to all for your support in the aftermath of my resignation from JCU – it’s getting some media attention even outside my provincial city of Townsville, today in the herald sun ( sydney) and open for comments ( but moderated) any support gratefully accepted!

    • Tawil

      Its also in the Queensland Courier Mail, seems you made national news with this one!

      The comments section shows an overwhelming agreemenmt with your assessment Greg, and a general denouncement of McClellan as a sexist bigot.

      You have certainly won the public relations war…. the university heirarchy must be cringing (and considering further action).

    • andybob

      Dr Canning,
      I’ve been posting my comment all over the place. I hope it passes moderation. Here it is:

      Dr Greg Canning’s courageous stand against James Cook University’s shameless blind eye to Dr Betty McLellan’s relentless misandry is highly laudable. Dr McLellan advocates for a society that ruthlessly undermines the rights and welfare of men and boys. She is a disgrace.

      Dr Canning’s public battles with this irresponsible bigot are well-known within the men’s rights movement. She has considerable nerve attempting to deny her naked hatred for all things male. Her contributions to Radfemhub, a radical feminist website, are enough to vindicate Dr Canning’s condemnation of her as a dangerous extremist. This site promotes the idea of male genocide through bloodshed and eugenics as well as routine violence against exacted against male children as revenge for ‘patriarchal privilege.

      Google ‘Agent Orange Files’ and take a look at their hateful ideology and rhetoric and Dr McLellan’s enthusiastic involvement. Dr Canning is a highly respected men’s rights activist who promotes the rights of all individuals, regardless of their sex, race, religion or orientation. He has a long, stainless record condemning all forms of violence and the institutions, like James Cook University, that protect and enable them. This is a shameful stain on their credibility.

      Dr McLellan’s refuses to even acknowledge her well-documented history of anti-male bigotry because she knows that feminist enjoy a privileged and protected position in academic institutions. They are above criticism. In typical feminist fashion, she stoops to using shaming language: “He’s not able to silence a woman who has an opinion.” Obviously – even when that opinion should be rejected as the hate speech that it is.

      Dr Canning should not have had to resort to resigning to make his point, but he has my gratitude and respect for doing so. It is individuals like him who are taking a stand against sexism and fighting for a society that enjoys true equality and rights for all. He is a hero.”

      [I mean every word of it. It was a brave thing to do and will have a massive impact for years to come. Imagine if other academics followed your lead. Much respect to you always. Stay strong and forge ahead to a bright future. You’ll never have to look on her ugly mug in the corridors of JCU ever again.]

      • Tawil

        Well said. I also posted a reference to Agent Orange (yet to be published in the same comment thread):

        “Google the ‘Agent Orange Files’ for revealing information about Betty McClellan’s involvment with the website RadicalFemHub. You won’t be disappointed.”

    • Skeptic

      Good onya standing firm! here’s a cut and paste of the comment I left at The Herald Sun webpage. Let’s see if it gets published or censored by some feminist hack.

      To say there’s something not quite right with men is to dehumanize and demonize them.
      Such comments are a form of emotional violence not befitting anyone to utter,least of all someone who lectures impressionable young folks in a university and practices psychotherapy with those who need healing.

      Try this quick and simple thought experiment – say out loud to yourself –
      “There’s something not quite right with Blacks/Jews/Iranians (fill in your own social cohort of choice)”

      Sounds horribly bigoted, doesn’t it?

      Yet somehow men are supposed to take such blanket slander without feeling resentful.

      Dr McLellan is in my view a bigot who should have been immediately disciplined by the university. Instead the university has sent out a message that is plain, simple and ugly – it’s OK to characterize men in vilifying terms.

      There’s a simple solution to this of course.
      Don’t sign up for her study programs and if you know anyone who intends to ask them this – “Are you aware your signing up to study under a misandric bigot?”

  • Steve_85

    Pacifists make me sick.

    Violence should never be your first option, but if you’re completely unwilling to fight, then you’ve already lost. The entire reason that we have an army is because we know that violence is sometimes necessary, and we also know that the THREAT of violence is often enough to ensure that it doesn’t happen.

    If your enemy knows that you wont fight back, he has free reign to take whatever he wants from you.

    • jms5762

      You have a good point. A fight is a conflict of diminishing returns. When peaceful avenues are exhausted and the downtrodden have nothing too lose. Then the threat of physical harm to oneself no longer has meaning. The desire to inflict the pain back on you rival becomes overwhelming. Then its a matter of how much violence a rival is willing to endure. Over an ideology, very little I think. Actual violence is unnecessary in this movement. However indicating that there will be hell to pay if things don’t change is a reasonable tool to hold in ones hand.

  • Cooter Bee

    We shouldn’t endorse violence nor should we condemn it. We should be silent about it in all discussion simply because social violence and unrest are NOT men’s issues.

    Feminists will always claim they are but no matter how many in the MRM profusely disavow violence, it won’t prevent even one murder due to some feminist calling someone else violent.

    So it is the natural result of forces already unleashed and we have to warn the fembots about the consequences? Ahh, not our dance. Besides, when did a feminist ever consider the consequences of her actions?

    Why not leave the whole topic alone? We have bigger fish to fry.

  • Skeptic

    Thanks JtO and responders to his post for thoughtful comments.
    It seems to me that feminist violence is driving increasing numbers of men out of relationships with women in order that the men stay safe from false accusations and loss of income, children and freedom; It’s driving increasing numbers of men out of toxic anti male universities and away from high status jobs – which men rightly recognize they don’t need as they only attract gold digging women and lead to an earlier than necessary death.
    Sensibly they recognize they don’t need such stress to enjoy themselves.
    More generally I see men distancing themselves from women in feminist cultures – period.
    These are just a few examples at the macro level.
    Let’s take a closer micro view –
    For example if I saw a woman with a flat tire pulled over at the kerbside, I’d probably drive right on by.
    For experience tells me the chances are my getting all sweaty and dirty helping her out wouldn’t be much appreciated beyond a flippant cursory ‘Thank you”, and worse still there’s a chance I’d be wrongly seen through misandric eyes due to 50 years of feminist indoctrination as an opportunist creepy sexual predator to boot.
    Now multiply that scenario by thousands and thousands. In public, in the offices, in places of leisure etc.
    There’s your army right there. Not an army that uses outward violence.
    No. no no.
    But legions of righteous passive aggressive men who lay down their arms as in not laboring for women whenever they can avoid doing so.
    Call it a kind of building gender strike action I suppose.

    Men need not lash out against women, the bulk of whom have feminist blue pill entitlement written all over them (if only they knew it!) and who will in any case at the drop of a hat call in mercenary white knight hit men to dispose of those guys that are rash enough to lash out in any case.

    One form of solution seems to me much simpler and more elegant than that.

    Simply ignore all blue pill women you encounter, as in take every opportunity to withdraw any form of proximity to and all forms of support you possible can for women save for those very, very few who are like you PROVEN MRA – and get on with living, and let the damsels rescue themselves from their own distress.
    It takes discipline. It won’t happen overnight as it’s a process of stripping away and reinventing oneself so requires determination, patience and courage.

    In the process men will find they live more healthily and longer.
    They’ll discover they pay less taxes as they won’t be allowing themselves to be pussy-whipped into high stress/high pay positions which SHE benefits from, and which through taxation and government programs only feed the engorged feminist beast further. Nope. They’ll be putting feminism on an enforced diet as they pursue their own paths.
    They’ll discover they have time and energy to chase their non conjugal dreams – travel, hobbies, friendships. They’ll even lighten humanities footprint on a much polluted and ravaged planet.
    MGTOW isn’t the lonely grueling existence some would have you believe.

    Fulfilled. Content. Relaxed. Happy.