White Feather

Why do MRAs bring up the draft?

A while ago, I stumbled on a video from TheTruePooka attacking MRAs such as myself for “blaming feminists for the male-only draft.” This leads me to wonder if maybe there is a problem with people listening when a woman speaks.

Very few MRAs, myself especially, actually blame feminism for something that’s been happening throughout most of history, and we don’t even lay blame on feminism for being unable to change that situation. I certainly never have.

Feminists DO, however, get criticized by MRAs for their marginalization of the draft and their dismissal of it and other traditional male obligations when they are offensively speaking about so-called historical “male privilege” and “patriarchy.” So let me try to spell this out for everybody so we can clear the air a bit.

So, Pooka, it wasn’t even 90 seconds into your video when you drop this astounding strawman: “Lately the people who are putting this argument forward are saying it with an implied hostile tone that suggests that America’s male-only draft is the fault of women, especially feminists.”

Now, I’m not going to say there isn’t a hostile tone involved, but I could have stopped watching right there. This is what I don’t get at all. I mean, I’ve had people in the comments of my “Feminism and the disposable male” video accuse me of blaming feminism for male disposability. I’m as perplexed by how they can possibly draw that conclusion from a video in which I clearly state that “male disposability has been around since ‘the dawn of time,'” as I am by how the primary reason MRAs bring up the draft escapes so many people.

Now, some MRAs do criticize feminism for not having pushed for an equivalent female obligation to society to the one that acted as the primary justification for universal male suffrage, and for the lowering of the voting age to 18. Many of them feel that the suffragettes should have kicked and screamed a lot harder for such an obligation, especially since when suffragists were agitating for the vote for women, huge numbers of male soldiers fighting and dying in World War I on behalf of countries with universal male suffrage did not have the vote, because they were under the age of 21. Suffragette leader Christabel Pankhurst even took a break from agitating for female suffrage to hand out white feathers to teenage boys to shame them into enlisting in a war that killed millions, many of whom did not have the vote.

To her credit, she also advocated mandatory “war work” for women, but was somehow less successful in that effort, which she seems to have effectively abandoned once women had the franchise. Huh.

And this is where we come to the real issue, Pooka. The real reason MRAs bring up the draft. It’s not to blame women, or blame feminists. It is simply, and plainly, a refutation of the feminist concept of historical male privilege and female subjugation. From the website “great war fiction,” regarding Britain’s white feather campaign:


What is significant about the involvement of the suffragettes is that it makes explicit what was otherwise unspoken – women were claiming the right to inform males of their duty, and were demanding that they fulfill the obligation implied in the restriction of full citizenship and the franchise to males, the obligation to defend their womenfolk.

In other words, the white feather girls and the suffragettes understood that men had political franchise and women did not *because men had a duty to go to war to protect women.*

I find it strange how the suffragettes seemed to have forgotten that men and men alone had been burdened with this obligation–to protect their womenfolk and act as cannon fodder in the interests of their governments, according to their individual will or against it–long before universal male suffrage was a twinkle in anyone’s eye. But there you have it: Men had the vote and women did not, so men had better be prepared to suit up and do their duty.

When the US government began sentencing draft dodgers to life imprisonment, years in penal labor camps, and death, a group of anarchists challenged the constitutionality of the draft. Their challenge failed. In the Court’s decision, it was stated that:


It may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it. … To do more than state the proposition is absolutely unnecessary in view of the practical illustration afforded by the almost universal legislation to that effect now in force.

In other words, men enjoyed the rights and privileges of citizenship granted by government *because they paid for it through the reciprocal obligation of the draft.* And the court considered this bargain to be so self-evident, it need do no more than state it.

As late as 1917, the US government was executing men who refused to fulfil the obligation they owed in return for the right to full legal person-hood in the eyes of the state.

Would you trade this for your right to vote? Millions of men did.

Three years later, women won the vote. Without even the obligation to do “war work” like sewing uniforms, or community service like picking up litter from the sides of highways.

Do you get that, Pooka? Three years before women won the vote, the “privileged” class was still being sentenced to death for refusing an obligation that women have never been burdened with. An obligation they bore in exchange for full, but conditional, legal personhood in the eyes of the government.

That was the “privileged class,” Pooka. The “oppressed” class got the vote 2 years after the end of a war where thousands upon thousands of young men died without franchise. And before you argue that women were not “allowed” to make this bargain with the state, I’ll remind you that men were not “allowed” to refuse it.

And I think what really gets me is in your video you claim that Selective Service: you just came to accept it as “part of becoming an adult.” Not for women, only for men.

Now, it would seem to me that a class of people who get something valuable for essentially nothing, for the grand accomplishment of turning 18, might be viewed as privileged, and the class of people who, if they had the temerity to decline the bargain–the whole draft in exchange for citizenship and political franchise thing–got the gallows, are the ones who might have had some problems with society’s conditional view of their personhood.

You spend the rest of your video beating what is largely a strawman, expounding on feminism’s struggle to win women the *right* to serve in the military and in combat. Up until 1973 in the U.S., that was never a right for men, Pooka. It was an obligation that hung over the heads of young men since before the feudal age. Like the *right* to earn income women won over the last century was and still is an obligation for men. Like the *right* to financial independence feminists worked so hard to achieve for women was and still is an obligation for men.

This is why MRAs bring up the draft, and when discussing the draft–or Coverture, or traditional gender roles, for that matter–MRAs seem actively hostile to feminists and resentful of the new position women enjoy in society.

Because oddly enough, for all of feminism’s successes, they haven’t been  that interested in acquiring obligations for women, and society isn’t especially interested in imposing them, either–which kind of smells like Female Privilege. The social and legal obligation a man had to provide for the material needs of his family is one feminists don’t seem to want to impose on any those women who choose to make families on their own, or choose to take the leadership of those families by expelling the fathers of their children. On the contrary, organizations like N.O.W. support or ignore the continuation of paternal obligation while simultaneously agitating for continued erosion of paternal rights—that would be the family equivalent of reinstating the draft while revoking male political franchise.

And now we live in a system where the government will deny a father the right to involvement with his children if the mother wants it badly enough, while simultaneously requiring he provide for them, and jailing him if he fails.

Feminists still call this system “Patriarchy,” and describe it using terms like “Male privilege” and “female oppression”, because the top 1% of society happens to be mostly male. Of the thousands of men who were sent to war without political franchise, two years before women were handed their right to vote for nothing, they apply the minimizing and insulting phrase “patriarchy hurts men too.”

That’s why MRAs bring up the draft, Pooka. Not to blame women or feminists for America’s male-only draft, but to remind them that getting the vote without being required to die for it if necessary is not fucking oppression, and neither is having to wait  a mere 50 years longer to be handed something that men were still required to pay for with their lives. That having to trade your autonomy or your life for your political franchise *is not privilege*–it’s a shit deal. So shit a deal I wonder how many men would have taken it if Uncle Sam hadn’t been willing to run them up a gibbet if they refused.

And the fact that feminists can incessantly moan about the oppression of women, partly based on the fact that since the beginning recorded history, women had to wait less than 1% longer than men did for their own, obligation-free political franchise, and can be taken seriously by anyone, is the very definition of “social privilege.”

A social privilege to not be called on their bullshit even when their advocacy tramples on the rights of others. For crying out loud, we live in a society where a woman whose sole claim to notoriety derives from her complaining that the government–of a country that supposedly values the separation of church and state, no less–won’t force the Catholic church to subsidize her sex life, where that woman is given the podium at the Democratic Convention, all while the sisterhood bitches and moans that women have no voice in society.

The very fact that society is willing to indulge this level of cognitive dissonance simply because the lunatics spouting it claim to represent women as a group is a testimonial to Female Social Privilege, Pooka. As is the fact that after less than a year of doing this, I have the largest following of any Men’s Rights Movement channel on Youtube.

I watched the video you made about stalking and harassment. The fact that you were prepared to take a punch from a 300 pound man to protect your wife: that’s Female Privilege, Pooka, and it’s a privilege you almost certainly would not have enjoyed had the situation been reversed. As is the fact that you–someone who claims to be sympathetic to men’s rights issues–could spend an entire video talking about stalking and harassment *of women*, as if it is solely a problem that women have to deal with. That’s also about female privilege, Pooka.

You effectively erased and ignored male victims of stalking in your video, and while most victims of this kind of harassment are women, “most” is not “all.” The very fact that you would DO that and not realize someone might call you on it shows the privileged position women hold when it comes to society’s desire to protect its members. I have an acquaintance with an 18 year old son who could tell you a thing or two about being stalked and then screwed over by the system, if you wanted. At least you and your wife weren’t facing felony charges despite a mountain of phone records, alibi witnesses, and email and voicemail evidence proving you were the one being harassed, simply because your stalker was a young woman and you were a young man.

“Male privilege” is a load of shit, Pooka, because none of those perks that men enjoyed through history, none of those perks and benefits came for free, just for having a penis. They were bought and paid for.

So guess what? Whenever ANYONE whines about “male privilege,” or kvetches about how women didn’t get the vote the same afternoon men did, I’m gonna bring up the fucking draft. And the very fact that you could see that as an attack on feminism so egregious that you’d feel compelled to defend those feminists by beating strawmen, and complaining about how women don’t have the right to choose to serve their country, when for most of history men didn’t have any choice about the matter once their government called them to serve?

Well, I’d tell you to check your privilege, but that would be stupid, wouldn’t it?

SO let’s review: almost no one has ever said feminists are responsible for the draft. What they do take issue with is the constant whinging about women not being handed the vote as soon or even sooner than SOME men, without acknowledging historical realities that for men, the vote always came with an OBLIGATION. An obligation society never demanded, and still does not demand, of women.

Feminists demand rights and privileges for women, but do not accept obligation. Instead, they kick the shit out of men and call them privileged even when men had to pay for that privilege with life and limb. Clear enough?

Below is a a video version of this essay, with some non-related introductory material on how to help your fellow MRAs, and some more such stuff on the end:

A Voice for Men’s fundraiser:


Donate to Family of Men/Men’s Alternative Safe House (Calgary):


Pooka’s video:


Great War Fiction on the White Feather Campaign:


Feminism and the disposable male transcript & video:


Additional info:



Note: I am once again pleased to have created and provided the above transcript for my friend Karen, aka Girl Writes What. –Dean Esmay

About Karen Straughan (aka GirlWritesWhat)

AVfM Contributing Editor Karen Straughan "Girl Writes What" is a middle-aged divorced mother of three who enjoys talking about herself in the third person. Her writing and videography on gender issues features in classrooms in high schools and universities on three continents. But she still has time for the little people, like Paul, and those other guys.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.com Suz


    • http://none universe


  • dejour

    GWW has a masterful style.

  • Codebuster

    Powerful stuff, GWW. It really emphasizes the sheer stupidity of those that oppose us. You just have to debate with feminists and their supporters to perceive a New Guinea witch doctor as a rational,logical rocket scientist by comparison.

    There’s also a lesson here that resonates with my own principle agenda. We are not witnessing the ignorance of a lone individual. We are witnessing the ignorance of culture along with its power. Culture is a shared hallucination. Ultimately, this is about much more than men’s rights. It’s about the paradigm upon which our entire epistemology is based. And it’s about the importance of what your culture stands for. Can you stand what your culture stands for?

  • externalangst

    That’s great GWW. Didn’t the suffragettes also want the vote for upper class women but not working class people like the many men returning from WW1?

    • scatmaster

      “Votes for women!”
      Was the cry,
      Reaching upward to the Sky.
      Crashing glass
      And flashing eye-
      “Votes for Women!”
      Was the cry.
      “Boats for women!”
      Was the Cry.
      When the brave
      Were come to die.
      When the end
      Was drawing nigh-
      “Boats for women!”
      Was the cry.

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

      Not exactly, but, black people–i.e. women and men–were still routinely denied the vote long after the 19th amendment was ratified.

      Indeed, one of the dirty secrets of the Suffragist/Suffragette movement in the United States is that there was internal debate as to whether or not to allow black women to be part of their public demonstrations. In the end, although there were some objections, black women were by and large sidelined, and millions of them did not receive the vote until 1965. The language of the 19th amendment did not specifically exclude them, but it made laws against their race still valid. So millions of women, and millions of men, did not get the vote DESPITE the 19th amendment.

      A charitable reading of history would be the “let’s have one battle at a time” reading, meaning, the 20th century was a slow but steady progress toward equal rights for, the 19th amendment being only part of that.

      But in the hateful view of history of nothing but male oppression of victim-females, it would seem that charitable readings are out of line, and we should just say the 19th amendment was ratified to give privileged white women the vote. Which would, ya know, in the modern dialectic of “privileged” and “oppressed” would be absolutely correct.

      • externalangst

        I was referring to Britain around the time of WW1; where the White Feather Campaign was executed. Thanks for the info about 20th century USA.

      • Sheldonshells

        Agreed Dean, once again you raise a good and interesting point.

  • John A

    Great work GWW.

    Pooka’s video is the triumph of lack of style over lack of substance. I listened to about 6 minutes of his rant and then had to get out as I was in serious pain. Loudly repeating the same weak points over and over doesn’t make them stronger…

    When will feminists learn that it isn’t all about them? Feminists haven’t created many new problems for men – they just make the existing problems worse. Likewise they haven’t done much for women either – they’ve just taken advantage of changes in technology.

    • http://none universe

      “Loudly repeating the same weak points over and over doesn’t make them stronger…”
      – As Codebuster added in a similar but expanded context: “We are not witnessing the ignorance of a lone individual. We are witnessing the ignorance of culture along with its power.” – as well, mass acceptance and congruency in wrong ideas and thought do not make these ideas any more right. Just more people believing in the same wrong ideas.

      Next, I leap over into the realm of democracy.
      Democracy, as outlined below in a Wiki definition, is not being ideally practiced when valid contributions to social awarenesses are being illegitimately nullified.

      Here is a quote on democracy from Wikipedia:
      “Democracy – A form of government in which people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.[1] Democracy allows people to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws.”
      – What if in a ‘democracy’ wherein people espouse flawed ideas to their elected ‘representitives’ who in turn enact flawed codes of conduct solely based on a sector of their constituents’ flawed reasoning? We see and have that now.

      Furthermore, and as we’ve seen with Wikipedia’s refusal to recognize men’s issues/rights from MRA perspectives, Wiki’s own definition of democracy, – “in which people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.” – appears as not being in congruency with their own proudly stated definition of such.

      It is obvious that certain people (feminists and their hidden and otherwise supporters), who believing they have an irrefutable hegemony on the social perception of “gender”, are actively trying to suppress others (MRAs) from entering the ‘democratic’ process of discussion and progress. These too shall be known by their fruits. And be known as they should and shall be.
      Onward, positive social commenters of all stripes, we go.

  • xtrnl

    Thank you so much for writing this, GWW. It drives me nuts how I always hear about “male privilege”, when in reality, every man I know who is well off has had to work his ass off to get there. They act like men are just handed a salary and privileges without having to work for them. I think to the next person who tells me “check your privilege”, I’m going to say “check your lack of societal obligations”.

    • Skeptic

      I suggest responding with –

      “No need, but check your ignorance”

      Then refer them to GWW’s great video.

  • Kimski

    GWW skates right through the feminist defense line, and slams the puck into the goal.
    -And the priviledge discussion is over!!

  • napocapo69

    Thanks GWW, but that monkey didn’t reserved a reply or mention at all…

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

      I think it’s important we get out into the wider world and engage it, outside of our comfort zone and engage with people who may sneer at, attack, or marginalize us but will at least try to listen. The ones who will try to listen need rational and direct responses. GWW is awesome at it. I hope she knows just how much I value her friendship and admire her work.

      In a very real way, she’s one of the only true “feminists” I know. Despite my well-known assertion that “feminism” doesn’t actually fucking mean anything, if it does mean that women are adult human beings who not only should be treated as such, but expect to be treated as such WITH THE FULL CONSEQUENCES OF SAME, she is the best feminist I’ve ever met. Maybe one of the only real ones who ever lived.

  • Aimee McGee

    I’m beginning to think that compulsory community service of some form should be a rite of passage to adulthood. Not necessarily military but giving structure and discipline and away from parental influence

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

      Aimee, sent you an email.

      GWW, great piece!

      • Aimee McGee

        Email in return

    • O’Sullivan

      I can agree with that, I speak from personal experience when I say, in the words of Calvin’s father, community service really builds character!

  • null kill

    This was just perfect, GWW. As a relatively young veteran who served in the USMC, the issue of conscription is a topic that I believe to be fundamental to discussions of gender privilege in the US. Your article is spot-on. Thank you.

  • JFinn

    OT: Christina Aguilera’s new music video “your body” has her murdering several men with great pleasure. When Kanya West’s “monster” music video came out, there was a huge uproar about how it fetishizes dead women. There is no controversy over Aguilera’s recent video. We are all used to seeing the depictions of torturing and murdering of men, the majority victims of violence.

    When you show a character doing something bad to a female character, his action are THE WRITER’S VIEW and the one female character is ALL WOMEN. If only men had an ounce of that sort of paranoid advocacy, they’d be so much better off. Could you imagine if all combat soldiers were female?

    Since the Charlie’s Angels movie, we’ve seen a big rise of women “kicking ass(torturing and murdering,)” but it’s mostly gendered violence. Because the disposable sub-animal henchmen are still all men. Feminists hate gendered violence, unless they love it.

    • Kimski

      “Feminists hate gendered violence, unless they love it.”

      Have you noticed how script writers will go out of their way to conform to this, in order not to have the movie banned?

      If there’s actually a female villain in the movie, they always bring in some completely pointless female sidekick to the male hero, who has no justification in the script, besides being the one who eventually has to kick to female villains ass.

      Apparently the more than capable male hero, who has taken everyone else out, besides fixing every other thing in the whole movie, is not capable of fighting a 100 pound sparrow with a bad attitude, without getting his ass kicked.

      • Skeptic

        Spot on Kimski.
        The most vile disgusting example I saw of this was the movie “Kill Bill”.
        I was shocked at the extreme level of gratuitous male disposability in that You Go Grrrl bloodbath, and saddened to see a follow up movie.
        SCUM’s Valerie Solanis would have been proud.
        Even to me, tempered by decades of dealing with feminist shit it was another shocking wake up call.

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

          The funny thing is, I love all of Tarantino’s movies, including Kill Bill. I understand your point about how it illustrates male disposability, but virtually all action movies do that. And I do notice about Kill Bill (both 1 & 2 should really be considered one long movie, according to Tarantino himself) that women don’t just kick ass in it, they do get killed. Repeatedly. No, not in as great a number, but at least you see every female villain in that get the shit kicked out of her, killed or, in at least one case, permanently blinded. So, you know, it doesn’t bother me so much, and I’m able to turn off my brain and just enjoy the deliciously chaotic ballet of ludicrously unrealistic violence.

          YMMV and all that.

          • Skeptic

            I remember several feminist women gleefully commenting on Kill Bill when it came out – along the lines of “hundred’s of guys being slaughtered by one powerful woman”.
            I was so repulsed by what I saw in Kill Bill 1, that I never saw Kill Bill 2.
            I don’t intend to.
            Splatter movies don’t grab me either.

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

            I never try to convince someone to like a movie just because I like it. I would merely point out to the “feminst” asshats just how much the movie shows women being maimed, dismembered, shot, beaten, killed, and in at least one case, an acid-burned woman’s face and, as I think I mentioned, a woman getting both her eyes plucked out (two different scenes). If I were to imagine, I would guess they didn’t like those parts and considered them “misogynist” and/or didn’t bother to notice it in all the ludicrous mayhem of male-slaughter.

            Me, I just saw a ludicrously unbelievable comic book of a movie. Your mileage may vary.

      • John A

        Austin Powers touched on the henchman issue when the recently killed henchmen were shown to have had friends and family. Action and war movies have hundreds or thousands of mainly male victims, all of whom have families, friends, dreams and aspirations. Usually the male lives are worth a tiny fraction of the females’.

        • tallwheel

          I’ve long empathized with cannon fodder henchmen in movies. An ex GF I told about this thought I was weird.

  • JinnBottle

    For younger readers to come away with the impression that Uncle Sam hanged you for refusing the draft, would be a misunderstanding.

    Uncle Sam *imprisoned* draft resisters – whose 18 year old bodies, and minds, were then raped for all they were worth by fellow prisoners of that type who are selectively morally indignant, patriotic – but always horny.

    And *then* said draft resister became his own hangman.

    I would get very morally indignant if someone accused my Uncle Sam of hanging draft resisters Himself!

    Thanx for this, GWW. I didn’t realize at first “Pooka” was male….a six foot white rabbit with a white feather for a tail, perhaps?

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

      Depends entirely on when you are talking about and where. She wasn’t just talking about the US. During much of history for many men it was either conscription or immediate death.

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

      Yeah what Paul said. In the later parts of the 20th century, draft-dodging was punishable by imprisonment, but prior to that, you were quite often executed. Either hung or by firing squad.

      Ditto if you entered the service and then you ran away (i.e. went “derelict from duty”) and tried to escape: the punishment if they caught you was death, although these days it’s more often just imprisonment.

      • Kimski

        Yes, but we’re still talking about 15 to 30 year sentences in a military prison. And you know those rocks that they lay train tracks on? Those are broken from much larger rocks by military prisoners at places like Ft. Leavenworth.

        There’s no comparison to civilian prisons. Military inmates loses all rights and priviledges and are convicted felons, no matter what their crime is. However, you’re less likely to be stabbed or raped in a military prison, and that has to count for something to say the least.

        Military Prison = hard labor and crappy food.
        Civilian prison = tv, rape and stabbings.

      • Bev

        During the first world war 360 odd men were shot for desertion/cowardice (in reality shell shock). On the allied side (Britian, Australia, New Zealand, Canada). During the Battle of the Somme the average losses per division (10,000) was 8,000 men. On the first day of the battle 60,000 allied casualties occured. Overall by the end of the battle, the allied armies had suffered 420,000 casualties including nearly 60,000 on the first day alone. The French lost 200,000 men and the Germans nearly 500,000.
        While this slaughter was going on women were complaining they didn’t have the vote and handing white feathers to any man who didn’t step up to be slaughtered. Though one must question General Kitcheners thinking. He believed that eventually the Germans would run out of troops if the slaughter continued long enough.

    • Aimee McGee

      There was finally a pardon given in the UK to some young men shot in the trenches of WW1 for failure to fight…about 2009 if my memory serves me right.
      One of the old men in my Quaker meeting served in the Friends Ambulance Service in WW2, another was imprisoned for being a CO

      • John A

        Plenty more were court martialed and shot by firing squad. Australians did not use capital punishment for military discipline and the British hated us for it.

      • Skeptic

        That reminds me of something that went on for a long time before the draft even came into being – press gangs.
        Try googling that Pooka!

        Also look up one of NZ’s most celebrated poets Archibald Baxter who refused to serve during the first world war, on the grounds that “all war is wrong, futile, and destructive alike to victor and vanquished.”
        He was arrested in 1917, imprisoned, then shipped to the western front and beaten, starved and tortured by the army in an effort to get him to put on a uniform and serve.
        Still refusing, he was given Field Punishment No.1 – in effect, being crucified on a pole in open fire between Allied and German lines – and later was tied to a shed being used by the Germans for artillery practice.
        He suffered a complete physical and mental breakdown, but survived to go on and write poetry.


        I think it’s a great shame that guys like Pooka are so ignorant about men’s real history – here’s another little reminder for him – http://www.3ad.org/images/cem.jpg

  • Zerbu

    Amazing article! From now on, this will be the article I use to convince people to take the red pill.

    P.S. Pooka tried to make the claim that all MRAs were trying to extend the draft to women, rather than having no draft, but nowhere in the phrase “why do men have to register for the draft and not women?” is there any mention of what the alternative should be, just about how unequal it is.

  • droobles

    Incredible text, but how about going further. In Brazil women have to work 5 years less, so they can retire 5 years early and get to live 7 years longer.

    I am so glad about having this “male privilege” so I can work my ass off and see these women getting 17 YEARS more of workless life!!!!

    And we all know the wage gap is a myth, but you can’t find people that like botched statistics more than feminists!!

    • Bev

      It is the same in Australia. Men’s retirement is 65 but women could retire at 55. that was raised to 60 and is slowly being ramped up so the retirement age will be equal in 2014.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/JockeVXO JockeVXO

    I am reminded of the motto amongst Swedish suffragists during the late 19th century and early 20th: En man, en röst, ett gevär!” (One man, one vote, one rifle!). The case for male suffrage relied almost entirely on that for mandatory military service.

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

    You have reminded me of a bloke I knew called Pat.

    Pat was a big bastard. He had arms like stump-jump ploughs and his legs were stronger than old gum trees.

    I heard it said that he moved mountains, and those mountains were shifted because he wanted them somewhere else. It didn’t matter if there were villages nearby that enjoyed the view of those hills, he just did it anyway. He never asked either.

    He was always about. Everyone knew Pat. If you didn’t know of him you were just crazy like a dog with three tails covered in fleas, or you were too young to know the world at all.

    Good ole’ Pat.

    I tell you something else about Pat. His shadow used to get there way before he did and it didn’t matter if it was sunny or not. Some folk swore blind that It even stayed there right on the wall even though he went off somewhere else.

    The papers talked about him, and on the radio there were programs discussing him and what he was doing and what he was planning.

    All our lives were affected by him if he was in the same room with you or not.

    Now I never saw him. Not even one time, but I sure knew he was about.

    Sometimes I think about getting in touch with his family, you know, to see how he is doing these days.

    I always did like the Riarchy family. They made a great Sunday roast.

    • Kimski

      I really liked that comment, Dr.F.

      It’s almost a tale for children, if you expanded a little on it.
      I’ll bet the feminists would get it, too.

  • Ben

    People don’t know how to use the scientific method — that’s a major problem. Their logic goes like this:

    1. This person is an MRA and has criticized feminism.

    2. This person has spoken critically of the male only draft.

    Conclusion: This person blames feminism for the male-only draft.

    1. This person has referred to circumcision as “male genitial mutilation.”

    2. Feminists protest female genital mutilation.

    Conclusion: This person blames feminists for male genital mutilation and is trying to make the argument that circumcision is precisely equal to FGM in every single imaginable way.

    1. This MRA said that women’s oppression is mostly a myth and that men are 94% of workplace deaths.

    2. Feminists say that men oppress women and discriminate against them in the workplace.

    Conclusion: Men’s Rights Activists think that women oppress men and cause men to be over-represented in workplace death statistics.

    It’s Gestalt psychology. If someone says the letters A and C, they “hear” A B C. Almost everybody thinks like this, not just feminists.

    When I was holding that rally this week, people would yell things at me like “I am sorry your girlfriend broke up with you and made you cry, dude” but they refused to take one of my fliers from the AVfM Facts section. They just read my t-shirts, made up their minds that I must have gotten jilted by a woman and refused to listen to word I had to say. Even the men in the administration office who were clearly uncomfortable with my rally would not take any information from me. They had already made their minds up about us. It is so obvious that they are convinced that we are just misogynists when they react that way. That really says a lot about what people really think of us when they say “No, I don’t want any of your information” Or, “No I don’t want to hear what you have to say about the draft; I will presume you are blaming feminists for it and stuff my head deeply back up my entrails because that’s what makes me feeeeeel good”.

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

      It’s pretty much the same reasoning that says “criticism of feminism = embraces oppression of women.”

      Can it be overcome? Well we know what hasn’t worked for 30 years: trying to be completely polite and civil about it. It appears that shocking sensibilities is the only thing that gets through to anyone. Otherwise the best you can get is a condescending pat on the head. Or more of the same shit about how you’re a whiner or a loser anyway.

      Fuck ’em. Maybe you were too nice to those people. If you do it again, next time be ready with a few choice lines like:

      “Too much of a lightweight to actually read this, eh?”

      “What, are you afraid of having your preconceptions challenged?”

      “Really fond of your sexist prejudices, aren’t you?”

      Is it rude? Well yes. But you’re not the one who marginalized and demeaned them, are you?

      • Kimski

        FYI, I upvoted that, Dean.


  • John A

    Around a hundred million men, maybe more, have been butchered or died of hunger and illness in armed conflicts over the ages. That’s a lot of stiffs. Many more had years or decades of their lives stolen. Many more were injured, saw their friends die or were forced to commit atrocities. Many were conscripted or abducted, most of the rest were duped.

    That’s a lot of “male privilege” to gloss over – no wonder they fight this so hard.

    • Bev

      But but according to Hillary Clinton women and children are the greatest casualties of war.

      • John A

        That’s because she thinks they are more important. Men have agency, those WWI conscripts had so much agency, bayonets fixed, ready to storm machine guns or be shot by their own death squads.

    • Skeptic

      One of my very favorite Angry Harry webpages – http://www.angryharry.com/eswerewomenoppressedinthewest.htm??note

  • Jay

    A brilliant article Girl Writes What. Totally brilliant. Thank you.

  • Bombay

    Many times I read articles on AVFM and do not comment on their excellence. With all the congratulatory comments, what more can I add? I contribute to the thumbs up and that is about it.

    In this writing, Girl Writes What leaves no wiggle room in demonstrating vacuous Feminist thinking. This treatise belongs in the AVFM Hall of Fame and should always be referenced in regards to any discussion of the draft and the right to vote.

    • Jay

      Gotta pretty much agree with Bombay there. Girl Writes What some superb work here.

  • http://none universe

    “Loudly repeating the same weak points over and over doesn’t make them stronger…” (Wups. Replying to the original commenter brandishing this quote apparently resulted in its deletion).
    – And Codebuster added in a similar but expanded context – “We are not witnessing the ignorance of a lone individual. We are witnessing the ignorance of culture along with its power.” – as well. Mass acceptance and congruency in wrong ideas and thought do not make these ideas any more right. Just more people believing in the same wrong ideas.

    Next, I leap to the realm of democracy.

    ‘Democracy’, as outlined below in a Wiki definition, appears as not being ideally practiced when valid contributions to social awarenesses are being illegitimately nullified.

    Here is a quote on democracy from Wikipedia:
    “Democracy – A form of government in which people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.[1] Democracy allows people to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws.”
    – What if in a ‘democracy’ where people espouse flawed ideas to their elected ‘representitives’ who in turn enact flawed codes of conduct solely based on a sector of their constituents’ flawed reasoning? We see and have that now. Contributors to this board have a constituent right to to correct what has been, deliberately or not, but otherwise, msmanaged.

    Furthermore, and as we’ve seen with Wikipedia’s refusal to recognize men’s issues/rights from MRA perspectives, Wiki’s own definition of democracy, – “in which people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives.” – appears as not being in congruency with their own proudly stated definition of such.
    It is obvious that certain people, feminists and their hidden and otherwise supporters, who believing they have an irrefutable hegemony on the social perception of “gender”, are actively trying to suppress others, MRAs, from entering the ‘democratic’ process of discussion and progress. These too shall be known by their fruits. Known they should and shall be.

    Onward, social commenters of all stripes, we go.

    (Thank goodness and the publisher for the edit feature)
    Good work GWW. You know we appreciate your presence. Thank you much.

  • Manifold

    Well, shit, I am usely fairly critical of the use of language from Men’s Rights Activists, but this was a masterful post. Good job.

    • AntZ

      We use harsh language because we have renounced all other means of achieving equality.

      I recommend that you read the words of Ghandi. There is a price to be paid for renouncing violence in a civil rights movement. Once you renounce violence, you must zealously inflict hurtful language and painful words upon the oppressors and everyone who legitimizes them. Example:

      “These particulars are enough to-throw light upon the hateful persecution to which British Indian subjects are being subjected. The new Indian Immigration Law Amendment Bill, which virtu- ally proposes to reduce Indians to a state of slavery, is another example, The thing is a monstrous wrong, an mault to British subjects, a disgrace to its authors, and a slight upon ourselves. Every Englishman is concerned to see that the commercial greed of the South African trader is not permitted to wreak such bitter injustice upon men who alike by proclamation and by statute are placed upon an equality with ourselves before the Law.”
      — October 26, 1896, Gandhi

      “I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence… I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor … But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier…But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature….”

      Feminism was born in violence and terror. Feminiism gained prominence through arson, assassination, vandalism, and the attempted mass drowning of thousands of innocent British residents of Central London by destroying a dam. The MRM rejects these and all other violent tactics … you cannot also ask us to reject harsh language.

  • AntZ

    Beautiful. Inspiring. A+++.

  • tallwheel

    I didn’t get through all of Pooka’s video, but the impression I got was that he was angrily blaming MRA’s for complaining about something which according to him is not a very big deal. He’s shaming MRA’s – especially younger ones who don’t have to worry about an active draft and Vietnam – for not being a real man like he is. Such an old-fashioned argument against ‘unworthy’ men. You’ll see non-MRA men using this one a lot.

    I apologize to Pooka if he states later in the video that this isn’t his opinion, or it gets better later on, but I’m betting it doesn’t.

  • MGTOW-man

    They say we MRA’s “hate women” all because we see the truth that they do not want broadcast, and that which they find terribly truthful and very inconvenient.

    This draft debate is a perfect example, out of many, of some men and women seeing the truth that stares us all in our faces every day of our lives. But we 21st century people mustn’t speak of things that are unpopular, even if solidly truthful—else we “hate women”. We have to pretend we do not see the distinctions between wanting equality and that of proving equality—actually substantiating their claims of equality. Only because they are women, they should get their way, right?

    I am not saying women shouldn’t be equal. I am actually for TRUE equality without the refusal of feminists to accept the “TRUE” part. What I am saying is that merely wanting it isn’t nowhere near enough. If we are going to let the world slip away, unravel, and be changed like it is, then it has to, or should be, based on actual proven truth, not theories, wishful thinking, exaggerations, lies, and pretending to not see the things that stand in the way of actually BEING equal.

    I for one, have never had respect for a woman’s privilege to avoid having to offer the supreme sacrifice possibility as what is expected in war stuff, but still get all the privileges of equality, including leadership capacities. It is called cheating and any woman who claims to be a man’s equal without having to also risk life and limb in exchange for the power and level of inclusion women now enjoy, is a selfish, short-sighted, oblivious idiot who wouldn’t know what equality actually is if it somehow morphed into a giant shark and bit them in half! …And men who abet such craziness are no better.

    Women are having all their expectations, sacrifices, and obligations dismantled all the while, men still have strict rigid rules to go by—or else …and women claim to be oppressed!?? Oh really now!?

    I also fault men in general here as well. They are still chivalrous fools who seem to enjoy having “had sucker” branded on their foreheads, in exchange for female admiration and herd-inclusion. Until we manage to get changed this system that makes men slaves to women—thus slaves to feminism—our hopes of getting real equality in war stuff is a distant twinkle.

    Men are holding themselves back, mired in a stagnant pool of refusal to man-up and be totally truthful to women no matter what it costs. Change men and you change the world. Until then, women in general (not all of course), and all feminists, will continue to exploit the willingness of males to be accepted. It is hostile. It is hijacking. It is emotional blackmail. It is wrong, but the feminists aren’t going to budge until they are made to…and weak men, who cling to losing, will continue to be customers to their prostitutes, paying for sex with their behaviors as currency.

    The oldest profession prevails again, not because of the power of women, but due to the weaknesses of men.

    This is what the feminists movement has become. This is its grip. This is what we have to change. Change it; educate men this way, and all else will fall in line.

    I served my country for 8 years, including Gulf War, 90-91 participation, and I learned that women were mostly in the way. They shouldn’t have been there at all, but if they are going to be there, they should be required to participate at all levels, that is, unless our war machine is just a front for social laboratory functions that skew benefits for women while shielding them from obligations equal to that of men. So much for “equality”; the concept has been made into a mockery by this very issue of drafting men only—even in this 21st century.

    The draft/selective service disparity relative to men and women, is a hot button issue that MRA’s should embrace and rub in their faces as much as possible. Too, as long as feminists refuse to woman-up and accept this accountability/responsibility instead of skirting the issue, like cowards, then they are actually confirming their actual inequality—like it or not! On paper, in policy, in law, and in pretend-land, women may “be equal”— but not in reality. That won’t happen until, well, reality actually reflects it, as the above article tries to convey.

    Congratulations to the author and to those with the real courage to stand up for true equality. I am you; we are us, united we stand.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      “I served my country for 8 years, including Gulf War, 90-91 participation, and I learned that women were mostly in the way.”


      You feel women are mostly “in the way” – but you would rub their faces into not getting in your way even more?

      Arggggh! I HATE these “women in the military” discussions!

      “The Draft ” is the perfect foil, the perfect come back for accusations of “Male Priviledge”. It is inarguable. It completely disproves the feminist lie of male priviledge. I invoke it freely and frequently myself.

      As a “shaming” tactic it is completely justified toward feminist’s ignoring male sacrifice and disposibility and claims of their hard fought, hard won earnings were instead “priviledge” as though it was just handed to them.

      I served in the military during the draft, and I DO use that fact to shut up and shame other women when they get on their “male priviledge” high horse, because that “priviledge” is available to them by choice, not force.

      But I don’t shame or blame women for not serving, otherwise.

      It’s unreasonable and unfair to scorn and loath women for not “womaning up” and serving while
      scorning and loathing them when they do.

      • MGTOW-man

        I know it is awkward and hard to put a finger on it, and perhaps I wasn’t as eloquent in my description and comments.

        However, I welcomed women in the military at first. It wasn’t until I saw how much they couldn’t do, that I became concerned at having to do much more because of their inabilities and without any extra compensation for my increased efforts and requirements—that often benefitted women.

        For example, in the War, females were taken off shower water duty when it was inarguably seen that they had too much trouble (with injuries) hoisting sufficient amounts of water straight up a 12 foot ladder to pour their own share of water into black-painted tanks intended to be heated by the sun and drain by gravity. Men were given the specific task (their own share and one more—for a woman— in addition to their other numerous duties), but the women had NOT to take on some of the other “men’s work” in exchange. (Among other examples, we see this with heavy lifting in common workplaces as well…some say it doesn’t matter…being “petty”… but argue THAT with a man who hurt his back at work while doing the work for a woman who makes the same or more as he does). Similarly as I said about women in the military, I could say that if women are going to work in used-to-be-only male places, then fine, as I am for equality, but they should be able to lift and hoist just as much—especially since many of them are crying foul relative to their supposed “unequal” pay.

        I still have injuries made from sheer overwear and tear of my body as a direct result of having boots filled by women instead of men—-especially in the Gulf War.

        That proof, in my mind, will never go away, that, women do not belong in the rigorous gears of a war machine. I stand my ground. I could state hundreds of examples, but will stifle myself here.

        However, I am also in favor of equality, TRUE equality, that is, that doesn’t allow women to be given special preferential treatment in an arena that they claim they need no help because they are equal. That is why I say that if women are going to be present in our military, then they should have to serve alongside men in every capacity, losing life and limb in relatively equal proportions as men are often required to—said in a fairness context only.

        My issue is why do some women, particularly feminists, have a problem with such real, true, equality? Do they expect us to take them seriously as our equals when they are sheltered and helped by so much special preferential treatment that actually, according to some women I know, is “confirming their inequality”.

        I believe that men owe women nothing, especially the last few generations that have bent over backwards, and shamed themselves into being branded “had suckers” in order to help women in almost every way they could…only to learn that they (men) can never do enough.

        Thus, I believe it is perfectly acceptable to state that women should not be in the military, but if we are going to let them, then they must serve completely, not partially, or with special treatment stilting them up.

        Please do not consider my comments here or elsewhere a personal attack. I speak of women in general that is supported by other popular writings. Even if you reply to this comment, I will not again—in good faith that I want no qualm with you or with anyone. All I was doing was stating what I believe.

        Having said this, it would be OK with me if women self-removed themselves from the military, but if they are going to serve, it must mean to serve equally. So I am not as fickle or double talking as it may seem.

        I do, however, appreciate your candor in saying that women have no argument against men when it comes to “male privilege” particularly when considering that it isn’t more privileged to be thrust up to the front to take a chance at dying moreso, and not just for the benefit of other men, but for women as well, even the mean and selfish ones!

        Since women already have enough help, let’s stay focused on helping men and boys. That is why I comment on this site..even if it is to point out some shortcomings and blame for women. All of it counts in an arena considering the complete overturn of all that we know.


        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          My remarks are not coming from a feminist view point or argument, so no need to fear I would be so disingenuous as to misinterpret them as a personal attack.

          Women in the military is a reality and it’s not going to go away, so working out true, equitable solutions can only serve to help men and boys.

          Faulting women for serving while simultaneously faulting them for not serving serves no purpose. None whatsoever.

          Just as a thought exercise, I wonder if the powers-that-be were given equiptment and physical tasks designed with the same ratio of weight and upper body strength differentials that exist between men and women, if men would be able to overcome their physical handicaps more sucessfully than women have?

          I ask this as a thoughtful question, not a challenge – but how do you think men would perform using equiptment designed for a person with, say, 50% more upper body strength and body weight?

          Because that is what women are expected to do.

          Hypothetically, if a woman’s physical ability to do 5 pull ups was gauged to be the equalivant of a man being required to do, I don’t know, 50? 100? pull ups, then shouldn’t it be “equality” to require men to perform extremely beyond their physical limitations.

          Of course, such an exercise would be an exercise in futility, unless it lead to insights and modifications that could better accomodate the personnel actually expected to use it.

          …or else… hell. Couldn’t they have just gotten smaller buckets or a pulley system and let women get their own damn shower water? Better to build resentment in the men and the sense of inadequacy and being beholden masked by copping an attitude in the women?

          I don’t want my son’s life endangered by a women who can’t do the job.

          I also don’t want my Grandaughter’s lives- or my Grandson’s – endangered because of the obstinate refusal to prepare women and design adequate accomodations for women as men have historically been prepared and accomodated.

          And no. I don’t want my daughter to face war, anymore than I want my sons to. But I believe it’s inevitably in the future, more realistic than believing women are going to be excluded for much longer, anyway.

          • MGTOW-man

            I said I wasn’t going to respond in return if indeed you responded. I intended that to be the case. However, I can’t resist the chance to follow up. I usually do not change my mind like this, but what the heck.

            The comment about men v. women in pullups begs the question of WHO approved the guaged equivalent: a mangina or white knight, or a woman who thinks it is more valuable to ignore the realities of war processes, so that women won’t be “oppressed”, or perhaps our enemies?

            Plus, it is missing the point to say that 5 for women (10-20, or whatever) is equal to 50, 100, or 1000…simply because the need for predictable strength in times of crisis outweighs the need for an “quivalent value” so that women can participate.

            Machine guns aren’t going to be lighter for women; tank ammo isn’t going to become fluffier if women are needed to carrry and load it; men’s bodies, wounded, won’t shrink in mass if women are called to hoist them over their shoulders and zig-zag-carry the injured men to safety … and carrying water for hygiene in only 1/2 amount-buckets will require more buckets to haul around, and take longer, taking up valuable time that needs to be used on other tasks.

            Pulleys are just another piece of equipment to keep up with, assemble, and implement when it can be done without any at all. That IS the point.

            If it takes two women to do what is designed for only one man (and rightly so, due to the pressure to get even more done in a short time), then where does that leave us in terms of real strength? Plus, why lose two women at a time from incoming fire when only one man would be down?

            It is missing the point to say that things need to be revamped so that women can pitch in…especially when there are so many other crucial-but-ignored-today tasks and complimentary contributions that women can do better than men.

            Likewise, women AREN’T having to perform at rates way beyond their capacities, so why should men? Thus, the premise that women have overcome physical handicaps successfully is not a reality.

            I am glad you are not a feminist. If you were, I wouldn’t even speak to you…not out of fear of losing arguments, but out of disgust for their blatant obliviousness and apparent hatred of anyone who sees the real truth that surrounds us all every day of our lives. I would not give a feminist the time of day because they think their feelings are more important than reality while also refusing to recognize that their feelings might just distort their own perceptions of reality.

            I appreciate your help in wanting things to be truly equal. But I still stand my ground on saying (paraphrased) that women do not get it when they think everything should conform to them, even allowing them to serve…but simultanelously not require them to serve equally beside men in every way (which flies in the face of everything feminists say about equality).

            So, why do I think that women shouldn’t be “soldiers”, (since they can’t REALLY do it all as a soldier should be able to) but if they are, then they should be used for sacrifices just as the men are, fully knowing that a disproportional amount of female casualties might result? Easy answer.

            Talk about unfair, it is grossly unfair that feminists, (supposedly on behalf of ALL women everywhere about everything), as they fight for their skewed, flawed version of equality, (actually a synthetic replacement scheme based on their disapproval of nature but while blaming men for it), get to advance their wishes and goals “forward” without having to pay, be responsible, be held accountable, have required sacrifices and obligations too…aren’t being made to see that bull horns will hook… and that women should be careful what they wish for— because they just might get it.

            In other words, women are being shielded from the harsh realities of just what equality with men truly entails—all done in a mad rush to replace our current (“patriarchial”) system with one that makes much less sense over all. So if it takes our societies to witness women being killed in war at the same relative rate just like men are, for our armies to lose wars due to women “being in the way” then so be it. We have to get to the bottom of this ordeal and nothing better can provide that than that of making women see that merely wanting to be equal is nowhere near enough. Prove it, without help, or back off…and accept what that has to mean—like real women would do without having to be prompted.

            I do not wish this war scene on women no more than I do men. We share that in common. But it is a mockery for only men to sign up for selective service. And on that note, why aren’t women required to register as well? …fully knowing that there are at least SOME things they can do adequately enough— even if they shouldn’t be there in the first place.

            The position I have here is that women, by default, by definition, by commonsense, can’t be equals to men if they remain protected, shielded, stilted up, be denied the chance to prove their equality without any help from men, or otherwise relieved of their fitting obligations and sacrifices.

            I do want them to be equal, but entirely equal, not partially equal (yet with full undeserved recognition as “real equals”) based on picking and choosing. And if being THAT true relative to equality reveals something of a catch-22 of sorts, about the problem with women abandoning their natural talents to try and be more like men—even if we do not need any more men—then so be it; The truth must be told.

            I am sick of the lies, the pretending, and the refusal of some men and women to register in their minds the real truths about the differences of women and men. Nature discriminated…and rightly so! We wouldn’t be here today if it hadn’t. However, it is NOT the fault of men and boys. Men, women, boys and girls of past generations of “oppression” were all doing what worked best for most people, most of the time, about most things…taking their passed experiences on what worked best and coupled those things with decisions and trends on matters of duties, limitations, and so on, that made some women start snivelling in the first place.

            In short, the sooner we be honest with ourselves, with each other, about everything, no matter what it has to mean in terms of changes for women—or not— then the sooner we will be able to move on and solve real problems that are of much more importance to our species—objectively speaking.

            However, like you, I also think women are not going to be removed from the military. So, it is only fair that they be charged with the same potential sarifices that belabor men. They should either put up or shut up; but that isn’t going to happen either… thanks to the many cowardly men who abet their own demise…as long as they get them a woman or at least remain in the good graces of women.

            I am so glad I am not one of them. My legacy will not bear the branding of ignorance that makes our problems worse.

            I want TRUE equality…else I am not afraid or ashamed of saying we should have no equality at all. Do we lie, revamp, ignore, pretend, or what? The future will tell. Don’t we all know where it will lead? More lies, to cover up lies, to pretend we do not see, do not want to see, and whatever else it is that women want everyone to do, about everything, for everyone.

  • HieronymusBraintree

    Dear GWW,

    You have no idea how much I appreciate all you’ve done. You are a hero to me. As far as I’m concerned you are the Queen of the Guys.

    And yet, as is my decidedly impolitic want, I must once again point out that Georgetown Law, though run under the auspices of the Catholic Church, is considered by law to be a secular institution and therefore denied considerations accorded to religious ones.

    People are not accepted or employed at Georgetown on the basis of religion. In addition to Catholics there are Jews, Protestants, even atheists (woo hoo!). This is because Georgetown Law performs an educational function, not a religious one and is, therefore, part of the public square. And the students pay for their health insurance through their tuition. They, therefore, should expect the same insurance coverage mandated by law as anybody else and the church has no right right to deny it to them.

    Here’s a nice analysis courtesy of the AMA.

    Also, everyone, including insurance companies, saves tons of money on support costs for the mountains of literally unwanted (and possibly colicky) bastards that would be showing up. And, if you’ll forgive the cheap joke, though not a fan of eugenics, if we’re going to prevent undesirables from reproducing, isn’t law school the perfect place to start?

    Everything else you said and wrote above I regard as beyond peachy. And True Pooka is exactly the sort of righteous, self-important, pig-headed asshole who makes me feel sick to be a liberal. Believe it or not, folks, when I criticized him for using way too much snark and that he’d lost me after the first four minutes, he actually had the apparent lack of medication to insist that he hadn’t used any snark at all during that time and quite insultingly told me that my claim was a figment of my imagination. When I was impolite enough to actually quote him, he responded by banning me from his vlog. How’s that for being a great freethinking whiz? Obviously, Voltaire was just another troglodyte who just didn’t get it and that when he said, “I may not agree with what you had to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” was merely asserting his male privilege.

  • HieronymusBraintree

    PS: Regarding the right to vote, as GWW has pointed out elsewhere, there is little evidence that women even wanted the vote until the early part of the last century and got it almost as soon as their opinion shifted.

    Feminists, BTW, should be forced to explain how, if there really is an evil patriarchy ever itching to keep women down, they ever got the vote in the first place. We needed a war to end slavery but all it took was a popular constitutional amendment to bestow them suffrage.

    • Sasha

      Couldn’t agree more. The state didn’t do a lot before the C19th. so there wasn’t a whole lot to vote for before then anyway.

      As for Mr TruePooka – I couldn’t get through more than a few minutes of his insistent nasally voice I’m afraid. Can you imagine being stuck with him at a party or something?

  • Sheldonshells

    Awesomely cool and clean sweep analysis Karen, as usual.