Hands in chains

Why do some women “get it” quicker than men?

I had an interesting conversation recently with John Narayan of Melbourne, Australia, and he had a question that I think warrants further discussion.

He asked, “Why do the women in the movement seem to just get it so much easier than the men?”

I had a few answers for him at the time, but I’ve found myself dwelling on the issue for a few days now, and the one overwhelming conclusion I’ve come to is that it’s indicative of a much deeper problem—one that emphasizes the need for the men’s human rights movement in the first place.

Is it even true?

At first, I wasn’t honestly sure. Maybe yes, maybe no. It was hard to guarantee one way or the other, though with the Honey Badgers, me, and several other rapidly rising females within the movement, the question did seem to hold some significant merit.

I couldn’t guarantee 100% as a falsifiable statement that it was guaranteed to be true or false, but I could state that, from checking with the personal experience of quite a few different major names in the MHRM over Skype, that the consensus seems to be that the women who do get involved distinctly do appear to catch onto the full scope of the problems men face and the importance for activism in regards to such much quicker than the average man in the movement.

I’m sure there are those out there who would love to claim this is further “proof” that women are smarter than men, but I’m a skeptic and under even cursory examination, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Rather, there’s quite a few reasons to be addressed, and likely even more than I’ve discovered myself so far. By the end of this article you’ll have your answer, but first we need to work our way through to that point.

So, for now, let’s break this into three main sections: a) The Cons Men Have; b) The Pros Women Have; c) The Conclusion Reached.

The Cons Men Have

Due to the very nature of what it is we’re fighting, men actually are at a bit of a significant disadvantage when it comes to realizing where they’ve been harmed, much less realizing, let alone accepting, the full scope of just how bad things have become.

First and foremost, men have been practically taught from birth at this point not to question the “fact” that they have supreme privilege over absolutely everything and then some. This set of blinders is instilled in a variety of ways which makes it remarkably effective.

In particular, one may note that the whole concept of “male privilege” flat out means that men are somehow “superiour” to women, that they have more power, more strength, etc. etc.

It’s an ego stroke, and a big one at that, yet phrased as a backhanded compliment. Even so, the fact remains that people in general like to think of themselves as powerful in some way or another typically. As a quick example, from Sparta to Nazi Germany, women were taught that they were powerful as they birthed the most powerful men in existence. This method of “Oooh you’re so biiig and strooong” has been played out throughout history time and again to lure people into going along with a raw deal, such as having your children removed from you at an early age. Play up to the ego, and people will make all sorts of concessions to their rights.

Truly, if you look at it, a lot of guys actually like the idea of being supposedly all powerful. After all, power means you have control over your life, and when you’re treated as little more than a mule, that supposed control is often the only thing keeping people from rebelling.

Once you wipe away the yellow paint and discover it’s lead instead of gold, however, that’s when suicide starts to kick in from the sudden realization of helplessness and total lack of hope.

In fact, society itself has been structured in such a way that men are continually reinforced, both via positive and negative reinforcement, to accept their role.

Terms like “Man up” showcase this quite well, but so do many other things, such as berating men who cry, or avoiding men who require help. A man should help himself and others, never should he be on the receiving end.

With such a pervasive mindset which is reinforced from all sides, it’s actually quite shameful for men to even so much as question what society is doing to them.

With post-modernist discourse gradually taking over our culture, especially in the areas where one is normally supposed to encourage asking questions such as universities, rather than questioning the status-quo, men are now being told quite frequently to shut the fuck up, or to check their privilege, or otherwise do damned near anything but speak up.

As stated, universities are supposed to be the place where we challenge assertions of reality, and break down the narrative to place it against scientific rigor – however, as of the last few decades, especially in the “social sciences”, which are hardly science at all, it’s changed so that the whole point now is that if it “feels” right, it must be right, no matter how many piles of evidence you have to the contrary..

And, after all, men being more advantaged than women “feels” right on so many levels, so is it really surprising that it can be difficult for a man to even consider the areas where he might not be?

Additionally, for every thing that hurts a man, there’s always a justification that it’s okay – it’s helping society or women or someone else, so it’s fine if they get hurt. It’s manly to get hurt, after all, when it’s in defense of someone else!

With this in mind, even if a man is grievously wounded emotionally, it often just doesn’t register as a “bad” thing.

A woman raped by a man? HORRIBLE! How could he be such a monster!?

A man raped by a woman? Well, she must have needed it pretty badly, so it’s a noble sacrifice to be made to make her happy.

Women have been taught that they’re in need of protection, that they’re delicate flowers and need to be cared for, while men have been told they’re garbage whose only value occurs when they’re being harmed to help someone other than themselves.

In short, men have a laundry list of programming and propaganda to break through which specifically targets them as individuals and as a group.

In addition to that, however, is the origins of where the men of the movement come from. Most men aren’t interested in men’s rights, largely for the reasons above. So where do the men that we do get come from? Well, largely they come after that “red-pill moment”, when something so vehemently terrible occurs to them that the facade of power crumbles away and they see the rotten husk of subservience beneath.

Going through divorce court, family court, being raped by a woman, things like these major events are required to deal enough trauma to shake free the belief it’s “all men’s fault”.

As such, the vast bulk of the men of the MHRM are actually just average guys who have been horribly wounded and come seeking answers. They aren’t always the best, nor the brightest among men; they’re average joes on the street who got nailed hard. They’re still mostly indoctrinated, and still have to fight through a large chunk of that programming and propaganda a bit at a time.

Largely, these individuals are only aware of the depth of problems on a highly cursory level – they’ve glimpsed it, but don’t really understand just how rotten things are.

Even many of the major male leaders of the MHRM have taken years to dig through the bullshit before they could truly grasp the severity of the situation.

There are some truly brilliant minds out there who have caught on quick without issue at all, but you’ll also find they’re the minority, as is to be expected.

The Pros Women Have

So men have some disadvantages, got it. The real question is, however, do women have some advantages in this particular arena? We sure do. Let’s take a quick look at a few of them, shall we?

First off, while women have been undergoing a heavy dose of indoctrination of dogma and propaganda themselves, a large portion of this is limited to “you’re a victim!” and “men are bad, mm’kay?”.

Given that the vast majority of the women in the MHRM aren’t interested in being victims, all that really takes is the slightest hint of compassion for fellow carbon based meat units – I mean, uh, humans – to discount most of the rest of the female programming.

With this in mind, it’s relatively simple of a task for intelligent women to break down the programming thrown at them compared to the far more intensive programming the men have been force-fed.

After all, we covered that most people want to be powerful, and as such, for men being told they’re strong it’s a lot harder to admit that they’re weak, than it is for women being told they’re weak to admit that they’re strong.

The next major thing that crops up is when we look at how women are taught better communication skills in general.

Often women are taught from a young age to pick apart arguments and go looking for the tiniest of cracks in anything that’s being discussed. This is normally done with a bit of a malicious intent, but it can be easily turned towards potent debating skills.

Another major bonus women in the movement have is that they’ve been largely taught their whole lives to be on the lookout for pain and suffering, while men have been taught to ignore it. When a man is hurt, he’s systematically taught to shrug it off and ignore it, while the woman is taught to try to remove herself from the situation or to remove whatever it is that’s harming her.

To that end, it shouldn’t be surprising to us when a woman is more likely to actively try to seek out exactly what a problem is, rather than ignoring it. After all, this is what we see with our health, is it not? A woman feels sick, and she’ll probably go see a doctor. If a man feels sick, he’ll probably try to wait for it to go away rather than get it checked.

This callous attitude towards personal injury often means that wives the world over have frequently had to be the voice of reason to tell their husbands to go see a doctor in the past, and it’s largely the same reason the women in the MHRM are needed to tell the men that the horrible things society has been doing to them should probably be looked into rather than ignored.

Really, though, the biggest advantage the average woman in the MHRM has over the average man in seeing the problems men face, is that the average woman in the MHRM isn’t the average woman.

Seriously, think about it – the average male MRA is such largely because they’re just a normal guy who’s been wounded.

The average female MRA isn’t your average gal, though – she’s vastly more likely to be a powerful critical thinker and someone who rejects feminism already. She likely came to the MHRM without needing to be prodded by a red-pill moment, but rather probably figured it out on her own.

In large part, we’re essentially comparing the cream of the crop of women to the average man, to which one should really not be all that surprised when that comparison winds up being lopsided.

When we compare someone like Karen Straughan to James Huff, for instance, suddenly there really isn’t that large of a gap any longer. They’re both brilliant minds, and excellent at what they do. I don’t personally agree with either one 100% of the time, by any means, yet there’s no argument at all that they’re wonderful critical thinkers.

The average male MRA is… well, the average male.

The average female MRA is anything but the average female.

And hence, we find the key behind the odd dichotomy.

The Conclusion Reached

With all of this in mind, there are a few things we can surmise.

The first on that list is simply that the MHRM attracts both critical thinkers and the average man, yet typically only seems to attract the critical thinkers when it comes to women.

The second thing we discover is that the men, in general, have a systematic set of factors which actively deter them from actually even considering if there’s something harmful being used against them, and even if there is, they’re furthermore conditioned to ignore it even if they know that to be the case.

The fact that so many men are joining the MHRM when they’re specifically being trained from birth to ignore their problems should be a major indication that something is really, seriously fucking wrong.

Women are taught to complain the moment they’re uncomfortable, hence why “micro-aggressions” are even a thing at all.

Men, on the other hand, are taught to endure, and by the time a man speaks up, it’s generally because it’s already at a life-or-death level of importance.

As such, we should be horrified that men are starting to speak up in such large numbers… if a man speaks up at all, it’s usually a sign of serious, major problems because they simply don’t tend to do so unless they’ve already exhausted all other options available to them to tackle the problem on their own.

The third conclusion to be reached is that the MHRM desperately needs women within its ranks. It’s not that women are better than men, or that they fill a minority quota, but because men have been so heavily conditioned to ignore being harmed that, even when it’s staring them right in the face, they still tend to ignore it.

Women have the advantage of being outsiders, especially when they’re the critical thinkers that the movement tends to attract.

This means that the women in the MHRM are often better suited to seeing the elephant in the room that the men have been taught to glaze over and often can’t even see when it’s right there.

With all this in mind, I think I can actually answer John’s question, now.

Yes, the women in the movement do seem to “get it” quicker than the men do, on average, and the fact that this is the case is in fact evidence of just how disenfranchised the men actually are.

The fact that men are even starting to recognize the yoke tied around their collective neck at all is an indication that they’ve been beaten in the face so often that the blinders have been knocked out of place.

The harder society tries to force men into subservience, and the more blows to the head they take, the better a view they’re going to get of their chains.

We’re a pair of oxen, really, side by side – each one chained and wearing blinders, only able to see the chains upon the other.

Which is exactly why we keep being told not to look at each other. It’s all hate speech. It’s all anger and pointless bickering, or patriarchy, or whatever. The absolute last thing that anyone wants us to do is to look at each other and actually open a dialogue where one of us might inadvertently slip up and say “Do you find those chains you’re wearing heavy?”

After all, if we turn our heads and state “But you’re the one wearing the chains…” we might both have it click, and suddenly realize that we’ve both been bound this whole time.

And if that ever happens on a large scale, all hell is going to break loose.

With the first International Men’s Conference on Men’s Issues completed, that day is nearer than it has ever been. The day when we actually talk with one another and truly understand how screwed over we’ve both been. The day when we set aside our differences and help one another. The day when we finally make a better tomorrow for everyone, for men and women combined.

And I look forwards to it.

Tomorrow is closer than you think.

About Catreece Macleod

I'm a writer, a video game writer, an animator, transgendered, Lithuanian, female, bisexual, and, interestingly enough, legally blind without my glasses. And none of that matters. What matters is I'm passionate about men's and others' human rights.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Fatherless

    If you build a fence he’ll want to see what’s on the other side. If you carry a gun, he’ll know you’re a guard. But if you tell him he’s the master, the slave will stay on the plantation willingly.

  • Fatherless

    Which women seem to have the easiest time absorbing the MHRM message?

    -Women who know men who have been screwed over
    -Women who have been abused by other women and aren’t shy about saying that both men and women are capable of evil
    -Women who have heard the vilest locker room talk amongst women when men aren’t around
    -Ex-feminists who are tired of being portrayed as victim objects
    -Women with a passion for dispassionate examination of statistics and figures
    -People who have lived on both sides of the gender fence and can see things from both sides

    • Daniel

      isn’t this all a bit gynocentric?

      • http://caprizchka.wordpress.com Caprizchka

        Isn’t everything?

        • Daniel

          yes … but … but… yes miss : (

      • Fatherless

        My post being gynocentric? Well, depends on what you mean by the term.

        If it means “trying to looking at things from female points of view,” yes, it is. Guilty as charged, and happy to be a gynocentrist half the time when considering gender issues.

        If it means “centered around privileging female safety and well-being over male safety and well-being,” no, that is not the intention, since noticing which types of women are most easily drawn to the MHRM is meant to grow our movement, which is decidedly not gynocentric.

        • Daniel

          well I was more talking about the article, gynocentric in being gyno- obsessed, gyno- focussed (overly focussed)… and your second definition.

          AVFM not being gynocentric is why I am surprised to see this article here. male stereotyping, “men are” “men react like this” “this is how it is for men”…. and all based on female men’s rights activists having an easier time “getting it”.Getting what it is to be a man in a misandric world, get how many areas this fuck over-y exists, pretty much is something men, not all men can only get fully, and at lower more basic levels of understanding as well, but where there would be more of a mix. But nothing to merit saying women get it easier.

          In a men’s rights group, where men have been through indiscernible mental torment, and a world that is in a very real way, in certain situations, pretty much out to get you… on female orders! to come in and say this shows someone who does not get it at all!

          Then I have to ask, why was there any need to publish this? It’s based on a flawed premiss, if it was not flawed it would still be pretty pointless.. especially with the male judgement and behaviour defining.

          It’s tone is extremely saccharin and patronizing. The poetic Ox ramble at the end really send it further beyond the pale!

          Do we usually cheer the “men can’t so this because they are X” etc? “men are x,y, 7, “

          • Fatherless

            In terms of generalizing men, can we agree that these statements sum up the bulk of Catreese’s generalizations of men:

            “…men have been so heavily conditioned to ignore being harmed that, even
            when it’s staring them right in the face, they still tend to ignore it.”

            “Men have been practically taught from birth at this point not to question
            the “fact” that they have supreme privilege over absolutely everything
            and then some.”

            “Men being more advantaged than women “feels” right on so many levels,
            so is it really surprising that it can be difficult for a man to even
            consider the areas where he might not be?”

            “Men have a laundry list of programming and propaganda to break through
            which specifically targets them as individuals and as a group.”

            To me these statements are reworkings of Warren Farrell’s “Men’s greatest weakness is their facade of strength.” I think this is a fundamental idea in the MHRM, and if it’s OK for practically every MHRA to say it, it’s OK for Catreece to say it.

            If you’re upset by the Ox analogy, does Alison Tieman’s “The Princess and the Plow Horse” bother you?

            Other than that, the rest of the article is rather muddled. If women had an easier to time understanding these issues there would be more female MRA’s than male MRA’s.

            I tend to agree with Judgy Bitch that women generally don’t have any magical powers, other than convincing humanity that leaving the seat up is a mortal sin. To that, I think that this statement is false:

            “…the MHRM… only seems to attract the critical thinkers when it comes to women.”

            Unfortunately, it’s hard to figure out exactly what she is saying. I think RV above has the best idea what Catreese is getting at:

            “The puppet has a hard time facing the harsh reality; the puppet master already knows what’s going on.”

            I give Catreese the benefit of the doubt because I know her a little bit, but I’m not expecting you to give Catreese the benefit of the doubt, because you don’t.

            That being said, it’s hard to pin down what this article is really about about. The premise is flawed, but if it were true, then the reasons Catreese gave are things we read every day here at AVfM. I take it as some musings on a statement someone else made:

            “I’ve found myself dwelling on the issue for a few days now, and the one,
            overwhelming conclusion I’ve come to is that it’s indicative of a much
            deeper problem – one which emphasizes the need for the Men’s Human
            Rights Movement in the first place.”

            So even though the premise is flawed, Catreese is using John Narayan’s statement is a springboard to speculate on how gender issues are perceived and why they are difficult to discuss. But the idea that the few women who do “get it” understand these issues better than many men. It’s hard to buy that. But maybe, just maybe, there are some women who can apply these ideas to wider society faster than some men, since they are privy to more female locker room talk. Erin Pizzey and Diana Davidson come to mind in that regard, but for me its not enough to draw a broad conclusion.

          • Daniel

            Sorry, that is rubbish and you comment about the princess and the plough is moronic and defensive.

          • Fatherless

            An unclear article? Yes. A faulty premise, very likely. An outrageously sexist article, only if you consider Warren Farrell similarly misandrist.

            “I can tell you know this is a sickening article…”

            Well then, oh mind reader, I’m thinking of a number between 1 and dude go outside and enjoy the weather.

          • Daniel

            no, I don’t consider Warren Farrell like this… when did he say women were more able to get the men’s rights movement… concept, than men because “men are” “men do” ” men react like this” …. “men are not to blame women see this easier than them”…. Unclear as it starts from a shaky, false premiss and continues that way.

            I can tell you have issues with the article by the language you used in your response… politely saying what in fact deserves a harsh response. The premiss being wrong is a big deal, for example.

          • Catreece

            I would like to step in and make ooooone tiny comment here:

            “But the idea that the few women who do “get it” understand these issues better than many men. It’s hard to buy that.”

            I’m not saying that they understand the issues better than many men, moreso that they learn quicker because they’ve seen this crap before and have seen the techniques used, as well as are in a better position overall.

            The average woman is still stuck in feminist ideology, but since feminist ideology doesn’t tend to overtly harm women (it does harm them, but they can claim patriarchy instead), they rarely question it. The average man gets screwed over so hard by the courts and such that they’re shocked into reality by blunt force trauma while the average woman simply doesn’t tend to have that issue very often (unless her own son or husband is hit with it).

            Anyway, my point was convoluted since there was so much to cover, but the short version is: The average man and average woman both suck at seeing what’s there, and the average man only sees anything because it hits him in the face. The average MRA is your average man, your average female MRA is not the average woman because the average woman isn’t directly harmed most of the time so retains the feminist dogma. As such, there’s a higher % concentration of smart female MRAs than there are smart male MRAs, not because there are more smart women, but because it’s less likely for the average “normal” woman to notice anything at all is wrong than the average “normal” man.

            Are there lots of average women in the movement as well? Of course there are. The second wife of a divorced man quickly learns how bullshit things are when his income goes to his first wife who actually has a husband already, rather than to his current family and children. There’s just less of those individuals than there are men who were actively harmed as less men will be in a position to remarry than there will be women who are affected.

            To Daniel’s post below this one, I agree, actually. It is naval gazing to a degree. To be perfectly blunt, that was the original question that was asked – why do the women in the movement “seem” to get it more than the men? My knee jerk reaction was to just say at first that “it just seems that way but isn’t true”. However, having spoken with many of the top people in the MHRM, such as JTO, half the honeybadgers, agent orange and so on down the line, I stopped to think critically of it and realized… maybe there was something to it after all.

            The point is… it’s not saying men are dumb by any means – it’s stating flat out that men are disadvantaged in the area of seeing their own selves harmed. Many men are fully capable of breaking through that conditioning – if this weren’t the case AVFM wouldn’t exist. However… when you look at it, there’s a significantly smaller female population than male population in the MHRM, yet within that small population, there’s an abnormally high representation of very well spoken female MRAs. So something doesn’t add up there. Closer examination simply shows that the average woman doesn’t care about the average man, and the average man only cares about the average man when he himself has been harmed first to break out of that “man up” mindset. Therefore you’re left with a movement comprised primarily of: the average man, the smart man, the smart woman, and very little in the way of the average woman.

            Now… how is this article sexist? It says quite clearly, repeatedly at that, that the men aren’t dumber than women, that women aren’t smarter than men, and that the issue is primarily which audiences are attracted to the movement and the issues they face getting there. I would appreciate clarification as to how saying “men and women are equal under equal circumstances but their circumstances aren’t equal hence why we see this odd lopsided situation” is sexist, because I honestly don’t follow Daniel’s reasoning on this one.

            Anyway, so much for this being a small point to be made. =P

          • Fatherless

            Thanks for the clarification and elaboration. :)

          • http://caprizchka.wordpress.com Caprizchka

            I just realized I inadvertently put myself in the trans column misunderstanding the statement, “-People who have lived on both sides of the gender fence and can see things from both sides”. I flirted with changing my gender to male but decided against it. No. It wasn’t because I didn’t want to give up my “female privilege” but rather I wasn’t terribly good at exploiting it. What I was good at however was working in a traditionally male-dominated field, socializing in male-dominated environments, and power lifting. I’ve only recently learned to love being a woman but that’s because I finally met the right man for me. I wonder sometimes about what life would have been like if I had gone FtM. Meanwhile, although I am oft-confused for being a transwoman, this all is “original equipment”.

    • Seele

      Fatherless said:

      “-People who have lived on both sides of the gender fence and can see things from both sides”

      Well, it’s not always like that; for what it’s worth I helped out at a TS support site for several years, so I am not totally foreign to transsexualism. What I can say is this: among the most militant feminists are some TS women; I believe they want to be as female as possible, so they try to adopt what they consider as female traits, even the most negative ones they encountered prior to transition. It goes without saying that it depends on the individual, how she defines what makes a person female, and how she fits into that.

      • Elle Bee

        There is a lot of truth in what you wrote. I’m sorry to say that a significant number of transwomen believe that if they buy 100% into feminism it’ll make them more accepted as women by other women. We have an extremely strong need to be accepted as female by genetic women that many of us will suck-up shamelessly to the most light-headed,cold-blooded radical feminists just for a teaspoon of grudging toleration.

        • Seele

          As long as they see “what makes women female” through male eyes, they won’t get to their destinations. They might think they get acceptance from women by being feminists but they certainly do not know what Brennan has planned for them. Likewise they might think they get acceptance from men by being the women they would have wanted prior to transition, but those men they attract would not be the good ones.

        • Stu

          Feminists worship femaleness, and regardless of what they say, they hate, or have a great deal of animosity towards maleness. Everything male, is considered “less then” the female. No feminist woman can ever consider you, her equal. Because she will always be more female then you….always…..no matter how many hormones you take and how many operations you have. Even if you were in a room full of feminist women and someone said…..there is a trans women in the room…..who do you think it is…..and you were last on the list to be pointed at. Even if you were so gorgeous that every lesbian or bisexual feminist wanted to dine at your Y, and could do so, without even knowing you were a trans woman……..even if you could sleep with 1000 men and fool every one of them……..it doesn’t matter……you will never be as female as a genetic woman in the eyes of a feminist. And since they worship femaleness, and harbor ill will and thoughts about men and maleness, you will be second class to them……forever.

          Now, most men will probably not consider you 100% female either, including MRAs. But it doesn’t matter, because we don’t think that the Y chromosome you retain is the source of evil, and we don’t think maleness, genetic, or appearance, or behavior, is a bad thing.

          You’ve probably already worked out that you’ll be more at home here anyway.

          • Daniel

            they don’t worship femaleness, if they did… they would not be so envious of men and so disgusted by house wives.

      • Steven Bennett

        So, you can’t snip bigot off. The “content of their character” remains. Pity.

      • Catreece

        This is sadly true. There are a lot of trans-women who are told they’re “not female enough” and held to a ridiculous and unrealistic standard of what it is to be “female” that they wind up going into over the top stereotypical territory. As such, many trans-women see exactly what feminism tells them – that women are held to absurd standards… except they miss the part that it’s largely feminists who are holding them to those standards, not men. About the only standard most men have at all is “must have vagina”, which can be disheartening, but when you stop to think of it, it’s kind of amusing. Men have generally one criteria for women “vagina”, and women have a laundry list of crap they roll out to say “you’re not like me”.

        The odd part is… the trans-men. They often start out as hardcore die-hard feminists, then go… “So… wait, where’s all this privilege I was supposed to get?” and suddenly their beliefs are often shattered because of such. On top of that, they find that men generally accept trans-men as… well… men. Guys oddly don’t even care if you have a dick most of the time, so long as you fit in as “one of the guys”. Even tomboys who are still deemed female are able to be “honourary men” easily enough. As such, the standards for being a man are… oddly very low so most trans-men don’t really see a great deal of fighting over that.

        These are, of course, averages only – there are always going to be a wide range of exceptions.

        • Seele


          That’s what we call the “TTT Syndrome”: “Trannier Than Thou”. The post-op thinks she is more female than the pre-op, one post would think she is better than another post because she had the op when she was younger, and if they had it at the same age she would say she’s more of a woman as she paid more for hers… there is no end to it. Often they impose this moving target on themselves, a fair few I knew kept thinking “I just need one more thing to be a real woman” but when they realize they cannot bear children they went nuts. Lost a few like that. Here, I do not think feminism is a significant factor.

          I totally agree with your observations on TS men, and feminism stands to have more of an impact on them.

          Like you said we are talking in general terms, looking at the general trends.

          • Stu

            I’ve known a fair few trans women. My brother lived with one many years ago, and birds of a feather do seem to flock together. It always seemed to me that the holy grail of a trans woman is to be undetectable. For the few trans men I’ve met, it almost seems like……”Hi, I’m Bob, I used to be a woman” I get that impression from the one’s I have seen on TV shows like Who’s got Talent and things like that Where they introduce a male singer, and point out that he used to be a woman.

            It sort of seems like trans men try to hang on to bit of their female privilege

        • http://caprizchka.wordpress.com Caprizchka

          You’re not female enough. LOL. Neither am I even though I have all my original equipment save a couple inches of fallopian tube that have gone missing quite on purpose. Western women insist on conformity however and I’m a traitor for not playing the game. Besides, I think that Camile Paglia is correct that women are “oppressed” more by biology than patriarchy. Since your brain has never had to compete with a uterus for its blood supply I would say that you have an unfair advantage for a “female” however.

    • Elle Bee

      “-People who have lived on both sides of the gender fence and can see things from both sides”

      That is very true. I’m much more sympathetic towards men than many,perhaps the great majority of genetic women. If men have bought into the idea that they are ‘privileged’,a great many women also genuinely believe that men and straight white men in particular are very privileged. This belief is rarely or ever questioned by women; men are privileged,women are victims is that much repeated mantra amongst women. In the recent past I’ve been crass enough to bring up and question this societal belief when talking with genetic women. The reaction has always been negative and I’ve been told by women:’Are you a man or a woman? Pick a side and stick with!’

      I’ve noticed that women are quick to threaten to remove my ‘woman card’ if I show any sign of being sympathetic towards boys and men. In sharp contrast when I talk about womens’ issues with men, they(men) listen to me respectfully and often agree that women do have some legitimate grievances.

      • Daniel

        “-People who have lived on both sides of the gender fence and can see things from both sides”” I would doubt that, not to be mean in any way, their experience would be varied by person to much to be able to call it like that.

        I don’t know if trans people get the best of both worlds, or an un prejudiced view, of each genders core views… experiences would be entered into with a different view. A unique view, so more like a third “gender”. In the societal sense of “gender”.

        One could indeed be more sympathetic, as Elle says, and indeed shows some of the common issues we see in daily life as men.

        Elle, would you say your experience/journey could be classed as, one part one gender, one part another… with a good clear look at each as a cis gendered person would have? or would pre have been a big journey and difficult time? followed by a lot of very emotional times from acceptance to transition and on?

        • Catreece

          It’s less of “trans people get the best of both worlds” and moreso “trans people get the worst of both worlds”.

          Regardless, I would suggest that all people can look at the other side of the fence and see what’s there, but the fence is still present. It’s still sort of an alien world, so you can’t truly see it 100%; it’s kinda blurry, but you can at least see it. Being trans doesn’t really guarantee you can understand it, it just lets you see it a bit closer, maybe giving a pair of glasses so it’s less blurry, but there’s a difference between being there directly and just seeing it clearly from a distance.

          • Daniel

            so then, a trans person would not be well placed to see both sides at all. Right?Being trans would not only not guarantee understanding, it would more likely preclude it.

            Also, being trans actually means you are not likely to have a clear view of either side. That of a cis women or cis man, would be quite alien to a trans person. The distance a trans person has from “gender” would be far less than that of a straight man or women. It must be ever present in a very emotional way pre op, and still there post.

            For non trans people who think a trans person is both male and female for parts of their lives, we can make allowances, even though it is pretty stupid.

            add bisexuality into it… and you are getting even further from the male and female experience. this experience, of the trans bi person is too far removed, to unique to have any extra value in understanding of men and women’s lives… amoung the worst placed I would say.

        • Elle Bee

          I went through primary school, secondary school and even university as male. So I’ve had a very up-close and in depth look at maleness. I’m sympathetic to boys/men because I’ve seen them express sides of themselves that genetic females never see. As a consequence of this I can’t see men as two-dimensional worker-drones. Nor do I have deep-seated resentments towards boys/men that many women seem to.
          Being seen and treated as male for the first 20 years of my life has made an indelible impression upon me. I feel so sorry for women who can’t see men as much more than resource objects. I’ve been shocked at the intensity of the hate that some women seem to have for men. While boys/men can be dismissive towards women on occasion. I’ve never witnessed the shaking with rage outbursts amongst men that I’ve seen with women.

          • Daniel

            well that is good that you see that. but the point still stands, there is more reason to think it less likely for a trans person to see both side than for trans people to be able to see it clearer.

            Does a women have more of an insight into a mtf ts’ life and experience than a mtf ts person?

            Does a white person have a better insight into the black experience in s africa? if they did, maybe did, would you openly speculate that and say why you think it is so, at an ANC meeting… and not expect some blow back? this author seems not to expect the blow back… so has little insight. Also a TS.

          • Cordovan Splotch

            I’ve run into a few ftm trans people who were pretty shocked at how they get treated differently once they pass well enough that people assume that they are male.
            I don’t think any of them joined the men’s rights movement, but they seemed sympathetic to our cause.
            Others… not so much.

    • Susie Parker

      #1 – Women who know men who have been screwed over.

      That was the major solidifying factor(of almost all of these) that brought me here, but I have to ask – what woman DOESN’T know a man who has been screwed over?

      It’s quicker and easier for me to count the number of men in my life that HAVEN’T been screwed over in some way by feminism…ZERO. Zip, zero, Nada. Most of those men stoically accept it as a normal part of life and don’t even count themselves among the walking wounded.

      I’m quickly losing lifelong friends and even sisters taking up the MHRM cause, even though they know very well how horrifically my son was screwed over – and screwed over in a blatantly feminist way. They feel extremely bad for him, BUT….there’s always that “but”…it never seems to translate toward other men. Even most of their own sons have been screwed over righteously in large or small ways, yet they only see their own bad experiences as endemic of ALL men. Boys are bad, girls are good. Except MY son, of course.

      #2-Women who have been abused by other women and aren’t shy about saying that both men and women are capable of evil.

      True. I’ve always felt more safe and comfortable with men in all matters of close trust in my life. I’ve had men kick me when I’m down, but never once continued to do so once they realized I actually really was “down”. Good sportsmanship, decency and fair play are basically male virtues. Doesn’t mean every man plays by those rules, but most do, or most enforce others to do so. Can’t say that for women. You never hear women hold other women in high esteem for their decency, fair play and self sacrifice.

      #3-Women who have heard the vilest locker room talk amongst women when men aren’t around.

      Even as a little kid I heard older girls talk of false rape accusations and making false pregnancy claims to entrap a guy. My mother told me they were “bad girls” and to stay away from them. My experience predates current feminism – picture the tough chicks in movies like Grease. Far from being “Happy Days” those were in reality some pretty ugly times in male/female relationships. Feminism has simply turned loose those ugly, selfish, destructive impulses and normalized them.

      #4 -Ex-feminists who are tired of being portrayed as victim objects.

      I’ll believe it when I see it. Most will still turn to that as a silver bullet default if it’s liable to work.

      #5-Women with a passion for dispassionate examination of statistics and figures.

      In other words, a passion for impartial truth.

      #6-People who have lived on both sides of the gender fence and can see things from both sides.

      I’m surprised how many bi sexual women support the MHRA movement. Many, many more are virulently anti male, but the strongest female contingent I would have to say, are female and bi sexual.

      • Fatherless

        Thanks for the thoughtful reply. On regards to #4, I submit that Kristal Garcia was at one point a feminist and left in part for the reasons I described. If I’m wrong, my apologies to Kristal.

        Also, Janice Fiamengo and Alison Tieman I believe are also ex-feminists, however briefly they were feminists, and my apologies for inaccurate information or misspelling. I think they left for different reasons though.

        • Catreece

          Beat me to it – I was going to mention Kristal Garcia as one of the most obvious examples. There have been a few others, though. If you want a larger list, try checking the “women” tab on AVFM’s main page – there’s about a dozen on there who were ex-feminists and got tired of exactly that, then looked into the male side of thing once they started questioning feminist propaganda, and turned full red-pill pretty quickly.

          Also, Erin Pizzey was technically a feminist… for about 5 minutes in her own words =P

      • http://www.avoiceformen.com John Narayan

        Even as a little kid I heard older girls talk of false rape accusations and making false pregnancy claims to entrap a guy.

        Makes one wonder what their mothers taught them. If feminists accuse women and girls of betraying the sisterhood or labeling women that speak up a gender traitor, traitor on I say.

      • Seele

        Fatherless said:

        “#6-People who have lived on both sides of the gender fence and can see things from both sides.”

        Susie Parker commented:

        “I’m surprised how many bi sexual women support the MHRA movement. Many, many more are virulently anti male, but the strongest female contingent I would have to say, are female and bi sexual.”


        I’m afraid that you have confused gender identity – which Fatherless was referring to – with sexual preference. Gender identity is one’s being male or female; sexual preference is whether one is attracted to those of a different gender, the same gender, or both.

        One can be male and prefers women (straight), men (gay), or both (bi-sexual).

        One can be female and prefers men (straight), women (gay), or both (bi-sexual).

        • Fatherless

          Actually, for what its worth I left that open ended and subject to interpretation, including sexual preference as well as gender identity. I was also thinking more broadly than that: women who had many older brothers growing up, simple tomboyism, women who found a home in the military, women who gravitate to physical work, women raised by single dads, you name it. Anything to have a sense of living a masculine experience or dealing with the feminine from an outside perspective.

        • Susie Parker

          It’s hard typing coherent sentences with three Grandkids bouncing on your lap begging for shark videos, which their Daddy said they couldn’t watch.

          I do know what “bi” means.

          • Seele


            I said it on a “for the record” basis, as I know that a lot of people cannot tell the difference between gender identity and sexual preference. In fact, a significant proportion of TS women said that, the first question their parents asked them after “coming out” is, “are you gay?”

          • Catreece

            The “are you gay?” question is pretty common, especially since things like the Chick Tracts specifically says they’re the same thing, and getting lumped in with the LGB side of things is just confusing.

            Being trans is basically “what gender am I?” and being gay, lesbian, or bisexual, is “what gender am I attracted to?”. Subtle, yet important difference.

          • Seele

            Catreece, that is why I never think of LGBT as a homogenous group; T is quite different from LGB, but it’s something not generally understood.

            By the way, being British/Australian I only recently heard of Chick Tracts, but that’s what we might consider as not worth the ink used in printing them.

          • Magnus

            Oh, but they are so much fun when Bible Reloded does readings of them 😛

    • http://caprizchka.wordpress.com Caprizchka

      Check. Check. Check. Check. Check. Check.

    • WheelGert1

      Women who witnessed a male family member get abused and controlled by a nutter fall under the umbrella as well, I have an uncle who married a controlling hoover with full blown BPD/NPD and witnessed the havoc it causes to the male psyche and the entire family long term and how nobody really tries to help and makes excuses for her actions. Her one son joined the military to escape her (he was a victim in many ways growing up, when we were kids he told me some things she did that were..no mother should do that to her son sort of things), her daughter is a clone of her and if she marries will continue the cycle.

      When I see a male friend in a similar situation I try to warn them but..they go into denial and keep giving chances, I can’t help but think they will end up like my uncle. I have not so much joined the cause but I do know men are abused and so few people see the signs including the men themselves till it is too late.

      It doesn’t matter what gender you are anyone can be abused, and I would bet if all the men in abusive relationships spoke up the numbers for both genders would be very close to equal.

      Anyway, back to news forums I go just wanted to add my views on the matter.

  • Daniel

    It’s not that the women “get it” easier, in fact it is very hard for women in particular to get it, or fully ever get it …. I don’t think it would be easy at all for a woman to do that. I doubt I could role reverse like that anyway, not to such a degree of certainty.

    But it’s not that they get it, it’s that other people “get it” easier from women … that is where this misconception is from.

    Women are not more able to see the elephant in the room, they are just less restricted in talking about it, pointing it out. Men have been silenced and globally told not to talk about these thing to a degree it become part of your normal behaviour. Pointing out the problem/issue does not mean you are the one who sees it, or an angel on it.

    In fact not seeing that is a pretty clear sign of not getting it. It is pretty arrogant for women to take this view of themselves in a men’s rights movement.

    And this..”men have been so heavily conditioned to ignore being harmed that, even when it’s staring them right in the face, they still tend to ignore it.” are you serious with this “men are like this” analysis? Are you aware how patronizing that is? … and from someone claiming women “get it” as again showing they clearly don’t.

    Then that bit about the Ox in chains what the hell!???

    Wow, now that is a really bad article and has no place (in my view) on a men’s rights page.

    Bit of a navel gazing article to be honest

    • garyonthenet

      Again, I think his observation that women in the MRA movement are not average, whereas most men in the MR movement are, and come to there after having been bludgeoned heavily by the system.
      The disconnect might be that you are more referring to the average women, and he is talking about the average women in the MR movement.

      • Daniel

        ye I get that, and tried to consider where I could be making an error. But no.

        It comes close to saying “men don’t talk” … as the groups that try to shut us up call out!

        To be clear, I know it is the women in the MRM, even more specific, “some” of them…. the topic based on this and such uncertainty is not necessary. Why do we do things we don’t need to, but that are flattering to another group? To pander?

        Also, to say women get it easier than men, in that gender context, and by the way the reasons given have a lot of generalizations about men that are very personal and reflecting an inability. How can a woman know a man’s situation, get it easier? and I do of course know an objective unemotional eye can be very useful and understand things from an other perspective, but they will not get it… not quicker than the men they are not!

        Only someone walking around in it from a male perspective, will ever really get it. It’s from childhood to now!

        It’s such a weak topic, contrived, and pandering with “praise” for an ability these women have over men… that they don’t have!

        I will never get what it was like to be a black in south africa, I may come close… I may be able to help… but I will never really get it. If I said it was funny how whites get it easier in the various parties, I would expect to be told where to go! It’s insulting, patronising … and borderline under the radar feminism and certainly gynocentric.

        Also, given the fact that there are some sceptical about women in the MRM, or careful regarding women in the MRM. An article like this is very poorly advized.

        • Robjam

          I have to agree with most of what you’ve said. I found the article patronising and sexist.

    • Susie Parker

      I agree with you. Completely.

      What’s that old saying, about it’s not that a dog can walk on it’s hind legs well, it’s that it can walk on them at all” – (I don’t know, couldn’t locate the exact quote).

      It really hasn’t been put to the test all that much if MHRA women truly “get it” or not. Talking a good game is one thing. Walking the walk, quite a different one altogether.

      I can’t say I woke up with some great epiphany one day and became an MHRA.

      I started out posting on a Crime & Punishment board about my son’s false rape accusation. I was utterly and completely shocked how nasty and threatening people got even though I was writing of blatant injustice – injustice that could affect them or someone they love one day.

      Didn’t matter – “Shut up, go away, you’re making REAL victims feel bad” ruled the day. Even those NOT accusing me of being a rape apologist or pedophile protector would say ” it’s better if a few innocent men get convicted to make sure they get the guilty ones”.

      Moving on, I started posting on a false rape site. Even sympathetic as I was to victims of false rape accusations, I still kept one foot in the sympathy for “real” victims team in my outlook.

      Did I ever get scorched over that. I withdrew completely, deeply hurt and licking my wounds – after all, I WAS totally sympathetic to their cause. My own son’s life had been ruined over it.

      After several months of mulling it over, I came to realize it’s all or nothing. There’s no fence sitting tolerated. It’s too important, too many lives have been damaged and ruined.There simply can’t be any “special” considerations or sympathies toward ANY party, or ANY body – male or female.

      That’s where I stand now. I’m really not so much a “men’s rights” supporter, but a Constitutionalist – which makes me very comfortable supporting MHRA groups.

      I have a daughter. I’d first in line as whistle blower if any group was conspiring to do her any harm. I have sons. I AM whistle blowing, speaking up, denouncing those who feel the need to grind my sons under their heel. This is a daily assault.

      Where are the other mothers? I don’t know. Why they aren’t here, I can’t say.

      But I’m wondering. I’m asking.

  • Seele

    Here’s my speculation.

    Women can “get it” quicker than men, because they have “got it” all along. Remember that Canadian television advertisement where a baby girl got a rape whistle for her baby shower, because one in three Canadian women will be raped? Hysteria in one sense, but it also illustrates the immense power women have over males, much like during the Salem witch hunt, or the most savage campaigns in the PRC: as soon as a child knows that he or she can make an accusation against absolutely anyone, and the accused would be immediately deemed guilty.

    It takes a person of greater integrity to know that one’s greater power is not to be abused, and even to make efforts to limit one’s ability to exercise said power arbitrarily. That is, what I believe, makes a female men’s rights advocate. But for the others, they know their power very well indeed, and would not mind abusing it for their own advantages.

    • Andybob

      “Even little girls know the power they wield.” Mr Seele

      That’s not just the part that women in the MHRM ‘get’, it’s the part they ‘got’ the day they shed their very first tear and saw everybody around them falling over each other to do whatever it took to make them stop.

      Unlike most male MHRAs, female MHRAs have never had any illusions about innate female goodness. Honey Badgers know exactly how spiteful and cruel some women and girls can be, and that even the dimmest among them can be highly skilled manipulators. They knew the truth about females long before they ever heard about the MHRM.

      In contrast, male MHRAs usually had to undergo a series of ordeals before the scales fell from their eyes – scales that were put their by a society that indoctrinated them into believing all that rubbish about sugar and spice and all things nice. I can still be shocked by the cruelty that women can display in family court battles. I never see this same sense of shock coming from Honey Badgers.

      Female MHRAs have always known about the power they and other females wield, whereas this is something I had to learn.

      • WheelGert1

        This is true, the illusion and concept that women are all innately good and given enough chances the proverbial coal will turn into gold is a total fallacy. I have met twisted, hurtful, insane, and manipulative people from all areas of the gender spectrum but the scariest are women who know how to manipulate others and will hurt/use others of either gender solely to get their way and fulfill their desires, needs, and dreams or worse. Some spend years conditioning their targets before striking, others are in positions in education and will target a new person every time a group cycles through and rip them apart on all levels all the while knowing they most likely won’t get caught (I had a teacher like this in high school, one of the most terrifying people I had ever met and she targets both genders).

        Others are so good at acting and playing their part (and your emotions and feelings) that even if your own family told you to go no contact (or that they are toxic to your health) you would not listen, because they have you hooked.

        Women who are like this are not seen as what they are by society (and for the most part men) they blend in and are protected by this ideal concept of all women being innately caring that society can’t seem to shake.
        Females who know what these sorts do and try to help, (MRHA’s) have known how these women work and why they get away with it for years, mostly because at times we have been forced to play their game to protect ourselves from them. We see them for what they are because we know how they work, and we know their motives and what they will do to get what they want. When we see them going after a friend and try to keep him/her(presuming butch gay with the her) from falling into her traps we more often than not are forced to watch what we know will happen play out because our friend or family member is blinded to what is going on.

        We are not shocked with what happens, how the relationship goes, or how it ends, it does hurt us deeply but unless the guy/butch comes to the realization of what is going on nothing we can say will help; we already know how it will end up going and how the cycle will go on. We also know we can’t stop it till the man/other realizes it is going on and escapes on his own.

        Men/others have to learn to see the signs that women see naturally, and even then they can have trouble understanding them and recognizing the warnings before it is too late and often as you said it takes multiple traumas for them to see the signs let alone acknowledge them.

        Ok now I am really going back to news forums, just wanted to well lay down my two cents.

        • Andybob

          “Men/others have to learn to see the signs that women see naturally, and even then they can have trouble understanding them and recognizing the warnings before it is too late and often as you said it takes multiple traumas for them to see the signs let alone acknowledge them.”

          Women do indeed see them naturally, which is why Honey Badgers tend to ‘get it’ so much faster and easier than most MHRAs. This is the main point that Catreece Macleod was trying to make.

          • http://www.avoiceformen.com John Narayan

            Yes, women know women.

      • Nunya Bidness

        I think you hit the nail right on the head.

        Short version – women know women, men have to learn women and smart empathetic women are incredibly effective at tearing through the average feminist’s bullshit.

      • Seele


        I’ll try to condense my point: I think it is fair to say that, generally speaking, women are brought up being told that they are less powerful and that gives them power; men are brought up being told that they are more powerful and that gives them less power.

        In other words, it’s the old adage: men’s greatest weakness is the facade of strength; women’s greatest strength is the facade of weakness.

        Those with power would deny they have the power so as to retain and to exercise said power: hyperagency and hypoagency. And it works much better to make those without power to think they have it. Those in the latter group might need a “road to Damascus” moment (so to speak) to see beyond the facades – that we call the “Red Pill Moment”. But those in the former group knows it all along.

        And by the way, transsexualism is not a great factor in this as it all comes down to the individual.

      • Catreece

        I won’t be discouraged, and may I take a moment to point one thing out:

        “I started writing this comment with the intention of having a go at Catreece Macleod’s assertion about the superior critical faculties of female MHRAs.”

        It’s not ALL female MHRAs by any means. It’s just “on average”. The article was written with the mindset of “men and women are equal under equal circumstances – the circumstances men find themselves in aren’t equal is all.”

        I’m in a skype chat with three of the honeybadgers myself, along with many others in the top ranks of AVFM. What I’ve learned is that the top thinkers are pretty much generically great at what they do. Sure, Karen gets a much bigger spotlight on her, but James Huff is definitely her equal when it comes to a good debate. This was stated quite clearly in the article itself. =P

        As far as I can tell, if you put the average man, and the average woman, in the same circumstances, they’ll perform roughly equivalent to one another in most tasks with some minor variation due to sexual dimorphism. The same goes with comparing those at the top – the greatest female MRAs are quite much so on par with the greatest male MRAs with little distinction.

        A large part of the article was devoted to noting that the comparison was lopsided, though… the greatest female MRAs are sometimes compared with the average male MRAs, which is kind of an unfair comparison to make. That’s like picking a random person on the AVFM forum and comparing them to Paul Elam. The chances are pretty good Paul’s going to come out on top. We can pretty obviously see that the comparison is lopsided in that case, yet the original question, “Why do the women in the movement seem to just get it so much easier than the men?” was also lopsided – the average woman in the movement isn’t comparable to the average man in the movement just because the average female is a feminist, not an MRA. Hence… the comparison was flawed – women aren’t smarter than men by any means, the movement just seems to attract a large amount of “normal” men, and doesn’t attract many “normal” women.

        So, anyway, I agree with you. I also agree that not every one of my points will be perfect by any means; I’ve probably made mistakes, and I’ve probably missed some important ones. If you’d like to point out what you think could be improved or areas I’ve missed, or those that may be wrong, feel free to do so!

        We learn through criticism and debate! I fully endorse these things.

        One thing I have learned from the comments section so far… is that in the future, I’m going to have to be sure to put a cole’s notes version at the bottom spelling out the concept for people who might misunderstand the nature of such otherwise. There’s a number of people who somehow mistranslated “Here’s why women aren’t somehow ‘better’ than men” into “women are better than men”, and I’m still trying to figure out how they could flip it 180 like that. It’s like trying to understand feminist logic and I really don’t get how they came to that conclusion.

        Anyway, criticize away, and that goes for everyone else too! If you have a complaint, bring it forth and I’ll try to address it. I can’t guarantee I’ll see every single post (there’s over 100 already!) but I’ll do my best, and I do have email notifications turned on so if you reply directly I’ll probably be told of such so I can reply!

        I’m fallible. I make mistakes. Criticism helps identify what those are so they can be improved upon in the future. =3

        • Andybob

          It doesn’t happen often, but I stopped to re-read your article half-way through my comment because it dawned on me that I actually agreed with most of what you wrote. My wanting to have a go was an emotional knee-jerk reaction that was unfair to you – and that I was old enough to know better.

          My only main objection is explained in a comment downthread. It’s no big deal, but I’m glad you are open to sharing different perspectives – you’re definitely not a feminist. I look forward to your next article – I really enjoyed your last one. Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

          • Catreece

            Welcome. I’m a writer and an artist – after awhile you either break down and give up entirely, or get used to the idea that harsh criticism is the best kind to learn from. =P

            Like Daniel and guber I have nothing against, and I’m not going to get mad at them for aggressively disagreeing with me… I just find myself unable to understand the reasoning they’re using since it’s essentially backwards from the original intent.

            if they can clearly express a logical explanation for why, though? No problem. I’m perfectly willing to change my mind and my opinions so long as you can provide a rational argument for such. “The mhrm is 100% equal to a random sample of humanity as a whole”, however, is not such an argument, since it’ll attract only people interested in men’s rights, which is the closest I’ve gotten so far from that side of things =P

            Anyway, just to be clear again, I’m not saying ALL women in the movement get it (the article is quite clearly phrased SOME XD ) quicker than men, nor that ALL women in the movement are strong critical thinkers (considering some posts I’ve seen, it’s laughable to even suggest that =P ), but I am stating that if men have a desire to better their position in life, then the majority of women you get will be those who have a desire to better the position of men in their life, or a desire to better all people and have realized feminism wasn’t the way to do that. The latter group will be predominantly strong critical thinkers, so they comprise an abnormally large percentage of the female population, while the former group often doesn’t care enough about the men in their lives to bother so comprise an abnormally small percentage of the female population is all. Plus some other factors that hold men back. =3

          • Daniel

            it is not just myself and gruber who think you wrote a terrible article, Bombay, a supporter of yours, says that he/she agree with my critisizms, and a good few others. But you seem unable to see those people are also critical of your work in the same areas I have pointed out.

            I have also explained my critisizms fully and clearly, but you can’t see that either. You even, in another comment, say that how the article read, is received, by the reader is not important…. you mix the reader up with reality and have the utter neck to say I just can’t handle it being true… but the fact is, it cannot be said to be true, don’t you even say that yourself?

            Easy one, the tone is patronizing. Do you accept that?

            Men, whether you agree or not, or see it as a flaw in men, are sick of being told…you are like this, so you don’t get this as easy because you react in a certain way because of society, there is truth there of course…. but to talk about getting it, when you don’t see how that shit and way of trying to put men down with a saccharin “it’s not your fault” smile, men are sick of it. The fact you don’t know that, and the extent you do it show a serious gap in your “getting it”. Which makes you evaluating who get’s it easier and why farsicle.

            It’s gynocentric. But I don’t think I need to really explain that as you know what it means (I hope).

            The poem, well, it is really too much and very much has a “we all, men and women suffer… we are two sides to one coin” feel to it. Well it very much says that.We all have chains on but only see our own. Hackneyed rubbish that misrepresents the issues. If that were the case, we in the MRM would be very wrong in our approach. If we are we should address that by the way.

            This is really weak and again, straw man “Anyway, just to be clear again, I’m not saying ALL women in the movement get it (the article is quite clearly phrased SOME XD ) quicker than men” you don’t have to clarify that, no one is saying you did say that ALL women were.. etc.

            Are you aware of when you dodge a critisizm, by addressing a red herring, answering a critisizm not made?

            “but I am stating that if men have a desire to better their position in life, then the majority of women you get will be those who have a desire to better the position of men in their life, or a desire to better all people and have realized feminism wasn’t the way to do that”

            Again, no, this is not what you are saying. You are talking about women in the MRM getting it easier than men in the MRM. That is not even being contested, till now… AND by the author! You are now misrepresenting the point in your article.

            Do you take any of the critisizm as valid? if so which ones. If you have mentioned this elsewhere, sorry, but I haven’t seen it. Just “no ones perfect” and I am not saying all women are smarter than ALL men joke

        • Daniel

          I hope you do Catreece. You don’t have to be perfect and are not being critisized for not being perfect.

          Maybe look at how you my have been offensive and used a patronizing tone… also the “men are” analysis… men are sick of that, particularly in the MRM, MGTOW movements.. re “getting it” you need to get the people in the movement, before telling them about their critical thinking blind spots, you also have to see if those blind spots that the women seem to have less, actually exist.

          Really though, telling men because of society they may not be as able … is something from the male shaming and patronizing handbook. White ribbon take the poor sick men need our help angel…. you really want to stay away from that. Telling men they have a fault/flaw/diminished ability, but they are not to blame… I mean come on, what does that sound like to you?

          You seem to still be holding on to the people critisizeing misunderstanding and thinking you are saying women are better than men, the misunderstanding, the convenient misunderstanding, is on your part there, and that elevation of women was not the only criticism. That combined with the “it’s not perfect” attitude, don’t sound like the comments of a person who is learning from a mistake… how can you learn from a mistake if you think in fact it is other people misunderstanding?

      • Guest


  • garyonthenet

    An absolutely amazing, perspicacious, analysis of the situation.

    I have always admired women in the MRA movement at a fundamental level. But I was (and still am) always puzzled, why would anyone throw away their own privilege given to them by society for free? e.g., Karen Straughan has been called the Tokyo Rose of feminism.

    Well this article puts it out there in very clear terms, these are not just average women; they are most principled, clear thinking women out there, and caring about real social justice.
    They don’t have to do this, they do it because they see the injustice being done to a class of people, and know something has to be done to make it right.

    And he is right about the average MRA too, I am essentially one them in that regard.
    It was only when I had done everything I could have possibly done on my own in all the legal avenues they say you should use, suffered intense emotional pain at the ripping of my child from my life (and mine from hers) – done all the things they say I should do to meet their ad hoc standards, and then still have shit smeared over me as a parent, when the only thing I did wrong, was be a father –
    It was only after all that, that I saw it was a rigged game, and the only way to make it better is to shift the paradigm, and realize it for the human rights catastrophe it is.

    But it took all that before I spoke out about it, as the article points out most men would do.

  • http://www.stgeorgewest.blogspot.co.uk/ Angelo

    I love the article but… The average MHRA is just that and the women will not just be amazing critical thinkers but largely drawn in by the same token as the men …necessity is the father of invention/progress. Mothers, girlfriends, daughters, friends. With respect. After over a decade as a MHRA I am certain that I am not the only male GWW-alike who saw the mac truck coming. It is true that the majority men and women, were dragged in kicking and screaming. IMHO. Or course Men are in the forrest, on the inside looking out and are having difficulty seeing the wood for the trees, but most women are in a forest of their own too. There’s just a handful of truly critical thinking men and women, …then everybody else.

    • Chris Wedge

      Takes a unique brand of person to do that, it’s true.
      To take their personal experience (in my case, that the world is fair, and the girls at school sexually harassing and assaulting me ending up punished for that, and me not even slapped on the wrist for my self-defence) and realise that it’s an outlier by looking at objective facts.

      Leaves me with a dim view of “personal experience as wisdom” in general – except when it’s backed by independent research, like with Erin Pizzey. The irony is inherent in that my personal experience led me to this view, though…

      • http://www.stgeorgewest.blogspot.co.uk/ Angelo

        I can dig it.

        There’s not much independent research on the makeup of the MHRM is there? Erin may point to independent research, I am, I agree, limited in this case to pointing at my particularly long exposure to the movement.

        Yes, I am breaking down my personal perceptions of the literally thousands of MHRA’s I have met and worked with since 2002. Before the honey badgers there were the UK purple hearts etc.. I agree with you about personal experience being suspect. My statement was IMHO and with the empirical evidence of my own eyes.

        If you/we structure a survey we can move forward and pin down this and other perhaps more important questions with the largely captive audience at our next international conference. :)

  • guber

    “why do the women in the movement seem to just get it so much easier than the men?”

    Sorry, but this question is defective off the bat. What does it even mean? Don’t talk about “falsifiable” when you phrased the question in such shoddy manner! That’s a disgrace for men and women in this movement.

    What is “so much easier” for women who are already in the movement as compared to men who are already in the movement? That’s what your question implies “women IN THE MOVEMENT …. than men”.

    What does the “get it” refer to? Get attention? Women always get more attention. So, use it responsibly please.

    Or do you mean women OUTSIDE the movement get the point of our claims and issues more easily then men? That would be plain wrong.

    • guber

      OK, sorry, this is bullshit. For reasons stated above. No time to read this. Reading this I can learn more about Catreece Macleod, who I may have seen in Detroit, but who has no picture anywhere on the web or Facebook, so I don’t know who she is. This article is a disgrace, and I hope Karen might explain to her why it is such a disgrace.

      • Daniel

        big time… I really had to do a double take when I read it.

      • http://www.avoiceformen.com John Narayan

        Nothing wrong playing devils advocate once in a while. It’s not as if this article is going to replace the mission statement, good to delve into why and how we all got here, why we are still here and why we intend to stay.

        • Daniel

          it’s hardly playing devil’s advocate… I doubt the author would accept that. It is also not an exploration of why we are here.

          It seems to ignore the glaringly obvious fact, that the MRM will also have far more critical thinking men, then the general population, possibly with a baptism of fire being the push that got them there/here.

  • Roby 83

    This article has a valid point

    • Steven Bennett

      Yeah, something about “if you can’t beat ’em…” I believe.

  • http://www.judgybitch.com JudgyBitch

    It is so very tempting to agree 100% with everything in this article, especially the part about being way more smarter than the average guy, because hey, it’s pretty flattering to be told you are above average and a powerful critical thinker. Unfortunately, I have a powerful sense of shame, too, and I know bullshit when I see it. I cannot take credit where none is due.

    My personal journey to Men’s Rights involved none of the high-minded thinking that I am being credited with. I sat through four years of undergraduate education heavily focused on feminist theory and while I was deeply critical of feminism, it never manifested in something simple like doing a Google search for men’s rights. I didn’t like feminism but that never prompted me to give a fuck about men.

    What did?

    When I felt personally insulted by people calling me stupid and naïve to trust a man (my husband) to provide for me and our children. I did not like the assumption that I was dumb, or irrational or incapable of making intelligent decisions for
    myself. Even then, I still didn’t particularly care about what the belief that men are monsters was doing to men. I cared what it was doing to ME. And what it was doing was making me mad!

    When did I really, truly start caring about what happens to the men who have to live in a culture where they are all violent rapists just itching for a chance to release their inner demons and destroy the world? When did I care about the humans?

    When I had a son.

    He was the human that tore me out of my solipsism to consider a perspective other than my own. To consider a perspective that was not female. To look through the eyes of an eventual man and see what the world is really like. It’s uncomfortable to admit, but if I had never had a son, I doubt I would give a fuck about men and boys right now.

    Nothing terribly high-minded about any of that, I’m afraid. I came to the MRM because I had a precious little boy whom I love more than life, but without him, I would probably not care too much about all the other men I happen to love, too. My
    dad, my brothers, my husband – I really do love them, but I never deeply, truly
    cared for them until I had a son of my own.

    I would be interested in hearing from other MRA women. I’m guessing a lot of us are the mothers of sons. It’s selfish and unflattering and egotistical, but if there is a reason that women “get it” more quickly, it’s precisely because we are selfish and egotistical when it comes to protecting our children. Anyone who thinks women
    are not capable of insane levels of violence can go up to one who has just given birth and try to take her baby.

    It’s animal. It’s base. It’s the opposite of high-minded.

    And ultimately, it’s deeply personal. We care when it gets brought right into our
    homes and laid at the foot of a baby’s cradle. Until then? Probably not so much.

    • MrSonicAdvance

      I’m so glad you posted that. I was going to post something but I couldn’t word it in a way I was comfortable with.

    • Dagda Mór

      Yeah there’s a lot of nonsense in this article, thanks for setting the record straight JB, your kind of honesty is rare indeed.

    • Suzy Enola

      Millions of women have sons they care about, and they do notice that society is cruel to them, but most of them don’t bother to even wonder why. They just believe that’s the way it is.

      I too am uncomfortable with being labelled as highly skilled in critical thought. I’m not that good at it but I make the attempt; therefore I’m better at it than many. I believe that it’s one of those skills where any sincere effort at all makes a huge difference. A good question to ask would be, “What motivates us to make the effort?”

      I think where we are more highly above average is in self confidence (not “self esteem.”) It’s not that we court rejection from our female peers, but we are not terrified to the point of mental paralysis by the mere thought of their disapproval. We won’t be destroyed by the machinations of the female social matrix, and we know it. Being willing to risk rejection makes us more likely to be very proactive in our efforts to protect our sons. I don’t even think it makes us extraordinarily courageous either – we place very little value on what we risk losing.

      In a way Catreece is correct; we do tend to be above average, just not as much as she suggests. In order to be effective we don’t really need to be very much above average. We just need to DO something. Anything. We’re not awe-inspiring, we’re just very unusual.

      • http://www.judgybitch.com JudgyBitch

        This is very true, Suzy! We are not afraid of other women and don’t care about the approval of mean girls. Lots of women are utterly terrified of being put in the crosshairs by the alpha woman in their social circles, because those women can and will destroy their lives, at least socially. All the invitations will dry up and suddenly everyone is too busy for a playdate. Social aggression. When it can’t be used as a weapon against you, women have no power over you at all.

      • alex brown3

        There are millions of women who abuse their sons, and drive their fathers away from them. There are millions of women who fail to protect their sons.

        • Suzy Enola


    • Catreece

      Thanks for another point I hadn’t clearly pointed out. I think I vaguely touched on it, but I agree there as well.

      Many of the female MRAs only are such because of selfishness-by-proxy. It’s MY son, or MY husband, or MY brother.

      However, that tends to only be the keystone for why many women join the movement, it has nothing really to do with the question that was presented as to why a woman might ‘get it’ quicker once they do join.

      I totally agree, however, on the concept that such can be a common starting point. Why do I do this myself? Well… my boyfriend, honestly. He’s so sweet and caring, but also rather innocent about these sorts of things. Sure, he gets fuming mad about Anita Sarkesian ragging on his favourite games (loooong rant about her comments on Shadow of the Collussus), but… he doesn’t really know about how much hatred there is towards men out there, or deeply rooted it can be… and I’d honestly rather he never find out. I’d rather try to help fix it quietly behind his back so he can remain blissfully ignorant of such things. I’d rather never see him in that kind of pain because I can see how profoundly it’d harm him to realize there are people out there who think of him as a terrible person just because he’s male.

      Again, however, this is only the reason why I got started. Yes, it’s what caused me to get up off my ass and actually DO something, and it’s a great motivator to continue… but I’m not really convinced that it adds any to the rate at which women ‘get it’ faster (or some do, obviously not all do =P ).

      I suppose there’s an argument that can be made that you go into it in a selfish manner, and women are more heavily trained than men to be selfish while men are selfless (which was touched on, but not in this particular matter), so that men might know they’re being harmed, but are unlikely to fight for themselves all that well simply because they’re not selfish enough to do so, but that the women are willing to be full-on selfish to the point of viciousness in order to defend their menfolk, and will go through the extra effort to actively seek out how the men in their lives are threatened so they can do something about it.

      I would classify that primarily as just “motivation” though. Men don’t tend to be motivated to look after themselves – they look after other people. Women don’t tend to be motivated to look after other people, they look after themselves, but if “theirselves” includes a close loved one, then if that loved one is harmed then so are they.

      I’m not really comfortable asserting that very strongly, however, since that means we’re essentially saying any time a man sacrifices himself for someone else, he’s doing it for them, but any time a woman sacrifices herself she’s doing it for herself by proxy. That just doesn’t really seem to fit in right with what I’ve observed between people in general…

      I think it might be more accurate to state that everyone is selfish to some degree, but men have been taught that ONLY taking care of themselves by proxy counts as socially acceptable (ie – working long hours to buy his wife nice stuff, since if she’s happy, he’s happy), but women have been taught that both being selfish for themselves AND taking care of themselves by proxy are BOTH acceptable choices.

      The end result is that it’s only motivation, but motivation can be a big deal, so I think you have a valid argument for another reason to add to the list of female pros to counterpoint the male con of being taught to not take care of himself.

      Thanks for the thought, it’s an interesting one to consider and one I hadn’t explored nearly as much as I should have! ^.^

      • Clint Carpentier

        I have to agree with you; we all have differing motivations. Generalities being what they are, the women of the MHRM are much more interested in rooting out the causes and solutions to the problems men face; rather than what so many other women do given the same position, which is victimize themselves by proxy. The extent I would characterize these Honey Badgers as “better than average”, is that they are willing to step outside the program for a gander, it doesn’t take a lot of intelligence to do so; and I’ll tell you why…

        I’m not damaged! Nor am I particularly intelligent. Processing information and taking the time to cohesively impart conclusions is a good mask of intelligence, but it is a mask none the less. Holding your own in an in-person debate is a much better barometer of intelligence. I fail miserably at the latter. I started licking the red-pill about the age of ten, watching 3 men and a baby. During my teens I began sucking on it; and about my mid twenties I ran out of pill, and proceeded to lick my fingers for a further 10 years. But it eventually clicked, and I’m not damaged; what finally drove this nice guy to demand female accountability, was the concept of rape culture, in that it was like smoking laws; it’s legal to smoke, but to do so is virtually illegal, it’s legal to fuck, but to do so is virtually a crime.

        The women of the MHRM are for the most part the same as the men. It saddens me to consider that they may be “above average” to other women. But that’s the joy of privilege, you can afford to develop some atrophies (but when men develop this atrophy, we call them senile old bastards ready for the home). There is something seriously wrong with this picture.

      • Magnus

        “I would classify that primarily as just “motivation” though. Men don’t tend to be motivated to look after themselves – they look after other people. Women don’t tend to be motivated to look after other people, they look after themselves, but if “theirselves” includes a close loved one, then if that loved one is harmed then so are they.”

        It’s ironic when you think about it, because the propaganda tells us that woman are the nurturing and caring people…

    • Marcos Eliziario

      Lady. Your love for your son is actually something to be more proud than anything else. I am a father of a small boy, and God knows how I wish he had a mother like you.

  • PlainOldTruth

    Wonderful. I learned this very soon after trying to start a “Fathers’ Rights Tea Party” back in 2005. And every time I had the opportunity to speak with anybody in the Men’s Rights or Fathers’ Rights movement I should share the secret. Women often “get it” quickly, deeply and broadly — and women, when they “get it,” can, infinitely more easily than men, get the ears of the Chivalry Zombies and bring them around.

    • Daniel

      that is the singular thing, important thing, women can do… be listened to and heard…

  • http://caprizchka.wordpress.com Caprizchka

    I think that it is also true that extraordinary men are less likely than extraordinary women to join movements of any kind including counter-movements. So much of modern behavioral conditioning depends on the peculiar herd behavior of ordinary women and the gynocentric leanings of ordinary men that one necessarily has to be an outsider in order to fully grasp the pathology.

    • Bewildered

      So much of modern behavioral conditioning depends on the peculiar herd
      behavior of ordinary women and the gynocentric leanings of ordinary men
      that one necessarily has to be an outsider in order to fully grasp the

      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    • Catreece

      I find myself having to agree on a few parts here, but especially that extraordinary men tend to focus more on things like the sciences rather than the social sciences. A great male mind will probably wind up going into physics or trying to cure cancer, while a great female mind will more often try to cure the social ills of the world than the physical ones.

      The comment on the herd mentality is an odd one, but sort of makes sense when you think of it. After all, men tend to just go along with whatever the women want. Even if men made more money (which they no longer do), the advertisers tend to focus on the women… why? Because the average woman follows the advertising, and the average man just buys whatever she tells him to.

      Does that mean the average woman or the average man are stupid? Well… yes and no; the average woman is having her desires manipulated by someone who knows how to manipulate those desires. The average man is also being manipulated in much the same way. If they stopped to think about it, they’d probably notice what was going on, but that’s kind of the whole point behind these things – most people DON’T stop to think about what’s being done to them.

      Once you get into the higher ups and more critical thinkers, that breakdown tends to fall apart pretty quickly, but for the larger mass of individuals, it does tend to hold true as a whole for much the reasons you’re presenting, however.

      I think the biggest tool we have at our disposal is that the average people aren’t stupid, they just haven’t thought to think about these things yet. All we need to do in that regard is to make them sit down and actually question it so they can consciously make the decision instead of just running on autopilot.

      • http://caprizchka.wordpress.com Caprizchka

        Autopilot or hypnosis. Yes indeed.

  • Daniel

    I’m not saying anything that could even vaguely give support to this rubbish about opposing something because it paints any number of women in a good light! Did you even read what i said! Ad homonym and misrepresenting what has been said, that is what often bugs me about feminists.

    To make an accusation like that, that I am critical because I want everything to be about casting men in a good light! It’s really pathetic…

    • guber

      See, this goes to show how bad this article was. It is divisive. It is a piece of narcissistic female attention seeking. It starts with a shoddy thought and then uses a lot of talk in first person to inject herself into the center of attention. And now we are fighting among each other with some trying to protect this nonsense and others not so much.

      This idea that women who come here have a level of awareness that men do not have, has some superficial merit, but not much more than that. Yes, perhaps men are being pushed and kicked into this by the experience of their own destruction, which makes them rather passive, women who are here really have no need to, and true altruism in women is hard enough to come by to make most women here really really special.

      But even starting this article talking about how women somehow “get it” more then men, even the whole motive to pine women against men compare the “pros” of women against the “cons” of men, that’s so sophomoric and so divisive, that this author and the editorial board really needs to step back and reflect.

      • Andybob

        One of the greatest strengths of our Honey Badgers is their ability to leave their emotions out of their rhetoric. It makes them devastatingly effective. Read how they debate feminists on sites hostile to the MHRM. Many male MHRAs, including myself, can learn from this.

        It isn’t fair to Catreece Macleod to frame her use of pros and cons to mean strengths and weaknesses. She is quite explicit in her assertion that ‘cons’ are the disadvantages that men have to overcome before reaching the point where they choose to advocate for their rights. These include gender-role expectations and our masculine natures. It may be a generalization, but certainly not without considerable merit.

        Female MHRAs are not hampered by such disadvantages, hence the ‘pros’ and their tendency to ‘get it’ faster and easier – not more – than men. I may not agree with all of Ms Macleod’s points, but there is no reason to assume some kind of ill-intent on her part. The baseless accusation that she has sought attention by inserting herself into the article is simply unnecessary.

        • Bombay

          Yes, I see no ill intent, just a woman’s perspective as someone who has not lived as a male. She actually put herself out there with her (and this is most important to note) opinion.

          • Fatherless

            Lol, but she has lived as a male.

          • Bombay

            Yes, I missed that.

          • Daniel

            a male who wanted to be female, identified as female. I would say that is pretty far from the sort of experience that would make you insightful into male experience. By the way, you can edit you comments.

          • Catreece

            I concur with this assessment (as I’ve now noted above in an earlier comment!) but in case you miss that one, may I be perfectly blunt here:

            Yes, I have lived “trying to pretend to be a guy”… I didn’t do a very good job of it, though. I simply just don’t think like a guy (though that’s a vague term since no two guys think fully alike), and while it’s given me some limited insight into the male experience (such as being terrified someone may falsely accuse me of rape), it’s only a small taste and clearly not the same thing as actually being actually male.

            Some would argue that, of course, but whatever =P

            Regardless, the point is that I can’t write from the perspective of a male, nor say in your words how things are. I can make observations, cite examples, and reference situations I’ve seen firsthand, or use broad generalizations, but that’s the limitation of my scope of capacity.

          • Daniel

            of course, and that is something I have also said… re adding perspectives etc.

            You would be in a similar, if not worse position, re rape accusations as a trans man/gay man or similar. This makes it interesting how successfully feminism has cop opted the LGBT movement. Feminists are often incredibly hostile to trans women and are quite “genetic” in the definitions of who is female. No doubt you have heard some very cruel comments from that cult.

            Men, for example, from my experience are not terrified of being accused of rape, it is not a very present threat, it is an unacceptable reality. But you were terrified of it, and think men are. So that is not an insight, it’s an error. It is presuming you know something you don’t.

            But, if people are saying others see their issue better than they do, and you are going to pick the group who pretty much are the source of that as the ones who see it better… just use your brain… also consider women in the MRM is not always something people are comfortable with, given female nature.

            Re limit, this article does not really address limit, it extends the area of female understanding of male issues well beyond that of males and completely misses the fact that women can speak much freer than men, and this is part of female privilege.

            Cartreece, sorry top say it, but from this article, one thing is clear…. you don’t get it at all. Presumably you were surprised at some of these heavily critical responses? But these critisizms jumped right off the page at me, and others. THere are some defending it, but in a “there have been worse” type way… and wishy washy dancing around saying “it’s an opinion”… well opinions are not valuable unless they have a value in them, they are not just valuable for being opinions. There value doesn’t have to be all about positive things either.

            Bring a gender you don’t want to be is as likely to make you a man hating feminist as an MRA fighting for truth and fairness.

            Women don’t get it easier than men, in the mra or out of it. In fact it is very hard for women to get it wherever they are. But they don’t have to to be of massive help, once they can see the black and white imbalance which anyone should be able to see and then take action.

            I don’t think it was you in fact who claimed this “being able to see both sides” which I think you will agree is moronic and shows no understanding of what it is to be a TS woman. Right?

          • Chris Wedge

            She’s lived a life where people treat her as a man, but never a male life.
            A woman who looks exactly like a man still doesn’t exactly lead a man’s life – but they might understand it better than a woman who never looked that way.

          • Daniel

            no, putting yourself out there is not most important…. and certainty not to the point where it overrides sexism, patronizing gender stereotyping of men.

            If someone loves being “out there” and it serves them, not talking about the author necessarily, is it great, most important that, they do what gratifies them. What about feminists, they put themselves out there?

            As for “it’s just a woman’s perspective” that is like saying “it’s just their opinion” to someone who thinks all jewish children should be killed… it’s the opinion put forward that matters in discussion… not leave it at they put it out there, that’s enough.

          • Bombay

            The ” (and this is most important to note)” is in between “her” and “opinion”, thus denoting that it is most important to note that this article is her opinion. And having an opinion about some women versus men is trivial to thinking anyone should be killed. Some women, some men, some others… really says nothing. As I note above – an article could easily be written about some men “getting it” faster than women and it would mean just as much or just as little., most notably the later.

            As Shriek noted above, we all roll our eyes at some of the articles here. This article is your eye rolling moment. For me it confirms that when a person thinks “they get it” they actually show they have not and that pride comes before a fall.

          • Daniel

            ok, my error. It still stand re “it’s just a woman’s perspective”… so what? it’s her perspective being criticised?again saying “it’s just someone’s perspective/opinion” makes no difference to what that opinion is… her opinion is one meriting severe criticism.

            But this article is beyond eye rolling and the reaction is the worrying thing.

            Also saying it is my eye rolling moment is again, describing the obvious and know, it’s her opinion, it’s my eye rolling moment… what about the actual content? Drop the wish washy and personal evaluations… this article is appalling in every possible sense.

            Why can only a few see that? why can only a few call it what it is? expose the elephant in the room!? This has descended into farce, from the comments this is a editorial choice and will not be treated as a fuck up. As always, staff first at all costs at AVFM (and if they aren’t technically staff, it doesn’t matter so don’t tell me about how hard they work and do this for free).

          • Bombay

            Many opinions are published here and there have been much worse IMO. There is strength in vetting all perspectives. Consider the people who are gaining strength in both form and content from your comments here. Will these people now speak out as you have here concerning these matters? The chances of that happening have increased due to what was written here today. The same is true of other thoughts expressed here. This is how we grow as people and as a group. In the end, through both the disagreements and agreements that our common understanding and activism will grow. Many realize that we will work together for our common goals regardless of disagreements since it was various disagreements that prevented any tangible MRA movement previous to this.

          • Daniel

            this opinion goes totally against men’s rights ethos. should we have feminists posts their views here as part of what you suggest?

            I can’t consider the men gaining from this, and as this is a male movement, that should be the goal. Not women’s issues and trans issues or male stereotyping.

            At least you are being somewhat critical of it saying you have seen worse… but you seem to think this is just a different opinion, it is not, it is a male patronizing and stereotyping opinion.

            If you want to dance around the issue and be PC, fine, just don’t pretend you are actually talking to me or being honest.

            What is your view of the tome, content and quality of the article? do you think it is gynocentric and patronising?

            I have never seen a worse article than this here, and I have seen a few… but at least they came from a good place, not gynocentric in any way… I have never seen that, or one so incredibly self indulgent or any where close to how this “writer” refers to men.

            It really seems there is a massive desire NOT to see the issue with this article and the attitude of it’s author. Another internal PC zone… what is it, can you not be critical of a trans person no matter what they say? have you bragged about having a trans person (to avfm) so showing how diverse we are? are you letting the crowd outside and the opposition dictate how AVFM behaves???

            Look Bombay, you talk a lot (I know I do to) but you say nothing… that is just a vague smoke screen and red herring response… we are not talking about accepting other views.

          • Bombay

            Hey Daniel.
            I do understand your objections to the article. The difference is
            that I do not ascribe much to it except it is a new writer’s attempt to
            answer a question posed by someone else. The author put it out there and people responded accordingly and in this case many concerns were expressed. I think that is great and how it should be.

            If I were to write an article, there is a good
            possibility people will note flaws in what I wrote. Hopefully, I would
            take the criticisms to heart and would grow from the experience. In
            addition, other readers may grow as well. I think many comments will
            give the author something to think about, including making assumptions/stereotyping men and women and about what they do or do not get.

          • Daniel

            HI, what do you think I am ascribing that I shouldn’t? the article being patronizing to men? going the “men are” route, being gynocentric?

            Every qustion a person asks, does not merit an article. The question is used as a vehicle for the article.

            Re flaws, there are flaws and we all mess up, this article is not that.. it’s not a flaw. It is written with intent, the intent, attitude, message is the problem… not an error in how that intent was put forward.

            To talk about all articles having flaws is like saying “no one is perfect” regarding a child abuser. There is no expectation of perfection or no flaws, the central idea of this article is wrong and anti male, and has no place on a men’s rights page.

          • Bombay

            I do not disagree with any of your criticisms. I also agree that the question was flawed to start with. And yes, I am saying “no one is perfect”. and I do not ascribe malfeasance to the author. I think the new author (and others) may have learned something here and that is a good thing. And if there was the intent as you suggest, the result is the same. Others gaining from the ideas exchanged here.

            Comparisons to law breaking child abusers do not apply to articles. There is no crime in allowing someone to write and others to critique that writing/ideas.

          • Daniel

            ok, well to be clear, I did not compare child abuse to the article. I compared the no one is perfect element of it.

            people can only learn when they get straight criticism. You seem to be trying to prevent, counter or similar that. Thus, preventing what can be learned from it. If someone fucks up, they don’t learn from people telling them they did a great job… they learn from having criticism.

            here, there are people who are critical of the article, some who like it, and the other main group is those defending it against the critical people. Why would you defend an article against, what you say yourself, are valid criticisms?

          • Bombay

            I am respecting the author as someone who put themselves out there. Given my perspective of the author’s intent, that is reasonable. I would also like the author to continue to write and to grow as an MRA.

          • Daniel

            well I would suggest growing before being published on the biggest MRA site.

            I don’t view it as a training ground for “writers” . So I don’t see your view as reasonable at all. Also, avoiding or countering criticism, does not help the person grow. Just like “ban bossy” would not help girls grow.

            Do you take the same view of feminist propagandists who “put them selves out there” or do you have a double standard?

            I also respect people putting themselves out there, but it means nothing to put ourself out there if that is seen as such an achievement in itself, it should not be called out when wrong. It is better to be wrong and say it than to not, but only because then, where you are wrong, can be discussed, called out.

            If no one called out this article, would that be better?

          • Daniel

            you said you agree with my criticisms… but are not making them, rather you are being praising. why is that? why would you not let someone know the slipped up?and look forward to more articles?

            That doesn’t make sense to me. But, sorry Stu, I don’t always get everything “no one is perfect” lol

          • Bombay

            I did offer my comments and she accepted them. She is doing better than myself. I have not written an article and I cannot fault someone for trying. And I do think she is doing a good job and has a bright future here.

        • guber

          So you want to continue this man-woman stereotyping. Adding some white knighting to it? “Female MHRAs are …” whatever! All this is is speculation, and it’s pointless.

          “It isn’t fair to Catreece Macleod to frame her …”

          I didn’t frame her. The article starts with a half-assed thesis that is never proven and a whole lot of speculations with stereotypes. And what is the point? What does it accomplish? Does it inform of new facts? Does it give us strategies? Does it empower us? Nope, none of it. All it does is to say “I had a thought!” and in a backhanded way its says “there are a lot of men IN the men’s movement who “don’t get it” or who “are slow to get it”, whatever the “it” is, doesn’t even matter, it’s a half-assed sentiment.

          Female participants in the movement are at risk to commit these slips from time to time, and some do, and when they do, they need to hear that feed-back. You white knight her and go all “yeah! women are wonderful!” and it’s going to get worse.

          This is an ego piece, it’s pointless, does not accomplish anything useful, does not inform of new facts, does not offer strategies, does it build up, only sows division.

          • http://www.avoiceformen.com John Narayan

            My question and this article are just away to spark debate, nothing wrong with that.

          • Daniel

            it is white knighting of the highest order, and directly against men.

            Regardless of the rest, the condescending sexist crap, it is one of the most self indulgent, badly written, airy fairy, bullshit pieces I have ever read!

            But there will be those who see that, those who try to be nice and help no one, and AVFM and the core who will defend it and going by past experience attack the criticism… even in how obviously insulting this article is, they will not accept that.

          • guber

            ” it is one of the most … pieces I have ever read!”, “on AVfM”, I would add, because there is a lot worse out there on the open internet, of course.

          • Catreece

            Actually, thanks for the reply guber!

            You’re correct, the original question was simply presented as why I’d been thinking of it at all. And as I’ve said elsewhere, I initially actually had the knee-jerk reaction that “It’s false – women in the movement don’t ‘get it’ better than men at all.”

            I’ve since changed my mind a bit by thinking about the list of female MRAs I know and comparing them to the male MRAs, and I specifically pointed out, quite clearly, that, and I quote:

            “When we compare someone like Karen Straughan to James Huff, for
            instance, suddenly there really isn’t that large of a gap any longer.
            They’re both brilliant minds, and excellent at what they do. I don’t
            personally agree with either one 100% of the time, by any means, yet
            there’s no argument at all that they’re wonderful critical thinkers.”

            This isn’t a grand “all women get it faster than all men” by any means. It’s actually stressing the point that, all things being equal, women and men “get it” at about the same pace.

            Do more women “get it” than men in the movement, as in faster, not in deeper understanding over time? Probably so. Women are vastly overrated in the upper ranks compared to their total population overall within the movement. Why is it that roughly about 40% of the top thinkers in the movement are female, such as all of the honeybadgers, Erin Pizzey, Senator Anne Cools, Dr. T, and so on down the list… and yet the total female population is probably closer to 10%?

            The point of the article isn’t to go “ZOMG LOOK WOMEN ARE BETTER THAN MEN! PROOF!” – it’s actually quite the opposite – “Sure it might LOOK like women are better than men, but once you look at it more closely, you simply find that there’s a lot of reasons why men in the movement have more external drawbacks than women, and as soon as you remove those, they’re pretty much equal.”

            So how exactly is it an ego piece to deconstruct and explain all the ways in which women AREN’T smarter than men?

            You are discussing the matter, however, and though I find your logic to be a bit backwards, the fact that it’s being discussed is good!

            Discussion is where we go from saying “are there guys in the movement who don’t really get just how bad it is?” to “why don’t they get it?” to “what’s holding them back”, to eventually “how can we break down these barriers?”

            Feminism has gone out of it’s way to make it difficult for the average guy on the street to even question when they’re being hurt (not all men, obviously, as was stated a few times), to the point that even when you have an article which details out SOME (not all – I don’t have any idea of what ALL the issues would be that men face in this regard) of the ways men are being held back by our cultural expectations of them, rather than saying “yeah, that is BS, we should challenge that shit whenever it comes up and help men see how bad they’ve got it!”, you start flailing wildly and going “but that means I’m weak! Stop being sexist against me!”

            No, it doesn’t mean men are weak (well, kind of, lemme explain). It means men are being systematically subjected to indoctrination which is making it difficult for the average, ordinary guy on the street to realize how badly he’s being fucked over. If he doesn’t even know he’s being fucked over, he can’t realistically fight back when he doesn’t even realize he needs to.

            Seriously, read through the article again, and look at it from this perspective:

            – Women seem to ‘get it’ faster than men
            – There are rational explanations that don’t involve “women are smarter”
            – Here’s a list of what’s holding men back so we can fix it
            – Here’s a list of explanations of why women aren’t smarter than men

            I just don’t understand how that can be viewed as an ego piece when I basically mansplained away any advantage I might have, and gave a list of reasons why men are my equal but have been held back. That’s… kind of the opposite of an ego piece.

            I suppose if you really go out of your way to TRY to find anything said to be offensive, you’ll find a way to twist it into something to be offended about, but seriously, post this on a feminist website and watch them bitch about how I’m attacking all women, or mansplaining why guys aren’t inferior to women.

            If anything, it’s kind of silly how the same argument can say flat out that men and women are equal under equal circumstances, and then have one side say it’s sexist against men, and the other side claim it’s sexist against women. How does that even make logical sense? XD

          • guber

            Appreciate your reply. You are trying, let’s see, what are you trying? Do you want me to agree? All the way down before the last 3 paragraphs I felt like all I needed to do was to tell you: “Why should I read it again? What is the purpose of the article? How is it useful? What facts does it reveal? What strategies does it propose? How does it empower us?” — And I still come up with nothing.

            Your attempt at getting me on board with it seems to suggest that I wasn’t too far off with my perception.

            But then when I read the last 3 paragraphs, I see less than goodwill in your attempt to make me agree with you.

            Are you seriously using the world “mansplaining” here? If you use that word, you are revealing about yourself that it is a valid concept. So you carry some sexist remnants in your idea of how rationality works. And that is not “the opposite of an ego piece” (not kind of and not sort of).

            Your idea that my intuition about your article is me going “out of my way to TRY to find anything said to be offensive” is very patronizing. I didn’t call this out for being offensive to me, you are making a statement about yourself here, and I saw how this was causing the ripples here among the readers, how they formed two sides over an insignificant piece of writing. Why? Because it was one of those pieces that contain “I, me, and myself, … as a woman” rhetoric.

            To respond sincerely to your last paragraph: the idea that “men and women are equal under equal circumstances” is a pointless credo which doesn’t really work to explain how reality works, because circumstances for men and women are never equal.

            My point was: unless there is some well distilled facts (with evidence) to contemplate, I don’t think the argument about “why” some murky perception might obtain is useful. And barring usefulness of this article, I find it is not only not helping, it is actually hurting. And somehow your ego is dragged into this mess … why? By you writing much of it in first person.

            I mean you no harm. I am just trying to voice my observation about what is going on here.

        • Daniel

          it can be packaged for ease of excuse making, but it still is a patronising, male stereotyping, sexist and at point, ridiculous piece.

          There is no presumption of ill intent, just her view is incredibly different to someone who gets it, it really is sad to see people defend such obvious sexism and sidetracking of the MRM. Look at what we are talking about, women and transsexuals! Feminists have destroyed or owned movements with this trojan horse.

          The amount of excuses and diplomatic comments in relation to this horrendous article are getting more worrying.

          • benjames

            give it a rest Daniel, your outrage is way out of proportion with depth or intent of the article, or the degree to which it could be held offensive or supposedly ‘wrong’. The author made very clear qualificaions at the start of the article about the non-imperical nature of her analysis and then shared her point of view.
            Her analysis may or may not be 100% (don’t care either way).. it was an interesting analysis that could generate healthy discussion. The way you are extrapolating out the subtext and implications of the article are WAY over the top. It makes you sound like the kind of person who wouldn’t allow a vibrant dinner table conversation to continue if your counter-protatgonist couldn’t quote sources

        • Catreece

          Thank you Andybob, you said that more clearly than I did apparently. =P

          To reinforce this statement, may I point this out in a clear, concise statement:

          “Men and women are equal under equal circumstances – the circumstances that are being evaluated aren’t equal.”

          It has nothing to do with men being weaker or dumber than women by any means, which I stated repeated and vehemently. The whole point of the article is to showcase WHY women in the movement seem to, on average, learn the problems quicker. It doesn’t say anything about women learning these problems men have in a more in-depth manner, just that it’s simply easier for women to identify the basic issues notably quicker because of the circumstances listed.

          I can’t absolutely prove it would be true, but I strongly believe that if men’s and women’s circumstances in this matter were completely 100% reversed, that you would find men being the ones “getting it” quicker in similar ratios.

          If you actually read the article carefully, the whole thing is basically a long list of why women aren’t special, aren’t smarter than men, and aren’t “better”, even in a situation where they seem to do better. I don’t exactly see how that’s sexist against men – if I said this on a feminist site, they’d call it mansplaining =P

          • Stu

            Overall, there are more men who get it then women who get it. If we are talking about the whole population, not just the MRM. The amount of women who get it, is minuscule, while the amount of men who get it, is small. The thing about this place, is that women who don’t get it…..hate us and so they don’t come here, and if they do they are booted pretty quickly. It’s sort of a female MRA Darwin theory process. Survival of the fittest female MRAs only. And that is the way it has to be, because if the floodgates where open and any woman with her gynocentric and feminist views were allowed in, the place would become just like the rest of the world.

            I see it like this. You make the place very uncomfortable for women who don’t get it. They then do not want to come here, or stay here. On the other hand, the women who do get it, are attracted to a place where the same ol shit does not rule the roost. So this place sort of concentrates women who do get it. The rest are just too offended and emotional to be here. It creates the appearance that there are a lot of women who get it, but it is still a tiny minority of women. The average woman who doesn’t get it……..really, really doesn’t get it…..they so not get it…..that they win gold medals for not getting it.

          • Catreece

            That’s a reasonable explanation to a degree, but I think that would apply to both sides as well.

            If a man doesn’t understand the severity of the problems men and boys face, such as a male feminist, are they not punted out pretty quickly as well? I’ve seen several of them appear on the forums to date, and they tend to be made just as uncomfortable until they leave as well. Or until they become insulting to the problems and are removed by force for advocating violence or otherwise trolling.

            I do agree, however, that there are more men in total who “get it” than women, without a doubt… not really surprising given that there’s more men total, and it directly affects men rather than women.

            I think the point that may be more relevant here, is that women are held to a higher standard here, which is a little sexist, but meh, whatever. There’s good cause for it in this case. =P

            Consider it this way: a man and a woman both join who only sort of vaguely grasp the tip of the iceberg… the man tends to be given the benefit of the doubt and fed information to help him understand, while the woman tends to have to prove herself – she’s fully welcome to stay, but only if she “gets it”, while the man is given a lot more time to come to grips with things.

            There’s education provided for both, obviously, but the man is given more leniency towards getting time to understand it as he’s more likely to actually understand it at all eventually, while the woman’s more likely to be a feminist plant or simply never understand no matter how much time and effort is spent upon her.

            In short, the ones who are really big assholes are rejected regardless of whether they’re male or female, but the men are given a little more time and effort, while women are more of a “here’s the information you need to understand what’s going on – prove you’re here to help or please go away.” which leads to a lower retention rate of women, and weeds out typically only the women who actually do catch on quickly, while men are more tolerated if they’d just gone through say… a bitter divorce or custody battle and that’s the only thing they get so far.

            At least, that’s what I’m thinking of as I go through your reply – it may be possible to go further with that!

  • Pvblivs

    I think that there is some truth to the claim that women IN THE MOVEMENT “got it” more readily than men in the movement. The typical man in the movement came to the realization because he got burned personally. Women who require that threshhold to “get it” will never be in the movement.

    Most people (men and women) have never had such an experience personally. And the people who can see the writing on the wall without assistance are few and far between. It’s not so much a matter of intelligence. But it is a type of perception. As the movement prods the public into seeing the reality, there will come to be more women in the movement who needed such prodding. And they will be on par with men in the movement.

    • Daniel

      the personal experience and perspective precludes women from being able to “get it”…. also is some women getting it, even taking away the fact they are not male, make a phenomenon, or normal variation. It hardly merit note, any more than “those three over there really know this area”.

      We have all seen that feminist who suddenly “got it” when her son was charged with rape. That is not getting it, she always had that underneath it all, self preservation.

      This article is really sickening …. “men are like this men are like that”… and “this is what men have been through and this is why they react as they do”…. are you serious??? I mean please!

      • Suzy Enola

        How are you defining “get it?” Do we “get” what it’s like to be a man betrayed by all of society? Of course not; nobody claims that we do, and it’s not necessary that we do. What we “get” is the nature of the betrayal and the injustice of it, without the normal (biological and/or cultural) female filter which softens it all with the vague presumption that it’s in some way even slightly justified.

        You are implying that it’s all a matter of self preservation on some level. As if it’s not for men also? Your comments remind me of some of the Manosphere TradCons, who frame everything women do as preservation of the self, while framing everything men do as preservation of the other.

        • Daniel

          defined as it is presented in the article, the “it” women seem to get easy than men in the MRM.

          I framed women who were in a traumatizing situation as using “preservation of self” … it hardly qualifies as framing everything in term of a female prime motive of preservation of self. That is a very weak speculation/critisizm.

          Also, I know men have a self preservation instinct. I was saying, clearly enough I thought, that this was the motivation of these women in question, was self preservation, not “getting it”.

          “It” is why we are here Suzy. If you think female MRA’s get it easier than male MRA’s …. I would just question how you could think that? The fact is you can’t answer, because you don’t know what it is you don’t get.

          If you have an issue with me saying females cannot really get a fundamentally, exclusively male experience, well, ask yourself why? I would not claim to know that of women.

          I think the S Africa parallel, should have made “it” by my meaning, pretty clear. It is the fundamental issue, which you can only really get if you live it. Some women could have had that experience to a very emotional level through a man/male, but this suggests a nature in women in the MRA being conducive to understanding the male situation easier than men.

          Insights from a female perspective/view …. the other side of the table POV, which is great. But, you know… let’s not get carried away with ourselves here.

          The article is patronizing and gynocentric.

          • Suzy Enola

            You an I apparently saw different “its” in the article. You seem to see “it” as the “male experience,” which of course no woman can get. I didn’t see that. I saw “it” the injustice and the betrayal, which women are perfectly capable of comprehending.
            And I think she makes a valid point about being blinded to one’s own experiences, BY one’s own experiences. This is the concept feminists use to sell Male Privilege -” you can’t see it because it’s as natural as breathing to you.” (The difference is that there is no objective evidence of Male Privilege and there’s plenty of objective evidence of misandry.) It is the inability (or near inability) to see one’s own experiences objectively because one lives them subjectively.

          • Daniel

            I saw the “it” that the article referred to, and I never said justice an betrayal were things a female could not see.

            What I said was that as this is a justice and betrayal (para and re phrasing to reposed) is against me and it is socially ingrained, among other things… and it is not something a woman can fully see, nor is it that men don’t see it… rather we are used to not getting listened to and taking it.

            So if you cannot see how sayng, speculatively on scant evidence, that women get it easier.. yes, an essentially male experience that no woman can really get but not with issue men cannot see… no elephant in the room we need pointed out. But the article is all over the place, it says something, prevaricates, says something counter.. bit of wish washy, red herring and a pat on the male’s heads.

            The men here are not blinded to their own experiences and if they are, women are far more blinded… we have the experiences, most women learn about them or only find out about them through another. They don’t have the slightest clue how it feels. But to pick out male MRA’s as people who don’t get it as fast as female counterparts… it’s just ridiculous and patronising.

            Tone, the article has so much “I I I me me me” and navel gazing, lyricism to the point of crap poetic efforts … all focussed on a women! It is gynocentric!

            Men can be blinded to the severity of their own experiences of course, but women never have them. So who is better placed… look at you, we could say women or men are better placed to see things as they are, you take the female argument into it. That is telling.

            Ignoring men’s issues is far more natural to women than men, men don’t even ignore female issues. Women inherently band to other women over men, are inherently sexist.

            As a woman you may not understand that men show no preference for their own gender, women show a complete preference. Which lends to this sort of article.

            If we can’t call this what it is… then, it’s goodnight.. the rot will spread.

            “It is the inability (or near inability) to see one’s own experiences objectively because one lives them subjectively.” you don’t understand at all suzy, that is true, but a compete diversion.

            I have said what i think. You, and others, want to defend this article and ignore what it is, fine… keep your rationalizations away from me. This is too much.

          • Catreece

            Ah, actually, I can interject there with the answer of what the ‘it” is.

            The “it” in the article (I only gave the one question from the conversation that sparked it, rather than the context around it) is simply “it” being how men are harmed in general by society and such.

            When a man is harmed it’s just generally easier for the women in the movement (ON AVERAGE) to see the full extent of how bad an injustice it is towards him. The average man in the movement, however (AGAIN, ON AVERAGE) will more likely shrug it off as not that big of a deal, or assume that’s just how things are.

            In a way… it’s male DISprivilege… and many guys can’t see it because it’s just as natural as breathing to them to accept such a burden without question.

            In that same way, (and this is on the list) it’s actually easier for women to see how it affects the men negatively simply because the men have to actively go out of their way to break down the bullshit they’ve been fed before they can even begin to think about it being harmful to them. The very fact that women can’t see things from the male perspective is actually kind of good… they don’t have to go through that extra step to get to the same end conclusion.

            I was talking to agent orange on skype awhile ago on that very topic and he said flat out that he actually had to work through a lot of that at first before he could even begin to tackle the problems. Now, he’s a very smart guy and it didn’t take him too long once he started working on it, but the fact that he had to do it at all means he had to deal with the “men should man up rather than try to avoid getting hurt in the first place” problem, and I never really had to go through that same detoxing phase.

            Anyway, the “it” in the article has nothing to do with the “male experience” – the “it” is just seeing how fucked up men have it in the first place and that part of the “male experience” actively encourages men to ignore how fucked up they have it, the lack of the “male experience” actually makes it a bit easier for women to point out exactly how fucked up it is for men.

            A smart guy will still overcome it quickly, and even your average man will figure it out if beaten in the face often enough (except for maybe white knights…), but a woman simply doesn’t have to overcome that problem at all which puts her at an inherent advantage towards seeing the problems men face that men have been trained to ignore.

            There are, of course, other issues – women have some cons as well that weren’t listed, such as being trained to be narcissistic (ignoring the needs of men entirely) or being taught to consider men only as tools rather than human beings. JudgyBitch, however, pointed out that these same traits can be twisted into pros rather than cons when it comes to your own family (such as a son or husband). I’d like to say I intentionally left those issues out of the article because of that reasoning, but the fact of the matter is I simply hadn’t thought of it at the time. =P

          • Daniel

            “When a man is harmed it’s just generally easier for the women in the movement (ON AVERAGE) to see the full extent of how bad an injustice it is towards him. The average man in the movement, however (AGAIN, ON AVERAGE) will more likely shrug it off as not that big of a deal, or assume that’s just how things are.” this was not your article… you are adding to it now.

            The fact is, men in the MRA are, like the women, different in their view of gender than the general public. Men in the MRA may not see the extent, but women may not see it at all or the extent as they have to fight their own group gender preference and natural urge to defend women.(when in context of men).

            This “Anyway, the “it” in the article has nothing to do with the “male experience” – the “it” is just seeing how fucked up men have it in the first place and that part of the “male experience” actively encourages men to ignore how fucked up they have it, the lack of the “male experience” actually makes it a bit easier for women to point out exactly how fucked up it is for men.” really doesn’t come through at all in your article.

            If you don’t recognize a flaw, you won’t do anything about it.

            But a pissed of women is a good person to have on your side.

          • Suzy Enola

            (I’ve been on vacation…) That makes sense and it’s a part of the “male experience” I was talking about, though I was thinking less specifically. Your clarifications helps, and I agree. How hard must it be to wonder which aspects of your entire identity/existence have been based on lies?

        • Daniel

          p.s. everything is not a matter of opinion or perspective… that wishy washy PC crap is another part of the problem.

          • Suzy Enola

            This whole article is a matter of opinion, an opinion that doesn’t mesh with your opinion. It’s speculation on a subject many people wonder about – and for which there is no definitive answer. Know what else is part of the problem? Morally superior ideologues who assume that there is always a right answer, and that they happen to have it.

          • Daniel

            it is not opinion that she made certain statement in this that are insuring, not just my opinion it is patronising to me as a men, I would say patronizing to men as a gender and stand by that…. everything is not just opinion, and anyway it’s her opinion being critisized so how does “it’s just her opinion” change that?


            You say “Morally superior ideologues who assume that there is always a right answer, and that they happen to have it.

            catreece say “there’s quite a few reasons to be addressed, and likely even more than I’ve discovered myself so far. By the end of this article you’ll have your answer, but first we need to work our way through to that point.”

            By your definition Cateece is a “morally superior ideologue” or can you not see that either?

            It is not about opinion alone, sorry. But her opinion stinks and is obnoxious…. as are her views, her manner, tone and patronizing “men are” ..line of crap.

          • Suzy Enola

            Well that’s your opinion, isn’t it?

          • guber

            There it is again. The female arguing. I call b/s and Daniel I am with you. Do not accept this answer. You were exactly right. And what continues is another example of female social manipulation. Do not let that go.

          • Daniel

            thanks huber, the “it’s an opinion” line is ridiculous. It is like someone saying “I hate niggers, they are lazy” me saying ” that’s racist and ignorant” … then suzy or similar comes along saying “it’s just their opinion”. Of course it’s their opinion!

            then we have to sit through people saying it’s a learning thing, exchange of ideas… while giving as close to not view of this insulting article. Of course because one trans person doesn’t get it, only really reflects on them individually.

            It is so weird when an article talks about the elephant in the room. to see the article and author and the flaws in attitude of both, are the elephant in the room… and the horray for other opinions people, ignore the opinion of the author and the article.

          • Suzy Enola

            Because my gender is more important than my brain?

          • guber

            No, you do this. You respond like an entitled child, to this Daniel or to me. I shook hands with you on the last day of the meeting, but I say it again, and once again I don’t care how many men you can manipulate to ban me again, you do these things. And now you are playing the victim of sexism, instead of taking the opportunity to investigate how you are playing your card.

          • Suzy Enola

            I’m not playing the victim at all. This article is an exploration of one person’s opinions. Daniel (and many others) disagrees with those opinions, and instead of actually refuting them he dismisses them with ad homs about her patronizing tone.
            But I’m the one arguing like a female.
            I don’t usually have a problem with Daniel’s commentary, or yours, but his responses to this article were emotional and dismissive instead of rational. He’s being hypocritical – arguing subjective observation vs.subjective observation, but treating her observations as subjective and treating his own as objective. Indeed in spite of his very good record as a commenter, he has come very close in this thread to crossing the line between criticizing an article and attacking an author.

            For the record, I didn’t manipulate any man into banning you. I did it myself based on my own judgment. I have that authority. The fact that other mods have the authority to lift that ban based on their judgment, should be an indication of how limited my “power” as a female here really is. I don’t expect you to trust me or give me the benefit of the doubt, but you might stop and consider how much you trust the people who run this site, and who chose to give me authority based on THEIR intimate understanding of my character and intelligence, before you start with the “typical womanly wiles” crap.

          • guber

            Tone police. You are not listening. And yes, you are arguing like a female. You just did it again.

            You may not usually have problems, because usually we don’t hit them. This is what the original article did.

          • driversuz

            Blacklisting guber again, for consistently using ad homs and “masculinist” terminology/slurs, with no specifics to justify them.

          • Daniel

            and you can critisize it if you want… I won’t be so lame as to think saying “it’s just my opinion” doesn’t mean I don’t have to stand by it, defend it.

          • guber

            see below.

        • Dennis M

          That sounds like evo-psyc, hardly a TradCon thing.

          • Suzy Enola

            It’s both. The TradCons trade in thinly disguised evo-psych – Gods’ plan and all…

    • Daniel

      so because men usually come to the realization after being burned, to come to the movement, therefor the women here must have gotten it easier, as women who required that threshold would not join??? so the fact that women who require the personal experience to “get it” will never reach that threshold , presumably as society prevents it, the ones who do join… have heightened perception???… that doesn’t make any sense at all.

      • Pvblivs

        No, I’m saying examining only those women IN THE MOVEMENT biases the sample. The typical woman, who needs the facts to smack her in the face just as much as the typical man, will not currently be in the movement. It’s not the same as a sample of the general population.

        Some people (men and women) are more aware (can see the “writing on the wall.”) Most are not. Being in the movement (for women) requires that awareness. To use the “red pill” analogy: Society only forces the red pill on men. Therefore, every woman who took it did so voluntarily.

        • Daniel

          I understand what you are saying .. so no “No”.. I get it. Most men don’t get it and join the movement either.

          based on the fact that most women don’t get it and have a massive own group gender preference to overcome, and men do not have this incumberment and are living it to one degree or another every day … are far better placed to get it, than women.

          • Catreece

            Thank you Daniel, this is the first post where you’ve actually had a useful argument! Until now your arguments have consisted of “You’re wrong”, “I’m offended”, and “You don’t get it” without any further explanation. This one actually has something useful in it, however, so can actually be used.

            “based on the fact that most women don’t get it and have a massive own
            group gender preference to overcome, and men do not have this
            incumberment and are living it to one degree or another every day …
            are far better placed to get it, than women.”

            Great, this is something that can be worked with.

            It has been shown (In a very small sample size of 4 men and 4 women only, but it’s a start) that women typically seem to have an in-group preference, while men seem to agree with women simply for being women, rather than agreeing with other men.

            In this case, it would be a strong argument for why so many women aren’t in the MHRM and vehemently oppose it – they typically will agree with feminism which has a female face, over the MHRM which has a male face.

            This would be a good point to make in that it winds up being both a pro and a con for women – the most common group of women who would be attracted to the MHRM are ones who are already consciously aware of this in-group bias and are actively going out of their way to avoid it, or who physically lack that bias as it’s exceedingly unlikely 100% of women possess the same trait while 0% of men do.

            Alternatively, as you said, there are those who are drawn into the MHRM for other reasons, such as say… being the second wife of a man who’s paying child support and alimony for another wife and child while having his current wife and child suffer. These individuals would still have a strong in-group bias (similar to what JudgyBitch was saying below) and would need to overcome that issue of selfishness before they could truly start to help men and boys, thereby being a hurdle in their path to “getting it”.

            Some women will not have that hurdle, or have already overcome it before they joined the MHRM, so they will tend to “get it” faster than the men who often don’t even realize that in-group bias even exists for many women.

            As such, it’s a valid point to bring up – it’s a matter that can be discussed further and has some significant degree of plausibility as to why the suggested question may be true or may be false.

            The rest of your posts haven’t really had this, they’ve just been baseless assertions of “this is wrong because I don’t want it to be right.”

            To borrow a quote from one of your other posts…

            “Telling men they have a fault/flaw/diminished ability, but they are not
            to blame… I mean come on, what does that sound like to you?”

            Irrelevant, honestly. It doesn’t matter if it sounds like mansplaining, or feminist ideology, or whatever. What matters is whether it’s true or not. Reality doesn’t really care what your feelings are, or whether you’re offended or not. It just is.

            All that matters is whether men actually have that fault, flaw, or diminished ability or not. If they do, then it warrants further investigation to see whether it really is something inherent to men, or whether it’s an external factor causing such. From there, what matters is verifying if they are to blame or not.

            If you want to argue the piece, by all means, bring up explanations of why or why not men have a problem seeing how things harm them. I’ve provided a list, and there’s actually quite a few others in the comments here who have provided more options – both for, and against such. Some have stated women have drawbacks I hadn’t considered, others have stated men have some advantages I hadn’t thought of. This is useful since it helps us collectively get closer to whether it’s true or not by looking at the information available.

            The fact of the matter is, though, that reality doesn’t care about your feelings, nor does it care about mine.

            To that end, thank you for having a point worthy of looking into. I’d like to see your thoughts on that matter since you’re very vocal. I’d just like you to also ensure that you emphasize your reasoning behind your points, rather than just falling back on “I don’t want it to be true and it sounds bad, so it must be false” because that’s not a valid argument. Sometimes things you don’t want to be true simply are.

          • Daniel

            your welcome, but this “Until now your arguments have consisted of “You’re wrong”, “I’m offended”, and “You don’t get it” without any further explanation. ” is completely untrue.

            “”Telling men they have a fault/flaw/diminished ability, but they are not

            to blame… I mean come on, what does that sound like to you?”

            Irrelevant, honestly. It doesn’t matter if it sounds like mansplaining, or feminist ideology, or whatever. What matters is whether it’s true or not. Reality doesn’t really care what your feelings are, or whether you’re offended or not. It just is.”

            You do see the hypocrisy on your part here, “what matters is if it’s true or not”….but you don’t even know if it’s true or not????

            Also, if you are a writer you need to think about how your message will be received, so if it sounds like feminist ideology, and you are writing on a MRM page, you need to re visit that view. As for “reality doesn’t really care what my feeling are”… what the fuck are you on about… you are not writing an article being read by “reality” it is being read by people. If you don’t care about there feeling that is callous, if you don’t care how your message comes across… you are not a writer.

            You really still seem to be rejecting the criticism of you flawed premiss, which even people who think I am being to hard on you agree with, a number of people have said the tone was patronizing, it being a bit gynocentric, the defining of why men don’t get it… as I DID explain, is white ribbon language.

            Speaking of patronizing, “Thank you Daniel, this is the first post where you’ve actually had a useful argument!” that is not true, you are taking this view because it is about the initial topic of the article, not critisizing your article.

            … and back to condesending mixed with straw man and misrepresentation… and a huge amount of hypocrisy “falling back on “I don’t want it to be true and it sounds bad, so it must be false” because that’s not a valid argument. Sometimes things you don’t want to be true simply are.”

            I have not said anything like I don’t want it to be true… and you haven’t shown it to be true or even said it is true, un equivocally, from what I have read! So you can make up whatever you want about my view, comments etc. and fight that… but you are not addressing me when you do, just some imaginary person.

            Re the hypocrisy, you, not I, have been the wishy washy one here and you! seem to have a difficulty actually addressing the flaws in your approach here, the poor tone etc. of your article …so, if you want to respond and discuss, let’s. But please address things I have said, and stop making them up.

            You could start here and identify what I don’t want to be true, that is true, from your article. ” Sometimes things you don’t want to be true simply are.”

            You might also consider your article may be, what I, and others are saying about it. And not the “no one is perfect” line please.

        • Stu

          Not really. A woman who watches multiple males in her family get screwed over by feminism might come to the movement for the same reason a lot of men do, because it has effected them personally. And that doesn’t mean they get it. A lot of men who are affected personally still do not get it. They might merely be looking for a a solution, or hiding hole from their personal situation, or a weapon to strike back with. It doesn’t mean they get it. They might get it, but they might not. But if they stay around long enough, they probably will eventually.

  • Bombay

    Interesting article and thank you for writing it.

    IMO there is an overstate of men and power. The average guy, the guy you are referring to in the article, has been putdown/trained/retrained time and time again (also stated in the article) so that he will play his utility role. There is no feeling of power here, in fact there is the opposite. Focusing on the training and dropping the power angle would better explain the male aspect of ignoring the herd of elephants in the room. Most men know the herd is there, but at all times understands there is only censure to be had for pointing it out.

    This and other statements by the active women in the MRA show me that they do not necessarily “get it” faster/more than men. I think more so and you do an excellent job in the article, is that even after a man has taken the red pill, he still tends to not point out the elephant herd because his trained pattern of behavior is at the level of Pavlov’s dogs – since he was a baby. This level of conditioning takes a lot of continual motivation of overcome when still having to function in a society where there are many “retraining” events happening every day. The average guy wears down and just does not want to deal with the hassle day after day – so he plays his part.

    AVFM is a game changer. Notice in the comments of new readers. The positive message/hope/understandings written here are providing the motivation/energy for the average guy to deal with the daily assaults so they they are more apt to speak up and not take it any more. A group of people are pointing out the elephant herd so that an average guy is more apt to do so in his daily life.

    • sparky8251

      I can attest to this. Just HINTING at the fact I don’t want to marry due to all the problems it can incur gets me nothing but “we take on the same risks (females saying this)” or “you just need to try harder” or you haven’t found the right person yet.”

      These are typically the responses I get from family but I’ve had a few co-workers say this too. Sadly my family consists of my Mom, Sister, and Grandma so I don’t get any freedom of opinion…

      Funny though… most of my older co-workers (men mind you) just nod and/or laugh when I say I don’t want to date and all they have to say about it is “You don’t know how right you are.”

      It’s hard to state your beliefs firmly day after day when the majority of people you interact with try to correct your “bad behavior.” I’ve pretty much resigned myself to the fact I’ll only ever get to know a few people in any capacity for fear of ostracization and potentially losing the force of will to keep true to myself.

    • Catreece

      This is an interesting perspective and one I hadn’t fully considered during the writing of the article, so thanks for putting it up! ^.^

      The concept that men are often quite acutely aware of such but simply try to avoid mentioning it out of fear or just because “it’ll make life more complicated than it has to be” if I understand you correctly, is a good point since it could very well mean that many of these issues men may be aware of already but simply tend to not mention.

      In this manner, I would have to agree after having read your reply – there are likely quite a few areas wherein men do simply ‘get it’ faster than women in that it’s stuff that men probably have lived with all their lives and were just quiet about it even if they recognized it.

      A good example of such would likely be the whole concept of “men lose half of everything in a divorce”. That’s not exactly accurate, sometimes it can be far more, and sometimes less, but it’s a good example of men being acutely aware of the problem inherent there.

      I’ll have to give that bit some more thought – thank you again for bringing up the point!

      • Fatherless

        Most men I know grumble about marriage but at some point I started taking it seriously.

      • Stu

        I believe even most die hard manginas know feminism is full of shit. They don’t care, they would agree that the world is flat and the sun orbits the earth if it got them more approval from women

    • Daniel

      this is a anti male article, it;s awful and insulting. AVFM is useful, and may have been a game changer, it is not any more. It is melding into type.

      • Stu

        The article is not so good, I agree. But “it’s awful, and insulting” Man you need to chill out. You are over sensitive. So avfm is a pile of dog shit now, because one article you don’t like is published. You know, you seem like the sort of MRA that the movement has been full of in the past, who will throw the best MRA in the world under the bus because he supports the wrong football team.

        Do you want a massive, huge MRM, built out of people who never say anything you don’t like?

        • http://www.avoiceformen.com John Narayan

          Well said.

          If we expect everyone to agree 100% of the time we will just be spinning our wheels.

        • Daniel

          no I don’t want that… but you have pretty much described what AVFM has become… they don’t respond well to criticism at all in the leadership… they pick what people should like or not like and don’t want members deciding for themselves of voicing decent.

          • Stu

            Sounds to me like what you’re doing actually

          • Daniel

            lol ok, so I am accused of something, I say in fact that sounds like AVFM…. then you come in saying it sounds like me… lmao

          • Daniel

            so we are at “talking about yourself” stage now lol.

            Look Stu, the article is bad, you agree with me on this, just not how harshly you see me as putting it. To be honest, I doubt I would keep putting it harshly if people didn’t keep trying to defend it and skirt the issue (no pun intended)

  • Mike Hunt

    I don’t want to insult the well intentioned author, but this article reeks of feminist style over thinking…

    • Fatherless

      Request for clarification: feminist STYLE instead of THINKING?
      The peculiarly feminist style of over-thinking?

      • Mike Hunt

        The latter.

        • Catreece

          Probably true. I won’t argue that point. I tend to overthink simple matters a lot. =P

          It just kind of bugged me when I was confronted with the question and I didn’t really have an answer. At first, I wanted to just say “it’s not true at all”, then after thinking about it some, it seemed more like there might actually be something to it. As soon as that happened, I needed to take it apart and try to reason it out, since I wasn’t content with the assertion “women ‘get it’ faster than men’ without some sort of explanation for why. Just assuming “women are smarter” seemed like a really bad explanation, so for myself, I had to dig into it to try to figure out what may be holding men back since I tend to view men and women as equals outside of circumstance (with some minor variations due to sexual dimorphism), so it seemed highly plausible that there would be some circumstance(s) which was(were) making it easier for women or harder for men.

          As such, yes, I overthought the problem, and likely in the manner of a feminist in the sense of trying to prove the theory that one gender isn’t smarter than the other (though reversed – the point was to try to explain why women weren’t smarter than men, rather than the reversal feminism would present).

          Reading through the comments here, I’ve found additional perspectives I haven’t covered, so now I’m less certain as a whole – there’s always more to learn and discussion is what helps you see things from new vantage points. To that end, the article’s done exactly what it was intended to do – get people talking about these issues that men face that hinder their capacity to fight for their own rights at all.

          I’d make some specific caveats and adjustments were I to re-write the article after having read through the comments section, as there’s been some nice insights, but without the original article as it was, and without the discussion it generated, those same insights would not have been brought up.

          Regardless, I don’t really see anything wrong with overthinking a problem. It can be a good mental exercise as long as you keep in mind that you probably won’t be capable of seeing it from all sides, so there won’t be some “perfect” answer, only a step in the right direction.

          I’m happy enough with how the comments have gone; there have been two individuals who seem to be thinking about the whole thing backward in a feminist style of “men do worse than women at X, therefore you’re saying men are inferior to women!” when the whole article is exactly the opposite of that. =P The rest of the comments have actually been quite interesting and I’m glad there can be such vibrant discussion on the matter with some really good personal stories and alternative perspectives coming forward. ^.^

          • Daniel

            it’s not over thinking at all, it’s just wrong. I think I have already said why, so won’t repeat myself except to say, if you don’t accept your mistakes, you will not learn from them. If you rationalize them, you will get further from knowing the truth and/or understanding it.

  • Steven Bennett

    Oh, to be a women! {sigh}

  • Andybob

    Brilliant. Straight to the point – the one which Catreece Macleod is making.

  • John Rew

    I don’t think this article is putting men down. It’s like single parenting Male single parents are often well above average because it is not a default position. When it comes to women the mrm gets the pick of the crop.

  • Aimee McGee

    I wonder if the honey badgers might want to update the women’s section starting with our own narratives of coming to the perspective of being human rights activists, not gender ideologues.
    For me, I learned about human equality from the women of my family who WERE feminists.
    But their moderate and positivist agendas got swamped in the third wave victim glorification.
    I came to actual activism via disability rights and seeing my belief in the justice of the family court shattered by the troubles my partner went through.
    I want to add though a comment on the experience of women denying my right to identity as female. This happened the day I refused to play emotional terrorism in the “you are my best friend today” game so beloved of little girls. It still gets questioned very regularly. But then I’m fortunate to be able to refer back to the strong women of my family who see being human as the first most important identity… Not gender

    • markis1
    • Catreece

      Yeah, I still consider myself to be primarily egalitarian rather than anything else for example.

      I think one of the biggest things we have to look at as a whole is just the idea that both men and women are human – both worthy of compassion, and capable of fault.

      • Daniel

        ok catreece, you don’t get it at all… this is not a two sides to every story situation… if you want to sit on the fence and pedal this “why can’t we all get along” without dealing with the issues, crap… and go off into the either of chained oxen and areas where the is an argument to avoid where us both being worthy of compassion being accepted will actually change anything… then go for it.

        When was the last time you saw a main stream bigoted feminist say men weren’t worthy of compassion? … they have said it, don’t get me wrong, but that is so distant from the very real issues we are dealing with, parental alienation, domestic abuse… that for you to say this after you sickening article really back up how that article represents you.

        You are not a men’s rights activist, you are a tourist. A self obsessed tourist. To be honest, I have never met a TS who was not self obsessed and in my work as a photographer I have met a lot of vein people.

        I have often noted, that mtf ts people almost always contain the very worst traits of women exaggerated and almost exclusively. Maybe through worry, stress and insecurity… but there it is and you have not shown anything to counter that, the opposite in fact.

        You ad nothing, and have been a negative effect. At best, you are harmless, to vague and fence sitting to rock the boat, why you are here is a mystery… maybe it’s because you are TS and said you were into men’s rights and AVFM though a TS would show diversity… but your presence has just shown how AVFM has become a micro environment paralleling the regular world.

        But don’t worry, this is just my opinion… and I should be praised and protected for putting myself out there… really, for fucks sake.

        By the way, men’s rights activists are egalitarian…

        p.s the “honey badgers” idea… is a bit silly.

  • DukeLax

    If a guy has Tranny’d to a female, and then goes on to say “women are smarter than men”……folks will naturally start to question his/her capacity to be completely objective.

    • Chris Wedge

      When a guy ignores objective science to the point to make the statement before the first comma, then folks will naturally question HIS objectivity.

    • Catreece

      I would agree if anything in the article suggested that women are smarter than men. =P

      Actually, if you read it closely, you’ll note that it actually goes out of it’s way to actively dismiss the idea that women are smarter than men repeatedly and vehemently. The whole point was to describe “if this is true, then what factors may be limiting men in this regard since, if we assume men and women are equally intelligent, then there has to be some external factor causing the dichotomy.”

      But yes, if someone “tranny’d to a female” as you so put it (poor wording, but whatever), and then insisted “women are smarter than men”, that would warrant said questioning of objectivity. That’s just not what happened in the article was all. =P

      • Daniel

        you said women in the mrm get things easier than men… you say it’s not men’s fault… white ribbon style.. if someone says that this does not mean women are smarter than men,you are at least clearly aware that could be taken from it.

        Lets think, if a man wrote this… so badly written, how would it be received? society precludes critisizm of women and feminism, it also is reluctant to critisize lgbt people.Some areas of course completely go the other way, but in the greater PC world, this is the case.

        Siding with LGBT issues and/or feminist issues are cut from the same cloth. Largely not ideological motivation, but a desire to be seen a certain way i.e. a good, open, progressive person.

        Being open, can not be defined by individual stands or opinions, it is defined by openly taking other views and equally as openly critisizing them. PC is not being open, it is the definition, literally, of going with what is the popular accepted view.

  • Dennis M

    The only difference between saying “men are strong” and “men are privileged” is that in the former the strength is intrinsic, thus flattering, where as in the latter the strength is extrinsic, thus not flattering.

    Other than that those two phrases mean exactly the same thing.

    • Daniel

      well said.

  • Dennis M

    I think women get it because, inhabiting a female body, they’re quicker to find the downplaying of female agency by our modern society insulting. It’s easier to forget someone else’s agency than your own, methinks.

  • Bombay

    I suppose there is an article here entitled “Why some men “get it” quicker than women?” But that would be dog bites man rather than man bites dog.

    • Daniel

      what’s you point? can you site an article here that says that?

      • Bombay

        The point is that this article would have the same flawed premise and would have the same value (or lack thereof) and talking points only with the premise reversed. Another reason why this article is not a big deal. Ideas were written and are being discussed. I have been impressed with the author’s ability to engage others, accept criticism as well as defend what she wrote. I think the article is very much a success.

        • Daniel

          Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing.

          Benjamin Franklin

          • http://www.avoiceformen.com John Narayan

            After you.

        • Daniel

          the author hasn’t accepted any of the critisizm that I have seen. so bombay, you think “men are” .. to be condescended to it seems, and that women get these matters to do with men (in the mrm not the general public… why I have to say this sayd a lot) than men do… you think anything is of value, just by merit of being there… and a article that is classic male stereotyping and gynocentric has a place on a MRM page.

          The premiss reversed would not make sense as an article, “men get mens rights issue in the MRM more easily than women” is that what you mean? that is it reversed.

          “would have the same value (or lack thereof) ” my god, could you be any less committed?

          ” I have been impressed with the author’s ability to engage others, accept criticism as well as defend what she wrote. I think the article is very much a success.” you must send me the link to the article this relates to and where the author took the critisizm on board.

          You haven’t made any point at all, just silly diplomatic multiplied by PC speak. Utter prevarication in your answer… I use the term “answer” loosely here.

          Well, lets leave it at “I disagree” then.

          • Bombay

            “The premiss reversed would not make sense as an article, “men get mens
            rights issue in the MRM more easily than women” is that what you mean?
            that is it reversed.”

            Yes, is makes just as much sense in that it does not. Ask yourself why your buttons are being pressed by a fluff piece that really is not here or there in regards to men’s activism. No rights are being discussed and everything is just speculation. If this presses your buttons, what will happen when an MRA comes on there that is in favour of male genital mutilation because he cannot deal with the fact that it happened to him?

            Quite franking the author made no disparaging remarks to me. You have. Think about that.

          • Daniel

            why would the author make disparaging remarks to someone baking them up?(we are disagreeing, you do know that?) think about it… or just think, the change may be refreshing.

            “If this presses your buttons, what will happen when an MRA comes on there that is in favour of male genital mutilation because he cannot deal with the fact that it happened to him?”… what the fuck!? well, no doubt you will be there praising the great diversity of opinion and that supporting male genital mutilation is not anti male!

            Bombay, this “button” line you have gone down, it really has marked you going over the edge. … really, that whole comment is ridiculous.

        • Daniel

          you really are a wishy washy waste of space Bombay.

          • Bombay

            There were a couple of articles published here a month or two ago written by the same author. The first one dealt with trolling


            and the second one dealt with trolling


            Although most of the readership did not get the connection, but the author did come clean.

            Read these articles and ask yourself why your buttons are pressed. And then consider why you cannot press my buttons. I have been responding in hopes that you will grow here. This personal growth is up to you.

          • Daniel

            why are my buttons being pressed? well I would not reduce my annoyance at this article to buttons being pressed… and I have made it quite clear why that is. You didn’t get that though. So your absurdly patronizing cop out “I have been responding in hopes that you will grow here. This personal growth is up to you.” is pretty laughable.

            I fully intended to read other article by the author, who seems to have a thing about trolling… something feminists and weak minds often slap as a label on people who disagree strongly. another cop out.

            Personal growth requires criticism, not blind support, codling and everyone being defensive around the person requiring the growth or wanting to grow.

            Your responses have been polite, up to now, but very non committal and empty, maybe that has helped those less able than you (at least how you seem to view yourself) to grow.

            This is now pointless and tedious. I’ll leave you to it. By the way, I am not the only one who dislikes this article.

  • Stu

    A good distinction here is “women in the movement” as opposed to women in general.

    I’ll tell you what I think. Men come to the movement, or investigate it, often after wake up call like divorce, false allegations etc. As they investigate, they begin to realize, if they think about it deeply, and they are smart enough……just how truly fucked they are, and not just because of their current dilemma, but that things were never as they thought, and the future is more bleak, and everything they have wanted, to be happy, and have a happy life, is based on bullshit, and it’s all just a massive con job designed to enslave them.

    That is a tough pill to swallow. And if you accept it, it leaves you wondering, ok, what next? How do I put value into my life? And most of them end up like that guy on the Matrix who wanted to be put back into a pod, with no memory of having ever been out, and be placed back into a phony matrix life that he thought was real, and happy. In other words, he would rather spend his life in a coma, hooked up to some dream machine, living an illusion that he thought was real, because that illusion was nicer then the stark reality he now lived in.

    The woman who comes to the movement is a rare women. A woman, it would seem, has a vested interest in maintaining the matrix. And that might be true if the matrix could just be maintained at a certain level, without evolving into more and more of an anti male dystopia. The female MRA, who is both smart enough, and honest enough to know that female nature would dictate that things become forever worse for men in the quest to empower women more and more. If the matrix is to be maintained, it must be maintained at a level where men receive enough benefits, and are able to continue to believe that they can obtain, and maintain, the things they want in their lives. But the female MRA knows female nature better then the average guy, and she knows that this is just not how things are going to go. She knows women, and gullible men, are going to kill the goose that laid the golden eggs, and everybody will get to join men in the dystopia of the not so distant future.

    She knows, both instinctively, and intellectually, just how fucked men are. She also, does not suffer from the same sort of despair and emptiness upon that realization, When a woman takes the red pill, and sees the truth of how fucked things are for men, she sees it through the eyes of someone sitting in their lounge room in a western city, eating their take away food, drinking their upsized coke, while watching a news report of the famine and bloodshed in dystopiaville on the other side of the world. And she can more easily see the truth, and accept it as the truth……that we are truly fucked……because it’s not her, it’s happening to those other people. It’s a little different when you have to concede your own totally pathetic situation. Your mind creates ways to cling to it’s delusions.

    And that is what most men do. Cling to delusions, like a drowning grasping at straws.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com John Narayan


    • Daniel

      “A good distinction here is “women in the movement” as opposed to women in general.” that is not a good distinction, as it is a given. It is unnecessary. It is red herring, a straw man.

      Your excessive positive speculation about women in the MRM is ridiculous. So women who take the red pill, see more than men who take it do???? Are you serious?

      That is a moronic, gushing, completely speculative, line of crap.

      • Catreece

        Actually, I would state it makes a good distinction.

        Consider that this is not a 100% accurate representation of what the total populations are any more than any other group would be. Groups have things they have in common, hence why they’re groups in the first place. Any group which has something in common will only attract those members of the population which also tend to have that something in common, rather than a homogenous mixture of all of humanity.

        For example, if you look at say… skeptics, you’re going to trend towards finding a vastly higher percentage of individuals who are critical of things like religious beliefs and who prefer scientific rigor. You’ll also note that the trait of “prefering scientific rigor” will tend to mean you’ll attract a greater number of individuals of above-average intelligence. As expected, the skeptic community tends to be a bit smarter on average than a random sample of humans as a whole would be, simply because it attracts more intelligent individuals. That doesn’t mean there aren’t people of below average intelligence, the numbers are just skewed in favour of those who are more intelligent is all because of the nature of what the group is about.

        So, too, would it make sense for a group which insists that men deserve basic human rights such as bodily integrity when held within a culture which says men have too many rights, would attract men from all walks of life who have encountered the fact that they don’t actually have the supposed rights that the culture maintains they hold. If the average woman simply won’t encounter those issues themselves due to not being men, then that strongly implies that a higher percentage of women who join will not be those who suffered firsthand, but rather, will be those who figured it out by critical thought process.

        You may as well be saying that by entering into a bar and surveying how many people there drink, it’s unnecessary to distinguish that from the greater population and can merrily provide figures that 100% of all people drink alcohol.

        That has nothing to do with being a straw man or red herring, and you misused the term straw man entirely.

        The point to be made is simply thus: men and women are equal as a whole in terms of intelligence and capacity for rational thought, however… are we drawing our samples equally across the spectrum for both men and women when it comes to men’s rights? I don’t really think that we are, since we know for a fact that men who suffer greatly will be more likely to join the men’s human rights movement, while women who suffer greatly will be more likely to join feminism instead.

        Given that we can state with relative certainty that the MHRM is focused more upon logical argument and proof, while feminism is focused more upon post-modern discourse (aka: “feels”), we can assume that the majority of the average intelligence women will join feminism rather than the MHRM, and a disproportionate level of intelligent women will be attracted to the logical thought process of the MHRM over that of feminism. In contrast, as we’ve covered that men who have suffered greatly will join the MHRM, you’ll find a higher concentration of average intelligence men than you logically would average intelligence women.

        While it’s true that this is speculative, it’s what we call “an educated guess” – it makes rational, logical sense with the information available.

        To claim that any group (MHRM or otherwise) will have completely 100% accurate representation of intelligence levels or critical thinkers compared to humanity as a whole, however, is actually kind of absurd when you think about it.

        The point that’s being made isn’t that men are dumber than women in the slightest – it’s that if you compare two things that aren’t really comparable, you’re going to get skewed results. Hence, if it does turn out to be true that women in the movement “get it” quicker than men… it’s not because men are stupid, but rather because you’re comparing smart women to average men, and therefore one should be more accurately comparing smart women to smart men to get a better idea of actual comprehension.

        Hence why the article compares Karen Straughan to James Huff rather than random generically chosen newbie to Karen, because it’d be an unfair comparison to do the latter.

        • Daniel

          it is not a good distinction as it is a given, the distinction is clear in the article… it is about women in the MRM as opposed to women in general. A distinction is only good when it is needed, when it changes the dynamic. Here that distinction does not, it is about women in the MRM getting it easier than men in the MRM. The distinction is there from the outset.

          • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

            Holy hell, lol, aren’t you the pedantic fuck?

            I seriously discourage anyone from entertaining debate with this clown. He is here to glory in the meaningless attachment to meaningless detail, just to watch himself type.

            Life rule #443 When talking goes only in circles, one person in the conversation is an asshat.

          • Daniel

            well here is the cavalry… fuck you Paul, how is male stereotyping and patronizing males… or being gynocentric a small issue? In a men’s rights group! ?

            So when something ends up going in circles, it’s the other guys fault you mean Paul.

            100% ad homonym and empty rhetoric, sad efforts to sound witty …. and empty rhetoric. Your hall marks Paul, when AVFM or an article is critisized. Good to clarify what you see as trivial… must remember that when you do similar re a non AVFM article.

          • Stu

            Oh yeah, and you know everything that Paul is doing wrong. That’s why he’s built the biggest men’s rights site ever, and you have built?????, what?

            There are always complete fucking wankers like you coming in here and doing nothing but criticize. One article you don’t like, any comment you don’t like, and it’s the end of world.

            MRAs like you do the feminist job for them. You do nothing but tear other MRAs down and hang shit on those who are achieving something. I’ve watched MRA group after MRA group be born and collapse because so many are just like you. You just wont get it. Stop focusing on and making wars over insignificant shit. That is what has caused practically ever MRA outfit in the past to fail to get big enough to make any difference to anything.

            There is one thing that counts above everything else, and that is that people are spreading the message, doing something to draw attention to men’s rights issues, supporting us, and opposing feminism. Anybody who is doing any of those things is doing more then someone who is not. And they have value. It doesn’t matter how imperfect they are in other ways. Something is better then nothing.

          • Daniel

            will ye get a grip stu. articles like this do the feminists job for them… how you work out I do is for you to know.

            I do not do nothing but tear other MRA’s down, I leave the to Paul and the AVFM critisizm hit squad… they haven’t said much here though. They cut any member who dares even be mildly critical of one of the pack … look at “canada, a first world cuntry” you will see five at one point laying in on one member who made a very mild criticism in a praise filled comment.

            Also, when did I say that anyone doing things for the MRM had no value?

            Patronizing men in praise of women built on a false premiss, is not a small issue. If you see it as one, well then it’s not me that doesn’t “get it”.

          • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

            Correct Stu.

            Fact is, there are ways this article is articulated that I don’t agree with. There are dozens of other examples of this throughout the website.

            We don’t bat 1000 on every piece, and of course whether something is of merit or value is still up t the reader.

            But I have always been able to count on one think in our community (which holds true of all groups of human beings), there is always one in the crowd, usually someone who doe no visible work for the MHRM, ready to screech and bellyache that the sky is falling in because they don’t like something in an article.

            They may even have honest criticisms that merit discussion, but the stupid fucks just can’t help coming across in a way that forces people to not give a shit.

            This is our peanut gallery. It is alive and real and thankfully pretty small comparatively.

          • Stu

            From what I can gather, you think nobody should be publishing here except people of your literary genius. It would be a very small MHRM if we only allowed word smith snobs like you in. You seem to do nothing except pull peoples words apart and criticize them, often based on nothing but syntax.

            And just what have you done for the MRM, especially AVFM, to be deciding who should have a right to publish here?

            I’ll tell you what, how about you let Paul, and Dean, and other editors decide who and what gets published, at least until you do something other the rubbish, rubbish, rubbish, every word uttered by others. Maybe you can hang around a few years and contribute in positive way and work your way up to being in a position where you get a say in these things.

            But I think not.

          • Daniel

            no Stu, I don’t think that. Where you got word snobs from only you can know as I have not critisized the word usage at all, but the tone and content. Non of what I have said about the article is based on syntax, nor are my responses to peoples comments.

            I don’t think I should be able to decide what is published, or dictate, I specifically said (in my view) as I expected some moron like yourself to make that stupid statement.

            Nothing you have said has any bearing to what I have said, they don’t relate to my comments at all. Not me tearing apart word, syntax, nor saying I should dictate what is published.

            Also, you have no idea what I have written or done for the MRM in Ireland… again, a critisizm based on nothing, pure speculation.

            Seems different view are great, once you don’t criticise.

            I haven’t done anything for AVFM, but I though AVFM was there for it’s members, for men and their rights…. not the other way around.

            Critisizm of patronizing articles, is positive.

            Wow, what a weak response Stu. Thanks for the compliments re my English though, didn’t really think I came across as some master of language.

          • ScribblerG1

            And here comes the bullying. You guys here are really out of your minds. Read Daniel’s critique carefully. It’s a very well constructed delineation of the errors in rhetoric and argumentation. For you to claim that it’s “syntax” is a bald faced lie – or you don’t know what syntax means.

            He’s critical, but backs it up with incisive reasoning. You and Paul? Just denigrate him the same way you do any male Red Pillers. You accuse them of doing nothing for the MHRM and then insult them and tell them to go do better.

            First of all, you thuggish fools, there is no such thing as the MHRM. It exists only in your minds. You change no policies, no schools, no laws – you get nothing done. Get that. Nothing. This isn’t some new civil rights movement and the social justice warriors and Marxists are never going to accept you. That would require that they see the central villain in their narratives and ideologies – white men – as oppressed rather than an oppressor. That is never going to happen. Yet you fashion yourself as a “human right” struggle.

            Let me tell you guys what you’ve got. You’ve got a website – that’s it. You’ve got content and a place where male views can be expressed. It’s important and I appreciate it – but you have no “movement”. So when you come on like a ton of bricks about everything you’re doing versus all the nothing everyone else is doing, well, I’m just astonished. You guys have to stop being so ridiculously defensive and irrational when criticized. What you don’t realize is that you – Stu and Paul – are behaving like feminists. Simply rejecting criticism as “out group” because it disagrees with you.

            And this article is a steaming heap of garbage. The rhetoric is irrational, the prose meandering and her point obnoxious. You don’t like me saying that? Don’t have a public website. What a joke you guys are becoming. Arrogant over nothing.

  • Shrek6

    Well, I’m gonna have to disagree with the premise of this
    article I’m afraid.

    Before I go on, I must say just one thing. I know you never meant it this way, but I feel
    compelled to make this statement.

    I do not see my brothers, OR sisters in this world divided
    up into classes of worth, intelligence or academic ability. To say there is a ‘cream of the crop’ of
    women or men, and to say there is an ‘average Joe’ in men, to me is not right
    and borders on insulting both men and women in our world.

    We are all intelligent beings and we are all strong and
    powerful. Whether or not we choose to use
    any of that, is a decision we all make individually. To class someone as different, just because they
    choose to use or not use an ability, is one of the very bad practices that have
    caused societies throughout history, so much pain. We must always avoid doing this where

    You said one thing that I do agree with though. You speak of the
    much harder and more extensive indoctrination and manipulation of boys/men,
    being far more pervasive than what girls/women endure, which can cause a man to
    not question his position so readily.

    Well, I guess I have to agree with that, because the only indoctrination girls
    and women get, is being told that they are better than men and that they
    deserve to be served by men. Outside of that, all women are
    basically left to use their own imagination as to how much they are going to
    use these selfish skills to wade through the years of their lives.

    Now here’s something I have to say about intelligence, which I know you didn’t
    actually speak to, but I think it needs to be said, because it has a lot to do
    with ‘critical thinking.’

    Too many people equate academic ability with intelligence. These
    are two completely different things.

    I know of so many people who have degrees and doctorates,
    but are as thick as two blocks of concrete. Many of them lack any
    ability to think critically about anything outside of their qualified
    field. And I know of so many men who
    have an almost non-existent academic ability, but have more intelligence than a
    NASA scientist or a president/prime minister of a country.

    To be fair, I also know many women who have never been
    educated past high school, but have been stay at home mothers and have little knowledge
    of the world, yet they are able to weigh up a world problem in seconds with
    powerful critical thinking skills and give you the answer to that problem that would
    knock your socks off.

    I absolutely reject the notion that the men who have come here are just the
    average Joe’s who have had to endure a ‘red pill’ moment of torture to wake
    them out of their stupor and that the women who have turned up here are the
    cream of the crop.

    Sorry, I just cannot accept that at all, because to me as a logical practical
    thinking man, this just does not add up or make any sense to me.

    I’m not sure how long I have been posting my (mostly emotive) comments on this
    website, but I have to tell you that I have not yet seen one article or one
    comment made by any woman here that stands out in intelligence over that of any
    of the men here. No, not GWW, Typhon Blue, or any of the
    others. I have seen them both write stuff that I have shaken my
    head at, thinking that what they said was bordering on foolishness, just the
    same as some of the male writers here.
    And that is perfectly normal and expected of all people who come here,
    including me!

    I know that most of the stuff I write is nothing but emotive ‘gobble de gook’
    that has no real substance and is more often than not, a simple comment without
    facts included. Okay, I don’t disagree with that, because I know who and
    what I am, plus I know what my contribution to this site is.

    My point is. We have in this group of people here at AVfM, movers
    and shakers who are the likes of the admin team starting with Paul and
    including the women I just mentioned previously. We have other men
    and women who have in their own way through their own experiences, found this
    site out of either experiences that have driven them here and/or out of basic
    charity for their fellow human being, have decided to get on board this bus and
    travel the same road as all the other members of AVfM, even if they don’t fully
    endorse everything said here.

    There is one very important thing that must be remembered.

    There is not one human being here who is more important or intelligent than the
    other. There is not one human being here, who has achieved more,
    because of some perceived ‘higher intelligence.’ The achievement comes with the use of not only
    commitment, but also the ability ‘TO’ commit in the first place.

    ‘Academic ability,’ just means you can learn more stuff at
    Uni than someone who is lacking in it. It also means that you can
    be more easily indoctrinated at Uni, than someone who lacks the academic

    Women have not been given anything more over men, when it comes to critical
    thinking skills. In fact, in all my 57 years of life, the human
    beings I have found who use critical thinking skills the least are girls and
    women. Why do you think most men I have known, often think most
    women are stupid?

    They believe this, because most women in society just do not use any critical
    thinking skills. However, most men use critical thinking skills
    every day of their lives. They have to, to survive this world.

    And I know you will say this statement alone backs your argument. I disagree. Just because women in general choose to not
    use critical thinking skills, doesn’t mean zip at the end of the day. It just means they are lazy and
    selfish. They want someone else to do
    the work for them.

    So my conclusion is that although I agree with the one point you made about men
    being indoctrinated more, I disagree with you when you say we have the
    “cream of women here and the average Joes of men.”

    We absolutely have men here who are nothing like some lesser ‘average
    Joe.’ The men here are strong, highly intelligent and motivated
    movers and shakers. They are this way in varying
    degrees. Of course there will be some who are not, but in the main,
    the men here are just as I say they are.

    And of course so are you women. You have come here for the exact
    same reasons why the men have. You have been forced here because of some
    experience, or you have developed a charitable empathy for your fellow human
    beings who happen to be male.

    I’ll give you one other thing though. You have written a great
    article that has tickled the ‘critical thinking skills’ of people here and I
    think this topic should not go away just yet, because it is a very important
    one. This is a journey we as MHRA’s must travel on to achieve
    self-awareness, so that in the future as we endure attacks, we know exactly who
    and what we are, and that we will not so easily be divided and conquered.

    • Andybob

      “I disagree with you when you say we have the “cream of women here and the average Joes of men.” Mr Shrek6

      This is one of the assertions in the article that I also disagree with strongly. In fact, it contradicts some of the other points Ms Macleod is making and is at odds with my own view that the men in the MHRM are ‘the cream of men’. Tickling our critical thinking skills is very important. Many have condemned the entire article just because they disagree with some of the points – this does not help to sharpen those skills.

    • ScribblerG1

      We are not all intelligent beings. Many humans are moronic and imbeciles.

  • http://whatistrulyneeded.wordpress.com/ David M. Green

    Catreece – It really isn’t so surprising that the average male MHRA doesn’t quite catch on to the harm he is being done by our society in order to benefit women. Especially when one considers that far too many of the leading lights of the MHRM still have their own blinders firmly in place in regards to the true nature of both men and women by indulging in the concept of “All Men Are Good” as opposed to the feminist claim that “All Men Are bad”.

    When I pointed out to Mike Buchanan on his website that feminists had it wrong in regards to male on female violence because men overwhelmingly inflict their violent natures and impulses directly at their fellow males far more often then at women. He deleted my comment only to haughtily claim that he would not debate the issue when I refused to go away and confronted him in another comment.

    With strident calls for men to have the right to be as irresponsible and immune to the consequences of their own poor choices and actions as women through “Paper and Financial Abortions”. As well as the outright rejection of both marriage and fatherhood while reviling the marriage institution; as opposed to taking on the “Divorce Industry and State Legislatures” in order to reform marriage and make it safe for those – both men and women – who chose to engage in it and raise their children.

    One might as well remove the F from feminism and replace it with an M for the MHRM has of late come so close to resembling the second and third waves of feminism that it has quite literally become the mirror image of feminism leading to the rise of Meminism. Which ultimately will lead to ever increasing numbers of children experiencing fatherlessness and the absolute total destruction of the two parent family composed of a mother and a father. An institution, that once upon a time and not so all that long ago, men’s rights activists universally agreed was the best place to raise well adjusted children to become productive citizens.

    • Daniel

      well not to happy with AVFM myself, but at least they have truth and fact on their side. feminism has those things as enemies. A bit of a jaded comment David… you seem to think it’s new though. Interesting.

      • http://whatistrulyneeded.wordpress.com/ David M. Green

        Considering that I’ve lived through many of the negative experiences while growing up and as an adult that bring the average male to the MHRM. And that I’ve been paying attention to those issues not long after I became a father thirty years ago I can’t help but become jaded; when I see the likes of Mike B. and Paul Elem hijack the MM by presuming to dictate to long term MRA’s like myself and sending the MM down the same self destructive garden path taken by the feminists.

        • Daniel

          Well Mike B. seems more open and member oriented.

          But yes, the MRM has become jaded and AVFM has become more concerned with marketing and it’s own position and it’s employees, writers more concerned about their position in AVFM than the end goal.

          Ye, AVFM is very much a top down movement. It is honest so not like feminism at all, they do operate top down… and AVFM behaves as dictated by feminism… it is very concerned with image and it’s last refuge of being hard is saying “fuck” every now and then.

          It really fucked things up over here in Ireland… big time. Again trying to dictate and talking about money.

          • Stu

            And how did AVFM fuck things up in Ireland?

    • Bombay

      How do you teach a wayward child? Preach to them or let them face the consequences of their actions. The first will eventually fail, the later will last for the rest of their lives. Will preaching at women concerning their irresponsibility/male reproductive rights or allowing the natural consequence of allowing males to be equally irresponsible solve the issue. Nothing will change until MGTOW and having a level playing field force a change. The strategy for change is not necessarily the final goal.

    • Lucian Vâlsan

      “An institution, that once upon a time and not so all that long ago, men’s rights activists universally agreed was the best place to raise well adjusted children to become productive citizens.” -> You are implying something that doesn’t exist on this platform.

      “It is the mission of A Voice for Men to: Recognize the institution of marriage and the family unit as the foundation of civilized society. However, we support the trend away from that institution until the current legal zeitgeist making it unsafe for men and children is corrected. We support an end to “no fault” divorce and support default shared physical and legal custody in the event of divorce. We seek to promote awareness of information designed to protect men and fathers who are already married;”

      Source: AVFM Mission Statement

      So, what is really your point?!

    • Stu

      Actually it is the masculinists that use that slogan “All men are good” I’ve heard a lot of them say it, but I can’t remember hearing an MRA say it. You are aware the MRAs generally see masculinists as the mirror image of feminists?

      We didn’t destroy the institution of marriage. Feminists and their mangina poodle boys did. MRAs recognize it now as an institution that is particularly dangerous to men, and where men hand over their rights at the door and hope she will be fair and nice. So we strongly advise against it. But we didn’t not make it the way it is now. It’s the way it is now due to feminist innovations to the law as well as society being brainwashed. Socially and legally marriage is trashed for men.

      Of course we oppose it. How can we advise something that results in a man losing rights, and assets, and often a whole lot more.

  • http://menaregood.com/ Tom Golden

    I think that women are built to evaluate men. It has been a survival based skill for them. It seems to me that it is not a large shift to turn that evaluation onto men’s status.

    Men, otoh, are built to compete with men. Complaining about your treatment is a real risk for men. It has the capacity to ruin their competitive position. Men’s competition with other men is a survival skill.

    • ScribblerG1

      We also find evaluating others boring and unproductive whereas women seem to be endlessly fascinated with it.

  • alex brown3

    “Another major bonus women in the movement have is that they’ve been largely taught their whole lives to be on the lookout for pain and suffering”

    Women have been taught to falsely signal pain and suffering. I have seen little girls pretend to be upset to get their brothers into trouble.

    Parents are training girls to falsely signal pain and fear, when girls grow up they use the state as their enforcer.

    • Catreece

      I’ve seen that as well, but from both genders at an early age.

      Often it’s shown that both boys and girls will cry or pretend to be upset to get their siblings into trouble… the difference is that the little girls actually tend to get away with it, and the little boys don’t. Over time, this trains the boys to stop doing so and the girls to continue.

      Now, while it’s true that women are taught to continue playing up the victim status card… the thing is, in order to learn to pretend to do something, you actually have to study how that thing is done. If you want to be an actor playing the role of someone being punched, you watch lots of videos of people actually getting punched so that you can put on a convincing display without having to actually get punched for real.

      I would suggest that the same applies – if you want to pretend to be a victim, study those who are actual victims. This would explain why feminism keeps trying to equate itself to the black slaves fight for rights.

  • Dennis M

    I was thinking more inlines of the legal paternal surrender debate. Like I’d think a woman would be more quick to find the implications of “he could have chosen not to have sex” insulting (because it implies women who want abortions DON’T choose to have sex and are just brain dead sex dolls). Then again I never cease to be amazed how many people, women or otherwise, will downplay their own agency when they can shift the blame onto someone else.

    • Cobalt

      This is one area where traditionalism and contemporary feminism are in complete alignment “sex is something that men do to women”. My grandmother, mother and all the feminist literature i have ever read all agree on characterizing sex this way.

      The other area where traditionalism and feminism are in alignment is that children ‘belong’ to the mother. She has ownership.

      In my opinion this is how we got to the current situation.

      I support legal surrender of paternal obligations given all the birth control options women have. Can’t see many people listening to the argument for very long without freaking.

      Now I have to so an experiment to find out with acquaintances. Will I have any left after the experiment is an interesting question.

      • Daniel

        yep, that’s it. sex is something men do to women.

        • Cobalt

          “women can just get pregnant pouring their cereal”

          That’s the other characterization if it isn’t the man doing it. Accidental pregnancy. Kind of like virgin birth.

          I’ve never heard another woman say “I decided to have unprotected sex when I didn’t want to be a mother. Stupid me”

          • Daniel

            tink you responded to the wrong person there.

            ” “I’ve never heard another woman say “I decided to have unprotected sex when I didn’t want to be a mother. Stupid me”” … what is that supposed to mean though? I haven’t heard that either. Isn’t unprotected sex either carelessness in the moment, or in sinister cases, a deliberate way to snare a man?

          • Cobalt


            My point was that women I know, universally, have portrayed pregnancy as something that was done to them or an accident. An accident like a lightening strike but never ever a choice they made. It is curious and something I have been pondering for a long time.

            I can’t think of pregnancy as carelessness because I have never known anyone who didn’t understand that sex makes babies.

            What is behind my exploration of this topic, is my 18 year old trip to a planned parent clinic. I asked for a reliable means of birth control, not the pill though. They asked me if I had a boyfriend and I said no. Then they asked if I was sexually active and I said no. They then treated me like some sort of freak of nature.

            I argued that waiting until I was sexually active defeated the whole point of birth control as it would be a little late to use it after the fact.

      • Dennis M

        Yep. They call abortions “women’s healthcare” like women can just get pregnant pouring their cereal.

        No one would accept something as infantalizing as calling LPS “men’s financial security” or some bullshit like that, because everyone knows men can “keep it in their pants” (unlike women apparently).

        Likewise, women a man’s wife cheated on him, traditionally he would blame the other man and just treat his wife like a brain-dead sex doll.

  • alex brown3

    “This callous attitude towards personal injury often means that wives the world over have frequently had to be the voice of reason to tell their husbands to go see a doctor in the past, and it’s largely the same reason the women in the MHRM are needed to tell the men that the horrible things society has been doing to them should probably be looked into rather than ignored.”

    I find the whole tone of this article problematic and patronizing.

    It is women who have been gaslighting men. It is women who raise the kids as single mothers and abuse boys at a far higher rate than fathers ever did. So women are suddenly going to change their ways and rescue?

    I am grateful to some females in the movement, but this movement should be about male self empowerment. Women should play a supportive role, not a leading role.

    Females have a tendency to control and socially dominate spaces they are in, women in the MRA should check that instinct.

    At the end of the day, it is going to be up to men to save themselves, we can’t rely on women to do it for us.

    • Chris Wedge

      Ah, the “us against them” thing again.
      I thought we hated it when feminists conflated themselves with women?
      Women are the predominately crappy single parents and chld abusers because feminism LETS them be, by lowering the bar for entry to single motherhood so damn much that a limbo master couldn’t get underneath it. The bar for single fatherhood, on the other hand, being high enough that Luigi Mario couldn’t jump over it.

      • alex brown3

        What is your point?

        Just like the feminist fallacy is old and superficial.

        There is a us vs them thing going on, females have been waging a social war against men and boys for 50 years. They started this war, and it is going on whether we notice it or not.

        Feminism doesn’t let women do anything, the state does. Chivalry pre-dates feminism.

        Also no one forces women to be shit mothers, shit mothers choose to do that on their own.

        • Catreece

          May I make one note here, alex? =3

          “Also no one forces women to be shit mothers, shit mothers choose to do that on their own.”

          Humans, as a whole, are opportunistic. If you give them the capacity to be lazy fucks, many people will do exactly that, regardless of being male or female.

          Chris’s point of “The bar for single fatherhood, on the other hand, being high enough that Luigi Mario couldn’t jump over it.” seems to be implying that probably equivalent numbers of men would be shitty fathers as well if they were given the opportunity, but they have their children pulled away from them even if they’re excellent fathers, while women get propped up even if they’re terrible mothers and an excellent father is available to take over for them.

          To that end… people as a whole are kind of lazy assholes. =P There’s considerable exceptions to that rule, but it’s common enough that we can make it just a generalized rule for most people. After that, it’s simply a matter of whether we are providing people the opportunity to abuse power or not.

          Seriously, consider the concept of a false rape accusation for a moment – if it WORKS, you essentially are granted a “get out of jail free” card to use on whatever was the problem… such as not wanting to pay the fare for your cab by accusing him of raping you.


          Case in point.

          With this option, if you could get away with it, and the chances of getting caught were minimal, but the potential for benefiting from such is high, and there’s almost zero risk of suffering any penalty even if you were caught… well, a lot of people would just go with it if they didn’t mind harming someone else they didn’t like in the process.

          If men had the capacity to file false rape charges and be believed by default with no risk to themselves if the plan backfires, would some men do so? Probably so.

          The point is that women don’t have to be forced to be shit mothers – they just have to be ALLOWED to be shit mothers.

          • http://www.avoiceformen.com John Narayan

            Humans, as a whole, are opportunistic. If you give them the capacity to
            be lazy fucks, many people will do exactly that, regardless of being
            male or female.

            This helps explain why there was not a large feminist movement before the advent of indoor plumbing, telecommunications, the power grid, modern medical science, and millions of other mod cons invented, built and maintained mostly my men. Take away all these goodies and we will fall back into our old gender roles, as unfair as they might be.

        • ScribblerG1

          They don’t get it – it’s not just feminism. Feminism goes out of control because of underlying traits of women. Anyone who’s read Nietzsche immediately gets what’s happening. Women are unaccustomed to having power and are irresponsible and selfish with it. They are also dumbing down philosophical and political dialog as Nietzsche predicted they would.

          We are at war – it’s just that men haven’t started fighting yet. I have, and I don’t let the enemy behind my lines. sorry.

    • snoochieboochies

      The reason why i think the MRM is superior to feminism is because it’s inclusive of both men and women, we need both men and women onboard as a collective to sort these problems out.

      Compare this to the feminist movement – nobody likes Male feminists, not even femists themselves unless they STFU and sit quietly at the back like good little lapdogs. Feminism is all about creating an inverse patriarchy.

      • Catreece

        I agree in that it’s good that everyone is accepted equally in trying to help men and boys out, but in the long run it’s going to come down to a matter of self-sustainment. Men can’t forever rely on women to prop them up anymore than women can rely on men to do the heavy lifting for them, either.

        At least, not on a large scale. Individuals? Sure, you can date or marry someone or just have good friends who can help you in your times of need no problem, but if we want men as a group to be capable of being self-actualized human beings, then it’s going to eventually mean that men will have to stand on their own two feet without help, just as women will have to learn to do the same.

        To that end, I’d like to see men get to a point where they can do so without needing to check with women if it’s “okay” that they be self actualized human beings.

        In the ideal, we wouldn’t need a men’s nor a women’s rights movement at all. We’d be able to be equal without need for any of this at all, and I’d really love to see it reach the point where men can just be men without needing women around at all.

        For now, however, we’re kind of stuck with the problem that men largely have been trained to not WANT to be self actualized human beings… they’ve been trained to be workhorses and to be happiest when being a workhorse. While that’s a handy tool to have, it’s not very humane.

        The really screwed up part is that women got machines that let them take care of their work easily – dishwashers, washing machines and driers, sewing machines, microwaves pre-made dinners, etc. This made it possible for women to leave the home and go do other stuff they wanted to.

        Men… well, what happens when men get a machine that does their job for them? Oh. They lose their job and can’t afford to pay the bills anymore. Fuck. Oh, and now women are also taking a lot of the leftover jobs, which would be fine except that men’s only value in society has been that they work… double fuck.

        We’re going to need to disassociate the concept of “men = workers” from of collective cultural zeitgeist if we’re ever going to be able to have men want to do stuff other than work. And… considering men have been taught to work for women for thousands of years, that means women will have to encourage men to do more with their lives other than placate women. That last bit may not go over quiet so well… but it really needs to happen.

        In any case, I do think that women are more of a temporary need of the movement to get things rolling. Once men have gotten rid of the gynocentrism in their lives, then they not only can, but must, handle the next bit on their own (building a personal identity which doesn’t hinge on women or working for women), and after that stage is over, then they can be free to be whoever they want.

        Women will have to go through a similar set of stages, though a bit different in specific details. The point is, however, that there will come a time when it’ll probably be better for women to actually back out of the movement. In this manner, we’re essentially acting as training wheels on a bike, and while we’re necessary to get started, we’re harmful to keep around forever.

        Fortunately, that’s the last major step, and it’s a short one – that little bit where men learn to live without relying on women at all will be (hopefully) brief, and after it’s over, we can live together in peace from that point on! At least… that’s the hope.

    • Catreece

      “I am grateful to some females in the movement, but this movement should be about male self empowerment. Women should play a supportive role, not a leading role.”

      I agree with this point totally! However… there is a caveat to that.

      Before men can work on self empowerment, the things that are preventing them from even wanting to be self-empowered have to be dealt with. I would suggest that may require outside intervention, and since men have been taught to cater to women’s needs, the easiest method would be for women to tell men that they WANT men to be self-empowered.

      Basically, I figure women are needed to kick-start the process, but once it’s going, men should be more than capable of handling things themselves. Just have to get past that first big hurdle of men not really wanting to be self-empowered, especially with the shaming language going on right now where feminism is trying to chastise men for anything that remotely looks like power.

      If women made that mess, it’s women’s responsibility to fix it.

  • Daniel

    well, if someone asked ““Why do the women in the movement seem to just get it so much easier than the men?”” what would people here say?

  • fidelbogen

    A few points and questions that ought to be raised:

    Do the women REALLY “get it” quicker than the men? Can that be objectively verified?

    Are smart critical thinkers REALLY so lacking among men in the movement? I personally know heaps of such men.

    Why do men still outnumber women as a percentage of the movement in general?

    If the total number of sharp, critically thinking male intelligentsia were compared to the total number of female members (irrespective of intellect), would the stacks be roughly equal-sized?

    • Catreece

      These are great questions, so let’s go through them!

      “Do the women REALLY “get it” quicker than the men?”

      On the basis of individual to individual, I would say not really. Individually, each woman can be compared to a man, so it’s not like that’s a major issue. As a group, however, it seems to be that only the women who “get it” quickly are the ones who are more likely to stick around rather than leaving immediately.

      “Can that be objectively verified?”

      To a degree, yes, to a degree, no. How do we define “gets it”? I would personally define it as understanding the challenges and problems men and boys face. Things like the court system bias, or the risk of being falsely accused of rape and such.

      I think we can all agree that someone like Karen Straughan “gets it”, so obviously there is some kind of criteria to be met. Unfortunately, that criteria is vague and ill-defined. How far does one go until we can claim they “get it”? To that end, I think we can state that there is the capacity to define it, but that it’s not clearly defined yet.

      If we could come up with a clear definition of what makes one “get it”, then we can simply survey people to check, so it could be mostly objectively verified… but the problem is that the mere concept of “gets it” is subjective currently, so you can’t really objectively verify a subjective concept until you find a way to objectively describe what the subjective concept represents.

      “Are smart critical thinkers REALLY so lacking among men in the movement? I personally know heaps of such men.”

      Not at all! There’s more male smart critical thinkers than there are female smart critical thinkers in the movement. Yourself would be among the male population, for example. =P

      The issue is more so one of compared percentages – there are a LOT more men than there are women in the movement… to that point we have to ask, what’s the % of male critical thinkers among the male population in the movement, and what’s the % of female critical thinkers among the female population in the movement? In this case, I would suggest that there’s a remarkably low number of female non-critical feelers.

      The smart guys outnumber the smart girls, but it seems very likely that the smart girls are vastly overrepresented compared to the total female population.

      “Why do men still outnumber women as a percentage of the movement in general?”

      Lots of possible reasons for this. Just the comments section alone has offered up some great possibilities, such as women joining primarily because it affects a man in their life (son, boyfriend, husband, etc) rather than themselves, or that the unfit women are removed in a form of natural selection where the women who aren’t really interested in men’s rights are removed as two prime ones that were brought up.

      I think the most obvious one is going to have to wind up being that many of the men in the movement have experienced this crap firsthand, and believed it wasn’t real until they suffered personally, while most women will not experience it firsthand and still don’t believe it’s real because they haven’t suffered personally.

      “If the total number of sharp, critically thinking male intelligentsia were compared to the total number of female members (irrespective of intellect), would the stacks be roughly equal-sized?”

      I actually don’t know, to be honest, but it’s an interesting question to ask given the remarkably low female population. It’s not particularly relevant, but kind of neat.

      The question that should really be presented is thus:

      “If the total percentage of critically thinking male intelligentsia were compared to the total percentage of critically thinking female intelligentsia (irrespective of total numbers), would the stacks be roughly equal-sized?”

      In that situation, I think we’d find a surprisingly high % of the female population is of the critically thinking intelligent individuals compared to the men being from a wider range. There would still be more smart men than smart women, but compared to their total populations, I would hazard the guess that the % comparison would be horribly lopsided since the males of average intelligence tend to stick around and the females of average intelligence don’t seem to bother staying.

  • fidelbogen

    A glaring exception to this generalization about women would be a certain Canadian whom I will simply call the Fuzzy Hornet.

  • ScribblerG1

    As the comments here demonstrate, this is quite a troubling commentary to see on AFVM. She’s like some upper middle class Jewish liberal racing down to the south in the late ’50s to tell blacks in the South how she really gets their troubles even better than they do. Lol, how absurd.

    Of course AVFM is inviting this as it’s just so excited to have women on board. But here’s the thing, there is no such thing as a “Red Pill” woman. It’s like being a Nazi who’s also a Jew – it just doesn’t compute. In fact, if this author actually digested the privilege she exhibited here, she’d be embarrassed. Good thing I don’t call myself an MRA otherwise I’d be embarrassed.

    Here’s what I believe Red Pill women should be doing.

    1. Going into female and feminist dominated spaces and being disruptive with the ideas and critique on offer here. I wonder if it even occurs to the Honey Badgers and other self styled activists that it’s very easy for them to be against the insanity that is feminism here? They are welcomed with open arms and given a ton of opportunities that many men who do more for the cause ever will be given. By the same token, if these same women went to feminist rallies and political meetings and joined their groups and went and tried to actually confront the hypocrisy and immorality. well that would probably be a lot less enjoyable, yes? This simple truth does not evade me. We also have no need of women to validate or get the narrative. None. We would be just fine without any of the women here.

    2. Red Pill women should show us with their actions that they care – Be clear, this is not for me – I’ve had a fair amount of success with women. But there are many men in this movement who are very lonely. Some are virgins, many haven’t been touched by a woman or had sex in years. The level of frustration they feel due to being lower betas who the hypergamous nature of today’s women finds useless and laughable is truly horrific. Their rejection by society at large as nerds, losers, creeps etc makes these men’s lives a living hell in some very real ways. To me, a “Red Pill” chick could be of the most help to our movement by sleeping with some of these desperate men. Throw them a little puss and affection. I mean, you are an MRA – you must get that at the core of all this are female dualistic mating strategies, yes? If so, ,show us you shun sexual privilege granted women by biology and culture with deeds, not words. Talk is cheap.

    Other than that, they can just stay on the sidelines. But they don’t. And AVFM presents such people to me breathlessly as though I should be impressed. I’m not. This article is hyperbolic nonsense and best seen as an attempt by someone who isn’t that smart in the first place to sound smart. Fail. Epic fail.

  • http://batman-news.com MGTOW-man

    Apparently most women are easily dominated by their feelings which can heavily skew their perspectives on reality. Also apparent is the observation that while MHRA women feel too, of course, they also possess the capacity to remain far more objective than women who are blinded by their own feelings. As a measure of self-absorption, MHRA women are not like most other women. They “get it” precisely because they are not self-absorbed. Our female friends here are the only women whom men owe anything at all.

    Thank you, women, for all you do to try to improve the lives of men and boys.

  • Kama

    I’m beginning to think that people on this site don’t know what a feminist actually is. The things that you talk about in this article, such as attitudes about male rape or berating men who cry, are exactly the problems that real feminists are concerned about. Both are real problems because of society’s narrow-minded thinking about gender roles, roles handed down by generations of Patriarchal societies. It’s patriarchal cultures and influences, from the Roman Empire to Christianity, that forced men into these damaging and limiting roles.

    Are there so-called “feminists” who are angry towards all men? Certainly. And unfortunately it’s this very vocal fringe group that gets the headlines and the attention. Feminism like any movement is not a monolith. There is no one governing body. And just like you shouldn’t assume all Republicans think exactly the same, because they don’t, not all feminists think the same either. But if you took the time to look at the real feminists who are interested in equality and getting rid of narrow gender roles for both men and women, you would see a lot of the points you make here and on other places on this website.

    You mention male rape and “feminists” supposed acceptance of it. A better article would have had actual examples and comments showing this attitude. I would urge you and everyone else to really look at who is downplaying male rape: other males. Take the recent case of two high school teachers having sex with a student. Read the comments on gawker. You’ll find that both men and women are calling this rape. But a significant minority of men express their admiration for the male victim and are “high fiving” him.

    • driversuz


      “Patriarchy” is a myth. Women and men have always been oppressed and women and men have always been oppressors. However men as a class have NEVER, in the entire known history of our species, oppressed women as a class. They have instead protected women (and still do) at the behest of women no less.

      Could you perhaps point me to the “real” feminists who are lobbying against VAWA because it discriminates against men? How about the “real” feminists who demand that military physical fitness standards be the same for men and women? And the ones who demand that the draft include both sexes or be abolished? Could you find me a few “real” feminists who have the clout to fight FOR shared parenting and AGAINST NOW’s well financed efforts to block it state by state?

      Your Gender Studies fairy tales (such as Patriarchy Theory and The Wage Gap and Rape Culture) are not welcome here, but you are welcome to hang around and read a few proven facts. You could do what “real” feminists are always harping about – “Educate Yourself!” In the mean time, STFU.

      • Kama

        You’ve set up quite the straw man, talking about things I never said or even hinted at. When you’re done acting like a 15-year-old on Tumblr, you can come join the adults in a healthy discussion.

        • driversuz

          Nice try. That shit doesn’t wash here. We call it “contempt trolling.” It’s a well worn form of attention whoring. Strike one.

        • driversuz

          Strike 1: This is a friendly warning that you may need to re-read our Comment Policy, in particular the bits about trolling and general contempt for the work AVfM does. [Ref: 1795]

          Additional remarks:

          Cites textbook feminist talking points, then plays dumb. Oh. Wait…

    • RubberPunch

      It is much more likely that what you call patriarchal gender roles was a result of the advent of the industrialized nation state, and the associated effort to make a potential soldier out of every man in the nation.

      The state needed fodder for the industrial grind, and the cannons they forged from the smelting of church bells.

      The cultural legacy before industrialization provides plenty of masculine expressions of emotions and love for women as well as men.

      So called traditional patriarchal gender roles are neither traditional nor patriarchal; they are utterly modern.

      • Kama

        What an interesting comment! Thank you for your input! I agree that we could be talking about the same things, only using different labels, at least for modern day gender roles. But it would be dishonest to completely dismiss other influences, such as Christianity, on the roles of men and women today. They’ve all joined together in a very limiting way for both, unfortunately.

        Since you mentioned the industrial revolution, you might be interested in looking more into the politics behind clothing. Men and women, at least the upper classes, dressed very similarly (heels, lace, makeup, etc.) until the industrial revolution created very strict standards for each.

      • driversuz

        But, what about “Oppression?” Can’t have feminism if women weren’t oppressed.

        • RubberPunch

          Women weren’t oppressed any more than men were. I think you already wrote that in a comment that has now disappeared. The modern narrative of masculinity was never completely successful. It was and is an exaggeration of certain aspects of masculinity, while downplaying others.

          Feminism has been hurtful because it was instrumental in spreading the narrative of modern masculinity, but I believe, for the vast majority of men, men couldn’t get the narrative and their real life experiences to match.

          Feminism bought the narrative as truth, then claims masculinity must be engineered and changed. In essence they want to change something that was never really there.

          Feminists need “Patriarchal Gender Roles” to be a historical truth, because otherwise they have nothing to combat. The nation states sold the narrative as something good, the feminists sell it as something bad, both claim that the roles represent the natural (nation states) or current (feminists) state of men. They are both wrong.

          • driversuz


          • Kama

            I personally don’t like using the word oppression (which is why I never wrote it) when discussing this type of issue. It has the connotation that one group is completely helpless and at the mercy of another. It also has the effect of masking inconsistencies or contradictions. Your responses are thoughtful. So, I’m curious (and I’m not being sarcastic) what word would you use for when one group is not given the same rights as another (legal or otherwise), such as landless white men not being able to vote until reforms in the 1800’s. Discrimination? Exclusion?

          • driversuz

            You don’t like using the word “oppression,” but WE’RE the ones who don’t really know what feminism is??? Do you know what Patriarchy Theory is? It underlies every feminist theory and political initiative. Feminism could not exist except among a handful of crazies, if it weren’t “justified” by the presumption that all women are (and always have been) oppressed by all men. Do you support an ideology you don’t even understand?

          • RubberPunch

            Inequality or equality. When it comes to voting rights, it depends how you look at it.

            In a society where public life begins with the household, and not the individual, it would seem just to deny the vote to people that were not head of the household. The head of household would vote on behalf of his household, and its needs.

            When transitioning from this household based model to universal suffrage, it would seem to the proponents of the old system, that larger households would get an unfair advantage against the smaller ones. The remaining nobility with their large estates, and many members of household, would be represented by a larger number of votes under universal suffrage.

            Another issue is the meaning of the term rights. In traditional societies everyone was pretty much born into a specific social position; social mobility was rare. There was generally no central state power to protect any rights; the church attempted to infuse some moral structure into the everyday life of the people, but they were far from effective.

            You see this still in areas of the world where a central state is not in power. Conflicts between households will be mediated through religious leaders. Under such conditions it doesn’t make much sense to talk about rights for anyone, men or women. Any thoughts about rights will be foreign to such a society.

            Patriarchy is a system of social security and stability that women and everyone benefit from. It reduces the risk of males banding together in gangs, because it assigns a specific and predictable route for men to take that supports women and children, often by invoking men’s ability to set aside their individual interests, on behalf of the whole.

            I do not advocate a return to a patriarchal household system btw, but I believe it is the optimal way to organize from the bottom, when there’s no central power present. It has flaws of course, for instance it will not be very efficient when it comes to the protection of individual members of a household, men or women. If you were to marry the wrong person, it could very well be horrible.

          • Kama

            Thank you for your comment! I’ll probably have to stop my commenting on this article after this (because the conversation is going way off topic), but as I expected your answer is logical and thoughtful.

            The patriarchal household system, as you put it, did serve a purpose because it worked for those times, even though as you rightly point out it’s not efficient for protecting individual members. I think it was most successful in smaller societies/clans where bonds between family groups were a matter of survival, and pressure from the community could keep people in line. But as populations grow, the sense of community lags, and so individuals do not feel as responsible or empathetic towards others. And even though today we have a different system, we still have flaws in that protection is not evenly spread among different genders, races, etc. As another article on this site points out (unfortunately I cannot find it again at this moment), the media does not treat rape the same way for each sex. Rape is horrible for anyone, but equal protection, let alone equal media coverage is not given. I hope that in the future that this will change.

    • driversuz

      ” who is downplaying male rape: other males.”
      You are aware of course, that it is feminists who have influenced the legal definition of rape so as to eliminate countless male victims. “People” understand that sex without consent is rape. Feminists have made certain that female on male rape cannot be prosecuted as such , except under very VERY narrow circumstances. But men are the problem?