feminism-built-on-violence

Feminism is not Built on Violence or Hate

Several days ago this site ran an article addressing the unintentionally revealing ravings of a disturbed ideologue who still manages to cling to the pretence of being a brave righter of wrongs and champion of the meek. However, Eve Ensler demonstrated in her comments that her life-long obsession with rape is not driven by some noble humanism or desire for justice. She appears to simply be jealous of the physical strength and outboard plumbing which allows men the possibility of overpowering a smaller individual, and reflected in Ensler’s distorted desires, committing rape.

This wasn’t a new consideration for me, I did wonder if Eve might consider indulging herself with fantasies of raping individuals of lesser physical prowess than herself, children for example. Then I remembered she’s already included those fantasies in her play “the Vagina Monologues”. Whoops, I guess I’m late to the party. The reality that some women sexually abuse children is unsurprising. Women aren’t special human beings, they’re not innately innocent, or pure, or magical, they’re just humans. People quite naturally put themselves into positions of access to what they’re attracted to. If it’s children, then they’ll gravitate into roles affording access to children, and the sex of a potential child abuser has no impact on that.

However, the accepted narrative in our culture is dominated by the perverse ideology well known to readers of this site which places a masculine label on all that is negative. So despite continued reportage of cases like Vanessa George, Angela Allen, Tracy Lyons and Tracey Dawber (pedophilia), Casey Anthony (child murder), Crystal Dawn Mckenzie (murder) Rachel Hicks, Abbie Swogger, Lisa Marinelli (rape) – the approved party line remains focused solely on offenders who happen to be male.

According to Author and director of the UK Charity Kidscape, Michelle Elliot, over 75% of cases of child sexual abuse by women were committed where women acted alone or without male participation, and this, according to Elliot, “messes up the narrative”. Elliot was blacklisted following her publication of “female sexual abuse of children” in 1994.

Returning to I’m-over-it-Eve and her rape fantasies, how long have ideologues used a belligerent mantra of women’s victimization to shout down more reasoned humanist voices pointing to peer reviewed research undermining the narrative of female victimhood? This goes beyond a childish inability to engage in civil debate, and beyond ideological blindness in which conforming data is selected and nonconforming data rejected. The feminist victim mantra is most understandable in recognition that it’s proponents are projecting their own unacknowledged impulses onto the sexual demographic accused of all wrong-doing in the world.

There is a simple reason why feminist ideologues who endlessly beat on the drum of female victimhood and male aggression rely so heavily on anecdotal evidence and debunked research like the infamous Koss study. Its not just that the peer reviewed data fails to support men=bad, women=good. The accepted narrative of male evil continuously promoted is projection of desire. The ideology commonly called feminism, which wraps itself in a phony blanket of pious humanism is, after all a doctrine built on the foundation of hatred and violence.

This realization is thrown into sharp focus by recent developments, including the reporting several on this site of an ongoing criminal conspiracy to engage in male-targeting eugenics. An article written by Pamela O’Shaughnessy used euphemistic language to suggest mass murder and eugenics as a solution to imagined male defect. This attracted a collection of feminist ideologues whose reactions ranged from the necessity of mass murder to reduce men to a manageable number under a female supremacist governance. For illustrative purpose, I’ve included a few of the weeks-old comments from that blog, left standing in place by the editor.

One cheerful enthusiast for mass murder and female supremacy said :

The *magic number* to bring the males under control is ~30% of the population

Believing themselves above public accountability, and above the law, other commenters also suggest eugenics and infanticide openly.

“Women need to stop raising male children. Women who raise male children are digging the graves of other females. Nobody wants to bite that bullet (except lesbian separatists) but it must be done.”

“it occurs to me that a female ob/gyn that was willing to perform sex-selective abortions on male fetuses would be giving a gift to the next generation”

Some openly lament the knowledge that sane women might refuse to join in a collective campaign of child murder.

“The danger of talking about “radical action” as being only things like killing all male babies at birth is that we know in our hearts that the vast majority of women will NEVER do that. NEVER. EVER.
So we can sit back snug in the belief that we know exactly what it will take to be free AND never have to do anything about it.”

Another commenter rebukes those who’ve preceded her for their apparent moderation and timidity.

“and so what if there is no such thing as radical action, or realistic radical action? are you honestly saying that there is danger in speaking the truth? or do you disagree that radical action is limited to things that are practically unspeakable like infanticide?

if something is true there is no harm in saying it, is there? I mean, the danger in *not* discussing things like a biological solution is…it doesn’t get talked about. we don’t go to the ends of our thoughts. “

These radical, extremist, openly murderous ideologues conducted this discussion in a publicly visible blog, which weeks after being outed by commenters on this site – remains online. The author of this blog, far from being a diagnosed mental patient is a trained lawyer, a published author, and a director of a major political organization.

This private murder club is out in the open because it’s not actually radical. These women believe they are immune from legal consequence. They may be right.

Individuals attending Occupy Wall Street protests have also provided a glimpse into increasingly open expression of murderous and violent fantasies of ideologues.

“Eradicate males” Is what one woman’s sign at an Occupy Wall Street protest rally read. She paraded this message of genocide in public, knowing that the message would be pushed, and that she’d face no consequence.

Another group of self identified feminists advocated for re-distribution of weapons from police to themselves. The picture on their banner was an outline of an assault rifle. For self protection, and not murder, right ladies?

Feminism has always been an escalation of chivalry – the normalized ideal of male disposability. As an ideology, the female favouring doctrine of violence and hate has always relied heavily on male enforcement of female privilege, and male disposability for the convenience and comfort of women, but it has progressed. Ideologues who, amazingly continue to claim they are oppressed, increasingly broadcast an open call for large scale murder. Do members of the public need to hear the gunshots outside their doors to wake up to this?

The continued narrative that feminism is anything except violent, brutish and murderous melts like wax in a blast furnace when it’s examined in the light of evidence. Eve Ensler is a frustrated rapist. Dworkin was a frustrated murderer. Mackinnon was a frustrated dictator. And feminists ideologues who continue to promote their narrative of omnipresent rape and physical abuse are themselves frustrated rapists and violent abusers.

The ongoing political push to reverse the burden of evidence in accusations of rape is wholly unrelated to any desire for justice or reduction of sexual violence. It is the manifestation of the desire of followers of a violent ideology to re-purpose the courts into a tool of sexual violence against the demographic they openly hate.

This depraved perversity was summarized in a recent letter published by Brown University’s newspaper, with apparent pride at the abandonment of decency in favour of a wholly ideological governance. Western civilization had a period of wholly ideological rule once before in history. It’s a period commonly called the dark ages. Are the ideologues pushing for this outcome so craven they seek a repeat of legal systems using dogma, torture and astrology to determine and enforce their doctrinal truth? Apparently so.

This is where stupidity of a wholly new level emerges. Let’s assume, just for a moment that somehow we arrive a few years down the road in a world of ideological feminist governance. Men are chattels, reduced to livestock – or, as ideologues like Pamela O’Shaughnessy would have it, an agricultural product.

“My own personal vision is that women will cure the sickness that ails men [...]
I’m serious about this. If we can do it with corn, men ought to be easy.”

Try to imagine this feminist utopia, men in cages, maybe raised in laboratories, lobotomized so their keepers don’t need to suffer the cries for help as their bodies are used as procreative dispensers. Does that sound like a functional society? Or does it have the character of a nightmare world.

Some men might be left intact for use operating heavy machinery, or protecting natural resources such as oil from theft by other nation states. The dirty, dangerous jobs where workers still die – men will be needed for them too.

Now try to imagine getting from here to that no-too-distant future without massive and society-wide violence. Imagine somehow creating that feminist distopia without decades of ongoing and universal bloodshed.

  • LJ

    I got the first post!

    Let’s get an MRA at OWS and on the news!

    • by_the_sword

      I hope that the comments section doesn’t devolve into a “First post!” contest.

  • mongo

    “Eve Ensler is a frustrated rapist. Dworkin was a frustrated murderer. Mackinnon was a frustrated dictator.

    Some years ago I picked up Simone de Beauvoir’s “The Mandarins”. I got about 3/4 of the way through before putting it down. Somewhere I had gotten the notion that she was a significant intellectual force, but all I read was the frustration of a woman with a voracious sexual appetite railing against every social restraint. Later I learned that she was a sexual predator, raping her teen female understudies (and there are many who call this beast “the mother of Feminism” – they may well be right).

  • CCRoxtar

    It’s ironic that the gal in the picture is pointing the gun at herself. Wouldn’t a pic of her pointing it at the camera be more fitting? After all, we guys are the targets of women’s violence (whether literal or metaphorical), are we not?

    • 4thtroika

      Maybe she’d be better off pointing it at her foot.

  • Joe Ureneck

    At ‘Occupy Boston’ there has been some anti-male feminist propaganda…but also pro-men outreach such as the campaign to ‘Repeal MGL 209A (so-called ‘abuse prevention) Law’ as seen here – http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/newsite/content/repeal-mgl-209a-occupy-boston-nov-16-2011

  • ForsakenEagle

    It’s really pathetic how so many feminists are not aware of their hatred. In fact, they believe blatant hate speech is actually intellectual honesty because of their demented beliefs and feelings. They willing talk about the eradication of so many innocent, precious lives in pursuit of their Brave New World. If a man has no right to talk about the nature of women, then why should a woman be able to talk about the nature of men? These fools go beyond questioning male nature and propose mutilating it for their own purposes. The saddest part of their evil plans will be they will draft men to subdue the men defending their own right to exist. This will be right before the white knight lap dogs are sent to gulags or incinerated altogether.

    The Feminist Movement must never be allowed to reach its desired end. Thank you for this great article.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com John the Other

      Feminism has no end point. That is one of the fundamental points in understanding it. No matter what advances are made, feminists will still shriek that women need some further protection or privilege. When men are born locked into tiny cages and our blood is used for man-blood daiquiris – we will still be claimed to be oppressing women somehow, by bleeding out too slowly, or too fast, or by dying at inconvenient times.

      • BeijaFlor

        Jesus McCarthy McGod.

        “We will still be claimed to be oppressing women somehow, by bleeding out too slowly, or too fast, or by dying at inconvenient times.”

        Were we to take the meiotic dance as the be-all, do-all and end-all of our participation in the future, we would STILL flunk-out in the eyes of Woman Goddess Sublime.

        How will they shuffle the genetic cards, between themselves, when they are finally and mythically rid of the Eternal Oppressor? When there are NO MORE MEN to help them with the shuffle, and sophisticated science is used to make one egg fertilize another?!

        And how will the extinct chromosome be held to blame for their failures, just before the collapse of humankind and the takeover by the still-heterosexual Norway rat?!!

      • Primal

        THIS kind of article is feminism’s end. As soon as the killer in ‘angel-killer’ is seen for who she is the game is up. The entire racket depends on concealing the dark side of woman…thus the efforts to suppress research on female evil, the shunning of women like Elliot or Phyllis Chessler, and the efforts to transform female rape into ‘true love’ or romantic ‘relationships’.

        Sooner or later though the ‘Dark Side of Woman: Tracing the Origins of Vice’ will be just as well known as the Dark Side of Man: Tracing the Origins of Violence (http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Man-Tracing-Violence/dp/073820076X) Feminism will rapidly collapse under the weight of reality as female vice begins to be seen as every bit as serious as male violence. For that to happen males need to become far more aware of female forms of ‘non-violent’ aggression though.

      • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

        I think Aristotle summed it up best.

        “The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.”

        There can be no end to that kind of madness.

        TDOM

        • Terry

          Actually, that quote is most often misattributed to Aristotle. It was actually written by Laurence J. Peter, well known for his “Peter Principle.” That is actually a quote from his 1979 book, “Peter’s People.” The quote has become known as Aristotle’s Axiom.

      • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

        I looked at the picture you linked in the article and yeah it’s a slice of sunshine.

        I think this might be your most spooky article to date JTO. I think it’s spooky and unfortunately a bit too real for a PG rating for sure .

        …but then again bugger the rating system, we all need to know about this dreadful activity wherever it it pops up on the radar.

        Good on you for writing this piece and a big ta to the soul that first saw it and rang the bell.

      • http://www.mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/ Masculist Man

        OT:

        What do you have against lobbying those in power? Doing nothing accomplishes nothing.

  • andybob

    Feminist idealogues have left ample evidence of their depravity. The Radfem crowd all but drooled over the prospect of social engineering via male culling. It is clear that they equate unbridled savagery with credibility, and seemed to be competing to out-outrage each other.

    I expect the placard wielders to have that demented glint in their eyes. But it is the unstinting support that feminism receives from so-called average women that disappoints the most. They continue to pretend that feminism is a noble cause that battles inequality, despite ample evidence to the contrary.

    Most women I know pretend not to even notice the extremists, even when they are literally parading in the streets waving massive signs. Feminism hasn’t even served them very well, leaving most women I know, lonely, miserable and swimming in cat piss. Instead of blaming feminism, they just double down on their anger at men.

    I can no longer squeeze out a single drop of sympathy for them any longer.

    • BeijaFlor

      Andybob, if I remember correctly from previous posts, you find your sexual gratification from other sources than the women we come more and more to revile.

      You are very fortunate, sir, if this be the case.

      There may be a few “other sources” to enjoy, or with which to share pleasure, as the rest of Society collapses and withers away. I wish you the best of luck!!!

      • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

        Agreed,

        To be gay these days really is to be gay.

    • Jade Michael

      “Feminism hasn’t even served them very well, leaving most women I know, lonely, miserable and swimming in cat piss.”

      This reminds me of my ex. She’s not a feminist, but rather another casualty of the breakdown between male-female relationships. Try to throw her a raft to get out of the piss and she’ll just add more cats to the picture; both literally and analogically. (What is it with single women and cats, anyhow?)

      And can I just say that I love your posts, Andybob.

    • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

      Man, the insights I could gain from sitting down with Sir Andybob over a beer, or a glass of Scotch.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

      “I can no longer squeeze out a single drop of sympathy for them any longer.”

      Excellent… and is a line deserved for all of us. :)

  • Dannyboy

    JTO,
    Where to begin ?
    First another homer article bases loaded and “crack” the baseball flies or since your a fellow Canuck ” He shoots He scores ! ”

    I have read the whole Tiptree essay and the comments that were posted. Here’s a few more for those of you who haven’t read the whole page:

    From patriarchywatch
    October 5, 2011 at 11:31 am
    “A world free of brainwashing and gender stereotypes.”
    Oops just a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black there patriarchywatch. Your brand of radgirl blogging is extreme brain washing ( men = bad , women = good rinse repeat Ad nauseam to the masses ) Do I even need to mention how hypocritical your statement is as far as sexism but wait the essay you support has the answer of genetically modifying and or killing off one gender so I guess in the world you root for there could be no sexism.
    “A world where females are respected & admired for their loving hearts & kindness, not exploited or considered weak.”
    Yah advocating for the genetic modification of males is such a kind act from a loving heart, and the only reason you are considered weak is because of the victim mentality propagandize via like minded fembots such as yourself.

    cherryblossomlife
    October 5, 2011 at 11:57 am
    “HUman males are wiping human females out. HUman females are the only primates who have to put up with cowardly fucking men who kill the females of their own species rather than each other.”
    Just out of curiosity there cherry have you looked at any damn statistics lately other than cherry picked and stamped approved by the international consortium of ragirls????

    FCM
    October 5, 2011 at 6:47 pm
    “..most women do know what we are talking about. and some of them are already implementing biological solutions that we are only just now beginning to discuss, like dispatching their male babies immediately after birth rather than investing a decade or two of resources into them before their grown male children end up killing everyone and being killed in generations-old wars started and continued by men.

    this stuff is really basic. i think western conveniences and our fake academented educations only make this shit harder to grasp.”
    Your right it is basic your advocating for gendercide you twit. Also its good to know that people should be alerting the authorities to suspect it was infanticide with a side dish of gender hatred when a male child dies. Men and war does the name Golda Mier ( and there are more ) ring a bell or is your vision so myopic that you missed that one?

    Sargasso Sea
    October 5, 2011 at 7:16 pm

    “We need womyn *funded* R&D is all. We need womyn funded scholarships and apprenticeships and lab spaces.

    And I’m not talking about begging for some corner of some basement at some university, obviously.”
    Have you looked at recent articles and grants handed out to women by most of the developed world?? Oh I forgot your to busy reading lips,, the vertical ones between your girlfriend’s legs to ever even objectively think. ( no insult to the peace loving lesbians out there my social anger is not aimed at you )

    helhest
    October 5, 2011 at 9:38 pm

    “re: mary sunshine: if male children are born into this world, which they are (and i don’t see that not being the case anytime soon), it is absolutely women who should be raising them, ideally without an adult male-presence. the idea of men raising male children is one of the worst possible things i can imagine.”
    Here’s some reality for you radgirl helhest have a look at how many more times a child is likely to end up in the justice system without a father figure in their life. I don’t know where you might look for that information say some place like the D.O.J. ( hint hint )

    FCM
    October 5, 2011 at 10:46 pm

    “this of course leaves 100% of the burden of raising both girls and boys on women and mothers, which is a real problem, particularly considering that most pregnancies are either unwanted or ambivalent, and a side-effect of male-centric PIV-as-sex that men demand.”
    Oh yeah this general of the radgirl army is so intelligent that she makes the statement that pregnancies are a side effect of PIV
    ( penis in vagina ) sex,Well hells bells you better go out and let the rest of the animal kingdom know that pregnancies are a side-effect. ( committing crimes like spreading hate literature around has a side effect of incarceration )
    JTO great article.

  • Kai

    I really think you’re on to something JtO. I don’t know where this is going. That final vision is certainly how those extremists want it. But is it even possible for society to be restructured to even a Jim Crow segregation between men and women? I don’t think there’s much of a chance for it getting that bad. Feminism will self destruct in its own ideology before ever pulling anything like that off.

    • JGteMolder

      If feminism were left in to its own devices, yes. Problem is, feminism is nothing but a puppet strings by a banking elite that have population reduction to 500 million in the whole world as their goal for decades.

      And with their resources and propaganda machine under their control, those who control FEMA which has already built a few hundred to thousand internment camps around the US – I’m not so positive.

  • Codebuster

    A part of me is grateful for feminism. Men go through life never quite sure what women are about. They seem so “nice”, on the surface. But thanks to feminism, everything is clear. It was easy for the provided-for sex to be nice, while they received all that they desired without having to compete for it. Women’s morality is only ever morality of convenience. When tested, their morality turns to dust, vaporizing into the ether as if it never existed. Feminism has exposed the black heart of female nature, bringing it into sharp relief. Burn baby, burn. When their time comes, I’m not going to lift a finger to help.

    • Dannyboy

      You know there Codebuster the statement burn baby burn gives me an idea.
      It is this:
      For those of us who have video capabilities why not go out and purchase a second hand copy ( sure as hell wouldn’t want her to receive any royalties ) of any of perri O’Shaughnessy ‘ s books and burn them post the vid to youtube and link to her work as vilet tiptree.
      I’m no fan of book burning and a few lost copies of her work wouldn’t be missed but the effect it could have might be interesting in exposing her for what she is.

    • CCRoxtar

      A part of me is grateful as well. If at age 18 I had learned as much about feminism as I know now at nearly twice that age, I might have stopped chasing girls/women earlier than I did. I might even have refused to go to college; nearly everything I know now, that I really need to know, I learned from the School of Hard Knocks. Just as I had to learn to be emotionally self-sufficient (no dates, no sex), women will have to learn to be financially self-sufficient (no alimony, no child support, no vacations, no free meals, no bling). I am man, now hear ME roar!

      • Grey Knight

        I am man, now hear ME roar!

        We don’t need to roar because we’re beyond that.

        They fear the low rumble of our voices. By and large we meant them no harm but when we have been subjugated for far too long our voices eventually becomes action and for them, that is something to fear.

        • Raven01

          Did you catch the study that politicians with low masculine voices are viewed as more honest and fair?
          It seems we had the genetic lessons already that testosterone is the “fairness” hormone.

          • Elder Swami

            That is incredible, do you have a link?

  • http://counterfem.blogspot.com Fidelbogen

    “Western civilization had a period of wholly ideological rule once before in history. It’s a period commonly called the dark ages.”

    Ahhh… well, the Dark Ages (from circa 500 AD to circa 1100) were certainly crude, violent, nasty, brutish, dirty, chaotic, war-torn, etc etc….

    But those years were really one of the least ideological periods of history that I can think of.

    For “ideological”, start with the French Revolution and move forward to the present day, taking in the sights along the road as you go. . . .

    Here is the guy who invented the word “ideology”:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destutt_de_Tracy

  • http://www.cyclotronmajesty.net CyclotronMajesty

    Well. It’s a good idea to be ready at some level for a life / death kind of fight. Survivalists welcome.

    Chances are the female who plans to kill us all is going to approach in sheep’s clothing. They will come to our door and knock calmly and say something like we are under arrest for something or another. Then they will take us and shackle us to a wall and begin their torture until we die. Has happened before in history, could easily happen again. In fact it is probably happening right now somewhere.

    Alex Jones we hear you…

    Fascism is a feminine preponderant situation, the feminine is a contracting negative energy of stagnation and frozen hard ossificaiton. It is water. Untended by the fire of the male, the female will just disintegrate into a black vacuum of nothingness and take everything she can with her. Unchecked by the male the female will unleash her power like the goddess Kali. But all rigidity is dissolved by warmth of the fire, which is the masculine. Just FYI… The fire gently melts the shards of bloody ice.

    But, you may object, what about the fascist male dictators? Animus men, domesticated animals of the female psyche’s power of weakness. You could become one of them! They can drive you out of your own mind.
    Look at Oedipus Rex? Nero, and countless others. Behind every evil man is a queen of hell.

    http://tinyurl.com/PowerOfWeakness

  • Malestrom

    “My own personal vision is that women will cure the sickness that ails men [...]
    I’m serious about this. If we can do it with corn, men ought to be easy.”

    But women didn’t do anything with corn, men did all that. If it had been up to women we wouldn’t even know about DNA, much less be tampering with it, in fact we probably wouldn’t even know how to farm corn. Who exactly do these women think they are?

    • Atlas Reloaded

      I can think of something for women to do with corn. And I’d watch for a few minutes.

      • Atlas Reloaded

        LOL! I meant it.

  • chrixthegreat

    John, when I read the first paragraph, I began to think of a piece of Freudian physiology.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_envy

    A point that I would like to make as well. When I took my gun licensing course, there are 2 types of firearm licenses available. Unrestricted (hunting weapons) and restricted (weapons specifically designed for killing humans). In the unrestricted course, there were no women. In the restricted coarse, I was the only man.

    • Atlas Reloaded

      Yeah but that says nothing about women bt uabout YOU! You, you violent male are the reason they are there to learn to shoot men dead. (And me of course). They are standing up to patriarchy ! Ya understand? Patriarchy!

  • Eoghan

    Can anyone point me to a citation for

    “Michelle Elliot [said] over 75% of cases of child sexual abuse by adults were committed by women acting alone or without male participation”

    • chrixthegreat

      • Eoghan

        Ok thanks.

        What she actually said was that over 75% of cases of child sexual abuse by women were women acting alone or without male participation, which is very different from the quote in the article that implies she said that women acting alone or without male participation accounts for 75% of cases of child sex abuse.

        I don’t know how healthy it is for us to be accepting statistical factoids like that uncritically. We are supposed to be the ones that don’t do that.

        • chrixthegreat

          Your right, we aren’t supposed to do that. I sure it was just an honest mistake made when John was typing it.

          This should be changed in the article to match what was said here by Michelle Elliot. Last thing we need is to be discredited by misrepresentation of facts.

          ——————————
          Edit: Thanks for spotting that, correction made.
          ~JtO

  • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

    Big ups on this, Dr. Other.

  • http://alcuin-constant.blogspot.com/ Alcuin

    Excellent article. Feminists = Nazis.

    If you can get a woman to abort her child, you can get her to do anything.

    That is why abortion forms the heart of feminism. Feminism is about getting normal women to do evil things, just like Nazism was about getting normal Germans to do evil things. It worked before.

    Who’s to say that it won’t work again?

    • Eoghan

      “if you can get a woman to abort her child, you can get her to do anything.”

      How do you work that out?

      • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

        Teaching women that killing a fetus is not only normal, but moral, and a right that they possess helps to normalize female violence. It instills a female centirc worldview wherein the woman can do no wrong. Killing and violence are acceptable when committed by women. It is a short leap from telling women that they can choose to abort their fetuses to permitting sex-selective choice in aborting those fetuses to simply killing male babies and grown men.

        There is a lot made of the gendercide of killing female infants in China and India, but this rutual is typically carried out by the women of the village, not the men. The radfems aren’t upset that it occurs, only that the wrong sex is being destroyed.

        TDOM

        • Eoghan

          TDOM

          There was always a demand for abortion and for some time there has been some form of it practiced. Alcuin is framing it as something that women as a group have “been got” to do, rather than them for the most part using it as a last resort to get out of a situation that’s potentially bad for their well being, the well being of society and the well being of a future child. Also, the distinction between women in general and radical feminist with a genocidal agenda is being blurred here.

          Anyhow, I see abortion as a women’s rights issue and no real business of ours. I don’t like to see pro-life people appropriating the men’s movement so I always get a little defensive when the subject of abortion comes up, in this context.

          • Malestrom

            You don’t actually believe any of that ”last resort” rubbish you posted do you? The plain fact is that today abortion is simply a backstop to contraception, and the more of it there is the more of it there is. In my country Great Britain it was legalized in 1967 under the assumption that there would be extremely few, that it would be a last resort as you say, how did that work out? Well, we currently massacre about 250,000 unborn babies every year. You use all the usual garbage justifications ”oh its bad for the society and the child”, bullshit, there is no situation remedied by abortion that is not remedied by adoption, with the added benefit of not having to murder a defenceless unborn baby. So if you leave aside the idiotic whining about how not slaughtering the unborn is bad for them and everyone you are left only with the convenience argument, which is unquestionably what abortion is predicated on.

            Abortion is a hideous, repulsive abomination, the ongoing massacre of the defenceless unborn by the hundreds of thousands per country per year is by far mankind’s worst crime to date. Personally, I’ll say it every chance I get and I don’t care who gets defensive about it.

          • Eoghan

            Malestorm.

            You said

            “You don’t actually believe any of that ”last resort” rubbish you posted do you? ”

            and then you said

            “The plain fact is that today abortion is simply a backstop to contraception”.

            So it seems that you believe the same rubbish that I do.

            Most of the rest of what you said, is emotional hyperbole, to me at least.

      • Raven01

        Because most women are more susceptible to herd-mentality than most men, the desire to increase abortion and then make it more acceptable to voluntarily abort all protomale fetuses is an openly stated goal of radical feminists.
        Hitler wrote Mein Kampf and openly spelled out just what an asshole he was. Todays “little Hilters” are doing the same thing in radical feminist blogs and books.
        Once we failed to take decisive action thinking the majority(in these cases average Germans and average women) would never be fooled by such unfounded hatred. We were wrong. So, some of us resolve to not make that mistake again.
        Besides it does not matter whether or not you are pro-abortion or anti-abortion, the fact remains that there is no good excuse for the sheer number of abortions performed today with all of the contraceptive options currently available to women. Actually, the number of abortions performed is a pretty good reason to push for a safe effective male pill to be made available. It would be the ONLY choice other than abstinence available to men as a reliable reproductive choice.

        • Eoghan

          Raven 01

          Abortion has been connected to shady dealings, but in general the idea is that if someone needs to because of financial pressure or bad timing they can use it that’s why it was called voluntary eugenics. It’s also a tool for population control. To suggest that abortion is defined by say radial feminist suggestions for it, or that women have abortions because they have been “made to” rather than chosing to as the poster I was responding to suggested are both incorrect generalization. That’s what I was trying to correct. Abortion is in general a tool that useful to both men and women, and society. The other option is a totalitarian system making sure everyone lives by traditional rules.

          • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

            You’re maybe missing the bigger point. Abortion is a massive political instrument of femaleists. Look no further than the fact that in their ‘utopia of equality’ females possess ALL reproductive rights and males possess zero. The equality is suffocating isn’t it?

            Abortion is also the Achilles heel of female deification and pedestalization- any claim to moral or virtuous superiority that they otherwise espouse is immediately routed by their brazen cherishing of the mutilation and annihilation of defenseless human life in its most vulnerable and fetal state at the altar of selfish female preferences, wants, whims and desires. There is no way to rationalize this vice away, only brute force has facilitated the persistence of such contradiction and rote dissonance- ‘sanctity of life, motherhood, mother-child bond, the sanctity of the womb and the image of the altruistic saintly mother’ etc. vs championing at will abortions of convenience. The incompatibility is at face value.

            Femaleism is about one thing- female luxury and privilege. ‘The children’ are used solely as political instruments to that end, with great and cold calculation.

          • Red Bones

            Eoghan’s right about one thing. Nobody “got” women to abort. They choose to do it now as they chose to do it in the 1800′s,Ancient Egypt, maybe all the way back to Babylon. I don’t know exactly when it started, but I know women were aborting children at least as far back as the Pharaohs.

            I know why they did it then. Contraceptives weren’t widely available. There was no alternative.

            Now they’re passing out birth control in elementary schools like pez. Women have to go out of their way to get to the point where they need an abortion.

            Maybe they just like killing children a whole lot. There’s plenty of evidence for that on the books.

            Should women have the right to abort? Who gives a shit? They’ve got us bent over a barrel in our own house,the planet that we conquered in part to make it safe for them,raping us with the same tools we used to protect them long enough for this situation to develop.

            We have bigger fish to fry.

            Let them abort all the children they want. Let them have “Abortion and Taco Wednesdays” at the local Wimminz Shellturz. If God exists, they’ll pay for it in Hell. If not,they’ll pay for it here. Later, of course, but what can you do? If you’re on a sinking ship,you must bail water before you think about re-staining the deck.

          • Eoghan

            I don’t have the facility to respond to people after they have responded to me for some reason so I’m going to respond to Raven10 and Perseus here.

            Raven10. Women have been depicted as being forced to have abortions and that now that they have been made to do that they can be made to do anything, aborting zygotes has been conflated with murdering children, its been suggested that women like murdering children now you have said

            “the fact remains that there is no good excuse for the sheer number of abortions performed today with all of the contraceptive options currently available to women”

            It’s not for you to say whether someones reason for an abortion is justified or not, so your fact isn’t a fact. Abortion has gotten me out of a few tricky situations, the fact that we were unprepared, young and not situated was a good enough excuse for us.

            Perseus.

            I understand all of that, but for me knowing that a group is trying to slant reproduction entirely in favor of women and wants cheap and easy birth control and abortion available doesn’t leap to women being forced to have abortions, like murdering children, cherishing the “The mutilation and annihilation of defenseless human life in its most vulnerable and fetal state at the altar of selfish female preference” type of unchecked hyperbole, falsehood and fundamentalism worthy of a radfem site that I’m reading here in some of the comments.

          • Raven01

            Useful to society how?
            Are abortions used to remove begative genetic defects from the population? No, they are not. Congenital deformities/disabilities are not weeded out of existence this way (BTW that is what eugenics is really about, creating healthier, stronger, smarter people).
            “To suggest that abortion is defined by say radial feminist suggestions for it, ”
            Did I say “determined by”? Try on “influenced by” instead and you will see that I am still correct.
            “if someone needs to because of financial pressure ”
            Dead wrong, abortion is not widespread among the more undesirable segment of the population.(extra children are a higher paycheque for these societal leeches) i.e. Career Welfare Single Mothers, these people routinely produce substandard citizens. Their off-spring are over represented in mental health issues, suicide, crime and incarceration.
            “Abortion is in general a tool that useful to both men and women, and society”
            Had to come back to this one. Society has already been addressed but exactly how the fuck does abortion benefit men who have absolutely no say in it, or even a legal equivalent of giving up parental rights/responsibilities via “adoption”, where the mother can choose to “adopt” her own child and absolve(by his demand) the father of all obligation. You know the same option available to mothers, in some cases even when the natural father wishes to raise his own child but the mother does not her wishes over-rule his and she may put his child up for adoption.
            Abortion is not female empowerment as feminists preach but, instead it is feminist empowerment. Look at who controls virtually all discourse on the subject, it is either feminasties or the religious right. Neither group has my support. But, the feminasties have this battle won.
            You seem to have not understood that women regularly have proven themselves irresponsible with reproductive choice. That abortion has not been used to benefit society, or men, or even women but, rather to absolve women of consequences of poor choices.

          • Eoghan

            Raven10

            “Dead wrong, abortion is not widespread among the more undesirable segment of the population.”
            Raven10, you keep making statements that aren’t true. If by “more undesirable” (and you call feminists nazis) you mean the poorer people abortion is most frequently used by those demographics.

            “You seem to have not understood that women regularly have proven themselves irresponsible with reproductive choice.”

            The whole lot of them? You really mean I don’t buy into your fundamentalist black and white thinking.

            “but exactly how the fuck does abortion benefit men”.

            Sex is more freely available without having to commit resources and commitment, if there is an “accident” a couple can deal with it with abortion. If the child is very deformed the couple have an option. If someone gets pregnant after a one night stand they have an option.

            Raven10, you are jumping the shark into rabid rad fem territory.

            Most of the things you are hysterical about can be fixed by increasing men’s rights, its far better to do that, than it is to rant and rave about a right (abortion) that most women and most men want to have.

            This is men’s rights, women’s rights and traditionalist utopian desires to have a totalitarian system that controls sexual freedom are separate things.

          • http://www.youtube.com/user/MassEFR34k J3DIforce1

            “If the child is very deformed the couple have an option”

            Hmmm…well! If you ever have something happen to you where are deformed then perhaps your ok with the doctors letting you die! after all deformed is deformed…and it is after all an option right : ) Oh wait let me guess…your the kind of person who say they are ok with the plug being pulled yes? Yeah, if I had a dime for everytime Ive heard of people that say that very same shit and then cry like a bitch in the ER saying I don’t wanna die Id be doing all right for myself

          • Malestrom

            ” The other option is a totalitarian system making sure everyone lives by traditional rules.”

            By traditional rules you presumably mean things like ”you aren’t allowed to murder your offspring because they inconvenience you”? Yes, that is the option I desire.

            ”It’s not for you to say whether someones reason for an abortion is justified or not,”

            Easily said, and i can see it has a certain appeal to it. The thing is though, why not apply this to everything? At what point and on what basis do we say that certain actions are unnacceptable? You apparently do not subscribe to what you call the ”traditionalist” model, so what is your alternative? What argument would you advance against the person who says ”It isnt for you to say whether my choice to kill or steal was justfiied or not”?

            ”This is men’s rights, women’s rights and traditionalist utopian desires to have a totalitarian system that controls sexual freedom are separate things”

            If you think that feminism can be defeated without undoing the sexual revolution you are a fool, they are essentially the same thing.

      • http://none j24601

        It’s there in his comment

        “Feminism is about getting normal women to do evil things, just like Nazism was about getting normal Germans to do evil things. It worked before.”

        That’s how he worked it out – comprende?

        • http://none j24601

          @Eoghan

          You have posted the following:

          “…aborting zygotes has been conflated with murdering children…”

          Response: The whole idea of dehumanising the pregnancy with the use of such terms as ‘zygotes’ or ‘clumps of cells’, was the feminists tactic to counter the intuitive sense of women, and to make abortion palatable to them. It worked in terms of the uptake of abortion – UK 200,000 p.a., USA 1,000,000 p.a., globally 50,000,000 p.a.

          “Abortion has gotten me out of a few tricky situations…”

          Response: Not much one can say to that, bro, except that It speaks volumes for your character.

          • Eoghan

            j24601

            Sorry bud, but zygotes and children are not the same thing. Aborting a zygote and murdering a child are not the same thing, to suggest that it is is emotional hyperbole. Anyway, abortion is WOMEN’S rights, they decide what rights they want and are good for them, we don’t, just like we define what rights we need, not women.

            And its not too long since people were freaking out about condoms and calling them “evil”.

            “Response: The whole idea of dehumanising the pregnancy with the use of such terms as ‘zygotes’ or ‘clumps of cells’, was the feminists tactic to counter the intuitive sense of women, and to make abortion palatable to them”

            Is true but its was about making society see it that way too, not just women – but it still doesn’t mean that murdering a child and aborting a zygote are the same thing.

        • Eoghan

          Nah, there was always a demand for abortion. Long before feminism came along.

          • http://none j24601

            Sorry dude, but in the immortal words of J P McEnroe – Wimbledon 77ish…

            “You can’t be serious… YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS”

            Substantively, my comments were as follows:

            Response: The whole idea of dehumanising the pregnancy with the use of such terms as ‘zygotes’ or ‘clumps of cells’, was the feminists tactic to counter the intuitive sense of women, and to make abortion palatable to them. It worked in terms of the uptake of abortion – UK 200,000 p.a., USA 1,000,000 p.a., globally 50,000,000 p.a.

            “Abortion has gotten me out of a few tricky situations…”

            Response: Not much one can say to that, bro, except that It speaks volumes for your character.

            I don’t quite see how you’ve addressed them in your most recent replies.

  • JGteMolder

    Fantastic article. And yet, I do not get how people not see the vile nature of feminism. These “radicals” aren’t radical. The leaders of the largest and most profitable feminist organizations are of course the type of people that wrote books like “Men are pigs, they all deserve to die” in the seventies.

    The fact they can get away with it without a single “mainstream feminism” opposition, is because they aren’t radicals, they are the mainstream core.

    Any feminists claiming to be for equal rights and genuinely be for it, and even more those who are pro men’s rights, are the real radical fringe.

    (PS: the first time Pamela is mentioned in the article the last ‘a’ is missing; ‘Pamel’.)

    • http://counterfem.blogspot.com Fidelbogen

      ‘Radical’ has different meanings.

      One of those meanings (etymologically speaking) is ‘root’.

      So yes, the feminazis are indeed the root (radical) of feminism.

      They are also the future, as in the title of Zillah Eisenstein’s book The Radical Future of Liberal Feminism.

  • TigerMan

    It always fascinates me the extent to which misandry can blight many womens ability to reason. The very fact that these poor excuses for women can write such things openly in a public blog is very telling indeed. First of all it seriously undermines these womens claims that they are oppressed victims of men because obviously were that the case they would not be free to express their detestation of men and boys so openly. Of course there is also the fact that it is not just men who would find their plans abhorent but also the mothers of many sons and all other fair minded women. Mucking about with genetics is a very serious matter as our technology and expertise accelerates. I have little doubt that many other extremist groups (and perhaps chillingly even nation states secretly!) are salivating at the potential for genetic manipulation could do for THEIR “project”. The problem for these groups is that those folks who have the know how are not confined to their philosophy and therefore the capacity for effective retaliation is not something the wise would overlook to put it mildly! It should also be pointed out that female bigots should not rely on their indispensability too much either as I see it only as a matter of time before we have mastered the ability to create artificial “wombs”. Many women would indeed welcome this especially those who otherwise could not have children and are not happy co-opting other women to act as surrogates. Genetic technology is a pandoras box and sadly we have already opened it. Our future I’m afraid is set to be an increasingly genetically modified one but these fermale dinosaurs don’t need concern themselves as their own philosophy is going to make them extinct anyway because their daughters are going to be mating with men whose mothers DON’T believe in aborting their sons. In short cutting the same branch which you are sitting on is never a good idea. Perhaps that T-Shirt company could do another design with a slogan that is at least true e.g. “Feminists are stupid throw FACTS at them” I’d buy one!

    • Bombay

      I like that slogan! LOL

    • scatmaster

      Copyright that slogan TigerMan.

  • keyster

    Stop demanding equality and special rights/privilages from the government at the same time. Eugenics notwithstanding, it only serves to make you look more the fools than you’ve revealed yourselves to be.

    “Social justice” doesn’t mean more equal than others, nor does it mean reparation for some mythological oppression of centries past. Man-up ladies!

  • Dannyboy

    A little of tiptree’s own medicine ( A parody )
    All I did was change the opening quote and reverse where tiptree used woman and man, nothing more. It is tiptrees own words and ideas not mine nor do I believe in or endorse this parody.

    “In revenge and in love woman is more barbaric than man is.”

    FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE, Beyond Good and Evil

    I am a man and I’m no superhero. I don’t have an academic or other institutional connection, the strength behind me of a life-affirming culture, faith, a clear understanding of my situation, or a firm idea what to do. What I do have is an ongoing intolerable experience that this life I and other men live is blighted by female oppression, and that this blight diseases the trunk of our species’ existence, not just the branches, not just the leaves. Every moment of our existence, this blight injures us. It kills our spirits, ruins our bodies, destroys our happiness, twists our children. It has thrived for so long it sometimes seems ineradicable.
    This blight has many names: the Matriarchal System, Misandry, female Supremacy, Men’s Subjugation. I just call it the System at the moment.

    I also have this: the conviction, based on all that I am, that the System can be eradicated.

    And I have one other thing: the experience, action, and theory of other men around me now and living before me, who have exposed and attempted to eradicate this blight. Right now, I am learning from and contributing to the MRM, a new center of thought and action on the Internet for Radical masculinist men and men interested in their work. …….

    My own personal vision is that men will cure the sickness that ails women and that women will stay around, hunkered in their woman-kitchens playing the spoons, leaving us in peace at last. As to what that cure may be, my best bet is that what’s wrong with women is that their estrogen needs genetic modification.

    I’m serious about this. If we can do it with corn, women ought to be easy.”

  • Eye in the Sky

    Here’s another steaming pile from male feminist Micah Toub:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/love/micah-toub/its-time-boys-learn-the-f-word/article2240127/

    You can see from the comments section that he has already riled up a bunch of people with his recitation of gynocratic ideology. The tide is starting to turn…

    • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

      To what unbelievable lengths will these duplicitous female supremacists go to to contort the plain facts into their tired and wicked “male bad / female good” narrative?

      “When I go on the Internet, there’s so much about DIY beauty tricks for women,” she said. “It feels like if you’re not pretty, you’re worth nothing. And if you’re pretty, you’re only worth your looks.”

      And the fucktard Toub’s conclusion? “Her story, an all too common one, illustrated for me why feminism still has some fights to take on – and why boys her age need to hear its perspective.”

      Hey sourtits, let me let your derelict self in on a little secret- the ones running the ‘beauty’ industry ARE FEMALES and HOMOSEXUALS, not ‘The Patriarchy’ or little boys. Misdirect your venom much?

      ———————-

      “Internet pornography, one of teen boys’ greatest preoccupations, is naturally one of the issues addressed – in a pro-sex, playfully ironic manner. When I asked my niece whether she thinks porn puts negative pressure on her, she confirmed – and then inspirationally combatted – our collective fear that girls feel they have to mimic the videos that boys watch. One guy she dated at 16 did indeed pressure her. “He asked me, ‘Why aren’t you screaming?’ And I told him, ‘Because I’m not acting!’ That’s what a lot of it is. It’s fake.””

      Hey sourtits, let me let your derelict self in on a little secret- the ones in those videos, are your sexually and economically liberated sisters, acting of their own free volition, uncoerced and with every career option at their fingertips. Any fucking questions about that? And you… wait for it….. blame the teenage boy for masturbating to images of sexy females? You are a special kind of child hating monster, then aren’t you? All to cling for dear life to your pathetic mantra, ‘oh the poor female victim and the bad, guilty boy’. If she wear’s a push up bra and miniskirt to willfully exploit the sex drive of young boys in seeking their attention, that’s a celebrated expression of her female sexuality, but when a boy expresses his natural sex drive by observing people having sex on the Internet, she’s a victim of ‘his actions’- WTFingF? What rock of degeneracy and incoherence did you crawl out from under? The poor female is a victim of the oxygen in the air. Seriously, my gag reflex is exhausted.

      • Atlas Reloaded

        “Because we’re worth it.”

  • http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/ St. Estephe

    Radical feminism of the type described here is, in simple terms, eugenics (quite the same thing that was tried out in Germany).

    On feminist historical fraud — violent women & “patriarchy” — – — “Once upon a time chivalrous men created a woman’s license to kill: chivalry justice in the early 20th century.”
    http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2011/11/womans-license-to-kill.html

  • http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/ St. Estephe

    Here’s a forgotten, but important pioneering feminist, Viktoria Rieger, who put her best foot forward in an effort to rid the planet of the “second gender.” Rieger, a cross-dresser nicknamed “Smoking Peter” would be a great heroine of the current misandric eugenicists, if only historical research on female criminals had not been ignored, underfunded, deemed “inappropriate” by the “experts.”

    The Cross Dressing Husband-Killing Syndicate Maven: Viktoria Foedi Rieger – 1933
    http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2011/09/cross-dressing-husband-killing.html

  • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

    Females have always had their violence executed by proxy both because of their inadequacies and the advantages of doing so. Only a complete buffoon would fall for “women are not violent like men” and “if women were in charge there would be no wars” tripe. PALEEEASE woman, SPARE us the drivel.

    http://www.register-her.com/

    • Atlas Reloaded

      Perseus, Slee-stacks, Aliens and if we want an ancient reference to show just how factual female violence is and has always been..your namesake slaying Medusa.

      Picture of Medusa’s head, underneath in bold white letters “This is what a feminist looks like.”

      • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

        “Picture of Medusa’s head, underneath in bold white letters “This is what a feminist looks like.””

        I’m liking that, Atlas. Exactly what a feminist (femaleist) looks like.

  • victorsvoice

    Yeah… This video pretty much proves that it’s definately about hatred of men: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4UwFOgfeZY

    • Atlas Reloaded

      Between the t-shirts I have seen on this video, that viscious cunt O’Shaungessy talking about the obliteration of males anything at all from Eve Ensler, Valenti and what have you, you’re damn right I will make cheap, degrading “typical male pig” sex jokes like women sticking corn cobs up their hoo-hoos from time to time. I do it hoping feminists will see it.

      I find it a useful tool to add to others used in the MRM because despite what they may say, it really does bother them. And I hope to God much of their botheration comes from me. :)

    • Atlas Reloaded

      And my gawd I have heard that one before; “Breast cancer victimizes women..” Seems anyhting that inconveniences women victimizes them.

  • justicer

    At the opera today (ok, no snickering pls), I sat beside two older women. One confessed she had a bit of education in the music; the other was there to “learn something new.” They let the music overtake their senses and sighed and chatted. They were informal and unpretentious. They loved sitting beside a man. They were curious about new things and the world around.
    And I thought, “this is what women really are.”
    We must never sink to despising women, since that’s what the leadership wants. Feminism, now called ‘gender feminism’ is not a female thing, it’s a lesbian-inspired, lesbian-led cult.

    • Atlas Reloaded

      Great point. What opera?

      • justicer

        Satyagraha by Philip Glass, live in HD from the Met.
        You’ve got to be open-minded to tolerate Satyagraha, with its mantric repetitions, very very un-Western, esp. the final act. But I found it worked well.

    • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

      Agreed. And I would like to clarify on ongoing point of confusion here. To identify and address the pronounced role of lesbians in the hate-movement calling itself feminism does NOT equate to homophobia or prejudice against homosexuality. It can be an objective and useful aspect about the overall hate-group to appreciate and facilitate more effectively addressing and dealing with it.

      There are perfectly peaceful lesbians that exist, however, the fact that many hard-core, high-ranking and celebrated icons of femaleism are lesbians is an absolutely necessary property of the hate-group which facilitates it’s deconstruction as any other objective property would. Lesbians have been known to have severe prejudice against heterosexual males for a variety of studied psychological reasons. Such an understanding is useful and should not be avoided due to an over-reaching attempt to placate ‘homophobe’ finger pointers.

      • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

        Further, ‘feminism’ is a gross, and intentional, misnomer. The hate-group calling itself ‘feminism’, in its very manifesto, disavows gender, gender being the social behavior constructs ascribed to the biological sexes. The prefix ‘femin’ refers to ‘feminine’. Feminine is a gender attribute, a social behavior construct according to feminism. All that remains beyond our gender behaviors would be our physical sexual properties; vagina/penis, ovaries/testes, uterus/no uterus, estrogen/testosterone. ‘Feminism’s base dogma is that beyond these physical structures, we are EQUAL, the SAME with the same abilities, proclivities, etc. In this it DENOUNCES femininity and so we see that even the nomer ‘feminism’ is a complete fraud meant to deceive and mislead. In light of these obvious facts, what calls itself ‘feminism’ is accurately defined as ‘femaleism’- valuing and celebrating only that which has female sexual structures.

        And it light of my comment above, it may be even more accurate and appropriate to refer to that which calls itself ‘feminism’ as ‘lesbianism’ since that is its ultimate goal, as espoused by its leaders, icons and base texts. Then, ‘Feminism’ is a devastating manifestation of Lesbianism. This conclusion objectively, and without any predetermined value judgments on sexual tendencies.

  • 4thtroika

    I can’t help wondering what feminists will do when their master plan comes to fruition. Who will they have to scapegoat then?

    • Eoghan

      Feminists don’t have a “master plan”, the overwhelming majority of them are just followers.

      • Patrick Henry

        If I recall correctly, Vliet Tiptree’s master plan was to reduce the male population to 10% though male infanticide.

        • Eoghan

          She is not feminists in general. The majority of them are just naive followers that believe in the equality marketing. To believe that all feminists are in on some master plan and keeping it a secret, is an implausible idea and attacking a strawman version of feminism.

          • Bombay

            Watch THE TALK where the audience is laughing about the cut off penis again and again until the realization that “they” are NOT “just naive followers that believe in the equality marketing” becomes apparent.

  • Thoth

    An excellent analysis to point out the emotional driven insanity that the hateful feeble minded halfwits must resort too decietfully obtain wealth from those that create it.

    Men no longer are required to give consent of handing over wealth to the weaker feeble minded emotional driven materialistic girls. They are now resented for creating and expecting any sort of reciprocal mutual benefits.
    They weaker side create conflict, then claim to be a victim and expect to be compensated. ….it is a false flag attack. It is as old as the dried up titties on Nefertiti’s corpse…they have no honor, no morals, no duty. Pure hate driven creatures.
    The Amazons have returned.

    • Red Bones

      It is as old as the dried up titties on Nefertiti’s corpse…

      Heehee…

      The Amazons have returned.

      Worse, they never existed before now. They didn’t return,but rather,materialized out of nothing.

  • Auntie Pheminizm

    > “…if there is an ‘accident’ a couple can deal with it with abortion.”

    ONLY if the vaginate so desires.

    If the male “isn’t ready,” but Shaniqua wants more chirren, he’ll be forced into fatherhood. And if he wants the child and she doesn’t? Too bad.

    Her body, her choice? Eff that. When a government drafts a male body for the military, can he say, “That’s not my choice!”?

    There’s nothing innate about the “right” to abort. It’s only legal because a law was passed. Sounds obvious, but isn’t. Laws can be unpassed. What we consider “natural” today can be illegal tomorrow.

    The idea that society can’t tell a woman what to do with her body is insane. Can she move her body at 200 MPH on the highway? Can she swallow a diamond in a jewelry store and say it’s “hers” because it’s in her body? Can she shoot heroin because, yuh know, it’s her body? Can she refuse to be quarantined for a contagious disease because “it’s her body”?

    When you join a society you agree to abide by its rules. You can’t crap in the middle of the street because you feel it’s your “right.”

    Consider: A woman asks you to be her partner in an enterprise. For nine months she will operate the business in her house. During that time you will have no say. If she wants, she can terminate the endeavor.

    After 9 months she can give the business away to someone else, totally excluding you (again, you will have no say) or she can choose to operate it herself, making YOU pay its expenses for 23 years.

    Even if she “chooses,” to let you remain a partner, it will be at whatever level SHE determines. Even then, she can change her mind at any time.

    At any time she can also accuse you of embezzling and have you arrested, forcing you to stay away from the company altogether. Or limit you to infrequent visits that she can frustrate with impunity.

    Further, even if you prove your innocence per stealing, your name will remain forever in a registry of “accused” thieves.

    So….would you enter into such a contract, eagerly signing our life and power and money away?

    Also, what about men who WANT children? Why should their female partners be able to choose, on their own, to abort?

    If a guy has no say because a fetus is in his gal’s body, why should he have any obligations later, when the PFE (post-fetal entity) is no longer in her body? Why not have “society” super-tax all women (and women’s groups) to pay for unilateral female choices?

    Per “mere” fetuses: science shows feti responding to lights and probes. And perform in utero surgeries. Are the objects they act on “nothings”? Is that itty-bitty spot on her breast not “real” cancer because it’s malignant by tiny? We consider memory chips magical because so much data can be stored on things the size of stamps. Yet somehow we think things growing inside wombs aren’t “real” until they exit the vagina. Why?

    Does a 3-month pregnant woman knit booties for a…goiter. If she miscarries, does she feel no more distress than she would for a fart?

    People once thought children didn’t feel as deeply as adults. Turns out they feel MORE…since they’ve not lived long enough to develop coping mechanisms. What then must totally dependent fetuses feel?

    Do we even want to CONSIDER that fetuses might feel?

    Some used to think blacks were subhuman. It let them break axe handles on their heads guiltlessly, like to whipping a horse. Today we view the unborn like that. Unless, of course, a male causes a pregnant woman to miscarry or die. Then, suddenly, the fetus becomes “an unborn child.”

    Also, what does “viability” mean? Most babies will die if left unfed. Hell, most will “fail to thrive” if they aren’t held. So what does “being viable” mean if, in many ways, a child remains in a sort of external womb, connected to its caregiver, even AFTER birth.

    Women have the right to abort because they “aren’t ready” to be parents. Men should have the same right. Guys should have the right to “Paper Abortions” whereby they sign away all rights and responsibilities for any child resulting from female choice. Then let her or the Sisterhood pay for the child’s upkeep.

    There’s nothing that prevents such a law from passing. All that’s needed is for enough men (and the women who love them) to pass it into law. Certainly there’d be no moral argument against doing so. After all, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Muffy can flush a new-born down the toilet (or leave it at a “safe drop” venue) with impunity. I see no reason not to give Biff the same options. Why should be be forced into fatherhood by a female who has 4-5 ways out of motherhood?

    The sooner men demand equal reproductive laws, the sooner we’ll get them.

    • Hayden Hanna

      Oooowwweeee! I heard the crack of the bat when you got a piece of that ball.

    • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

      Good god. A googleplex of plusses.

      You done did it right there, Auntie.

    • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

      Half of the genetic material in the offspring is the property of the father. That the state and mother can steal that is sickening.

    • Eoghan

      “The sooner men demand equal reproductive laws, the sooner we’ll get them.”

      That’s what I was saying, there is no need to attack abortion rights, which are women’s rights when all the reproductive rights problems that affect men can be fixed by strengthening men’s rights. Arguing against women’s rights to abort, is not the way to go about fixing the problem. Taking away abortion would be lose/lose.

  • Primal

    Now, not only is Man the batterer but the whole society is the ‘batterer’. Good news though. Good Ms. Civil Society and her ”awakened’ Goddess are here to save us: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/22/opinion/la-oe-solnit-ows-20111122 Is Rebecca Solnit another candidate for bigot listing?

    • MRAAlternate

      Society batters males – not females.

  • Doc

    “it occurs to me that a female ob/gyn that was willing to perform sex-selective abortions on male fetuses would be giving a gift to the next generation”

    I think that quote says it all. The shear hatred to want to kill a male child, just for being male is absolutely unfathomable to me. It truly shows that “feminists” are anything but “women” since a woman is designed to bare children, and take care of them, and provide them with safety and love. Their entire bodies are geared toward providing everything a child needs to live – an immune system, food, warmth, protection, everything necessary. Of course the man is the one who makes this possible by protecting the woman and providing for her when she is in this state. That is the true symbiotic relationship between men and women.

    One of my biggest problem I have with the so-called main-stream media is they allow these hate mongers a channel to attempt to convert others to their sick, twisted views rather than dragging their hatred out into the light of day.

    Personally, I think that the well documented unhappiness of women today is because they have had it beaten into them that they have to try to be a man, and it isn’t enough for her to be what she evolved to be – a woman. I’m old enough to have seen it all, and these days since I tend to prefer younger women, I get to hear their worries – usually in bed after an evening of fun. That is when you hear what a woman really wants – all of the things their grand-mother, and great-grandmother had. They will state they “don’t want to be like their mother” someone they never saw. It’s interesting how that is fine for Daddy – but they understand from a genetic level the difference – a man is doing it to provide for his family and out of love, they see their Mother’s doing it as selfish. And that is the word I have heard most used to describe that generation of women – selfish.

    That is why I have hope for the future – each generation of women sees feminism for the lie that it is, and for how unnatural it is. But today a man has to be insane to marry – so it will never be like it was. That is why I like the “domestic partner” laws – which apply quite well to male-female partners and avoids all of those nasty penalties like higher-taxes and the like, not to mention that a woman can ruin your life by unilaterally deciding she isn’t happy if you are married to her. That has changed the dynamic for the worse.

    It is sad, but such is life.

  • MRAAlternate

    Stuff like this just makes me cry. I have no idea why people would be so hateful towards me solely on account of my sex.