How I became an MRA: Domestic violence advocacy

It should come as no surprise to readers here that feminists only support the rights of women who agree with them, and have no qualms throwing disagreeing women under the bus.  To that end, few women (with the possible exception of Phylis Schlafly) have earned as much ire from feminists as Camille Paglia, despite the fact that she describes herself as a feminist.  The fact that she described the MRM as “absolutely necessary” probably doesn’t help her at all.

The woman has a treasure trove of comments poking fun at mainstream feminists and showing them for the prattling, hypocritical idiots they are.  One of my personal favorites is “Leaving sex to feminists is like letting your dog vacation at the taxidermist’s.”  The same, I think, can be said for domestic violence advocacy.

I can speak on this with firsthand experience.  As a child, I grew up in a house rife with domestic violence, nearly all of it perpetrated by my mother.  She yelled at and beat myself and my sister, but she was far, far worse to our father, who never hit her back, and never raised a finger in his own defense.  Until I was taller than her, I lived in constant fear of my mother, and poignantly aware of just how much violence women are capable.

It was a relief for me to discover that I wasn’t alone in having to live with the fear of domestic violence.  A girl at my school (let’s call her Zoey), who’d had similar experiences to mine, introduced me to a number of people bearing helpful alternatives.  She told me about a police officer who had been documenting her abuse at the hands of her mother, and about the many advocacy groups that existed to help children and women who were in abusive relationships with no way out.  I never met the police officer Zoey had talked to, but the advocacy groups were glad to have me on board.

Feminists often say that women are unable to leave abusive relationships because of financial dependence.  It apparently never occurs to them that men (and boys) could be in similar situations.  After Zoey’s friends made it abundantly clear that what was being done to me was illegal, I threatened on several occasions to call the police on my mother.  My mother was a researcher in the School of Nutrition at the local university, and somehow she made more than my dad, who was a professor in the Modern Language department. She was the one bringing home the bacon, and my dad warned me that if I called the police, my mom would lose her job and our family would starve.  That was enough to dissuade me, but I still kept up my work with Zoey’s friends on behalf of those who could afford to lose an abusive parent or partner.

Zoey’s friends were a group of activists, led by several students in the Women’s Studies department at my parents’ university.  They usually had me sitting at their tables, distributing flyers and answering canned questions.  I suppose, reflecting on it, that my presence was part of a silent PR effort on their part to dispel the “myth” that feminists hate men.  I didn’t mind my position at first, since it was easy. When I attended their meetings, they mainly discussed tactics for reaching the public.  Remembering how much my father suffered under my mother, I realized that they had been saying very little about adult female-on-male violence.  Since they’d been so kind to me, I thought that maybe they were just unaware of what a massive problem it was.  They were quite passionate about helping battered women, so I thought they genuinely cared about what they were doing.  I approached one of the Women’s Studies majors (let’s call her Lily) who led the group about the problem of violence against men.  When I told her about it, she gave a patronizing smile and said “Honey, I know there are men out there who are being treated cruelly by women, but it’s just not a problem worth our time.  There aren’t men out there fearing for their lives, getting their phone calls cut off, or who are financially dependent on women and forced to stay with them.”  I was too stunned to tell Lily about my father’s position.  She also told me about how most domestic violence calls made to police are made by neighbors reporting incidents, and police said that neighbors rarely reported incidents of female-on-male violence.

Unfortunately, I didn’t have the knowledge then and there to tell Lily that when a woman hits a man, society usually assumes that the man did something to deserve it.  I did, however, do some research of my own, and here I discovered Warren Farrell’s work, in particular his citing of studies by Murray Straus and Suzanne Steinmetz, which showed that women are every bit as likely as men to hit.  I didn’t bother taking the time to read Dr. Farrell’s other works, but instead printed out what I thought was necessary.

Another time, I volunteered to help out with a church-sponsored therapy group designed to “cure” abusive men of their violent tendencies toward their wives or girlfriends.  I asked each of the men there to tell their stories, and in 90% of the cases, the stories they told were about their wives or girlfriends hitting them first.  I listened patiently, and at the end of the meeting, I calmly and casually reprimanded them for not exercising more self-control when they were being assaulted.  Since, however, I am a rational, equality-minded person, my approach never completely sat right with my conscience, and I thought this incident worth mentioning to my advocacy group.

I brought my findings to the next meeting of our group, which by then had partnered with MAVAW (Men Against Violence Against Women), an organization better known to us here as the White Ribbon Campaign.  When it was my turn to speak, I said that we needed to add a focus on violence against men…I even mentioned the need to help out gay men who were in abusive relationships.  Most of those present acknowledged that violence against men did exist, but they said it wasn’t a concern of theirs because it was so rare.  I passed around the studies I’d found, and asked them to look at them.  Oddly enough, the ones who were the most receptive to my message were the women present.  The MAVAW White Knights present immediately started barking at me like a bunch of bulldogs, accusing me, among other things, of being a misogynist, of trying to ignore violence against women, and trying to sow discord within the group.  Never mind that I’d been campaigning with them for four years, trying to get the general public to take violence against women more seriously; never mind that I had made some rather scathing remarks about abusive men; apparently, my expansion of my sympathies to include abused men somehow meant that I hated women, and obviously beat them myself.

After the meeting, I spoke to Lily about what had happened.  She said that she hadn’t realized that the studies I cited even existed, and she would start working to include men as a group in need of help.  Though I was relieved to hear that, I was devastated when she asked me to leave the group.  I asked why she couldn’t force the men who had verbally attacked me to leave, and she said it was because they needed them as allies.

A note about Lily: unlike most Women’s Studies majors, she was a sweet, open-minded person.  Though I wasn’t present at any future meetings to confirm it, I heard later that when she had tried to push a pro-male agenda, she was kicked out of the group as well.  I was more surprised by the group’s actions than by hers, since she was next in line to be in charge of the group.  Then, I decided to give The Myth of Male Power a read.  The rest, as they say, is history.

Though I’m sure the feminists would love to tell you otherwise, my becoming a Men’s Rights Activist hasn’t made me at all hateful of or cold to women.  I still believe that men who brutalize women are the scum of the Earth.  However, I also believe in the “trust, but verify” rule.  Women who make accusations of domestic violence should be made to face the same scrutiny as anybody else making an accusation of a crime, and anybody who says otherwise has an agenda.  When a woman hits a man and he hits her back, this is not a male-on-female crime; this is reciprocal violence.    Likewise, the idea that women are hurt more than men by being abused is a load of crap.  Women can do plenty of damage, physical and emotional, and they are far more likely than men to use weapons, kick, bite, or hit with objects.  The only reason that violence against women is presumed to be so much worse is because women bruise far more easily than men.

I know first-hand what abuse can do to a person.  Nobody, whether they are male, female, gay, straight, bisexual, transsexual, a man who likes to wear women’s clothing, a woman who likes to wear men’s clothing, black, white, Asian, Hispanic, Christian, Muslim, atheist, feminist, or MRA deserves or should have to experience being abused.  If you are being abused, and you have not been trying to provoke your abuser, I will fight for you, no matter which of that combination of groups you fit into.  Feminists disagree with me on that. It’s funny how they try to paint me as the biased one.

About Phil in Utah

Phil in Utah is a part-time student of Religious Studies at Utah State, and a full-time student at FTSU. An unapologetic hippie redneck, he is equally proud of his affinity for Shakespeare and his ability to spit fifteen feet. He has a blog at www.hippieredneck.com

View All Posts
  • http://Human-Stupidity.com Human-Stupidity.com

    When a woman hits a man and he hits her back, this is not a male-on-female crime; this is reciprocal violence.

    Really? Is it not self-defense against a woman’s violence? or justified payback against a female aggressor?

    I am always shocked that even fervent men’s rights proponents still are too pussy-footed.

    If you hit back at your attacker, it is not MUTUAL violence. Whoever clearly hit first is the aggressor. If the man hits back in proportional ways, to instill respect in the aggressor, or to defend himself, then this clearly is NOT mutual aggression.

    Actually, it is quite justified to hit back three times as strong. If a thug attacks me on the street, I have the full right to hit him hard enough to knock him out, to make sure he can not continue his attack.

    • JFinn

      Anyone who disagrees with you incentivizes women to be violent. It’s not just about presently stopping the perpetrator from bludgeoning you. It’s also about creating a deterrent force. Making them think twice from ever doing it again.

      “man up” = “slave up”

      “don’t be a pansy/pussy/coward” = “don’t be a human”

      “take it like a man” = “take it like a battered wife too frightened to protest”

      “you never hit a female” = “men are sub-human, sub-animal objects devoid of a nervous system.”

      As a kid, the last time my mother threw me a brutal beating was when I finally fought back. For thousands of years society has motivated men to gravitate towards abuse, by using shame. A society most affective at shaming men has been Japan. Which resulted in the salarymen, voluntarily working 15 hours a day, 7 days a week. Which resulted in the herbivore heroes.

      • Zerbu

        Feminists always class it as the male being the aggressor though. That’s the method they used to scew the domestic violence statistics to make it appear that 75% of domestic violence victims are women.

        • Darryl X

          They manipulate others with the public spectacle of their chronic victimhood. It’s how they satisfy their addiction to power and control and the euphoria they get from the neurotransmitters associated with that addiction.

    • Mateusz

      It depends on the situation. It sounded like why was described was when a woman hits a man, and afterwards, he hits back. An exchange of hitting isn’t the same as fighting off an attack, where violence is only used to prevent more violence.

      • Darryl X

        Any instance in which the female strikes first she is the violent one. It doesn’t matter why he hit her back. Whether in self defense or as a deterent for future attacks or out of anger. All are justified.

        The rule for women is: if you don’t want to get hit, don’t hit first. When women stop hitting men, men will stop hitting women. Plain and simple. Sicne most domestic violence is either non-reciprocal violence by the woman or reciprocal violence initiated by the woman, then by women following that simple rule, most domestic violence will be eliminated.

        If a woman is too stupid to understand the consequences of her actions or to understand basic cause and effect, then she deserves what she gets. Personally, I only struck my ex a few times during our marriage in response to months of torture, physical and emotional abuse, yelling, lying, adultery, etc… In the end, despite my extraordinary restraint, she ended up kidnapping our children and running off with her boyfriend anyway. In retrospect, I realize I am sorry for only one thing: not beating the hell out her in the first place so she would have understood the consequences of ther actions and not been so quick to attack me and our children.

        Since she (and most women) obviously did not understand what she was doing. Malignant narcissists only understand fear. They will only stop doing evil things when they are forced to stop. They have no capacity for reason. The only way to discourage their destructive behavior is through fear. That’s how stupid and solipsistic they are. They can’t be reasoned with.

        That’s why I have written many times that there is no political, legal, social or financial solution to our dilemma. Our oppressors can only be stopped by making them afraid of us. By forcing them to stop oppressing us.

        The only time my wife ever stopped hitting or attacking me and my son is when I physically stopped her. And it took a lot to physically stop her as she believed that she could do anything she wanted in our household without consequence. But once I hit her, she stopped dead in her tracks stunned that I would do such a thing. Imagine, hitting my wife after she tried to kill me with a pair of butcher knives to the back. How dare he? Yes, this woman and most women believe that they should be allowed to kill you on a whim. They are doing that through our government right now in their systemic persecution of men.

        The truth is, had I not stopped my wife physically on the rare instances I did, eventually her behavior would have escalated and she would have succeeded during one of the attempts on my life. She lobbied me many times to get a gun in our house for protection. Yeah right. More likely so she could kill me.

        You can’t reason with a malignant narcissist. They simply do not have the capacity to understand reason. The only way to stop them is with physical violence. I don’t like it but it is the truth and I would rather deal with harsh truths than with polite lies like “never hit a woman”. That never got any man anywhere.

        In my house, and I’m sure many others, hitting my wife saved my life. Since it’s the only thing that stopped her escalation. There is no law to stop her. And she has a huge political and social machine behind her to enable her pathology. Also, I managed our finances responsibly, which means we could not afford to buy a gun. Had I acquiesced to her damands for a gun, I would be dead right now. Keeping her from controlling our finances was the other thing that protected me. She had veto power over any choice in managing our finances, but I would not let her buy a gun. I regret buying her cutlery.

    • Paul Elam

      I also see this as self-defense, but I have to wonder what is really important here; that we all dot every i and cross every t in the exact same way, or that we support clear voices against a common enemy?

      I am not suggesting that we refrain from dissent where it is critical to the content of an article, but I do suggest there is nothing to be gained from the suggestion that an MRA is “pussy footing” because he called this reciprocal violence instead of self defense.

      To me, this is unconscious blue pill thinking; a product of men’s tendency to compete with each other instead of cooperate. It is what kills us more than anything else.

      There was plenty of stuff in this article to support, and any differences we have are those that come from people that are clearly on the same team.

      I am always going to respectfully encourage my fellow MRA’s to give the minutia a rest.

      • Rad

        Some see minutia, others see evasion of principle.

        What is essential and what is not?

        • Paul Elam

          Unity is essential, in my opinion. And it is the one commodity that has always been the scarcest in the MRM.

          Again, I am not saying that no one should express their disagreement, but I don’t at all buy that doing that disrespectfully is a matter of principle.

          • OneHundredPercentCotton

            “GENTLEMEN, we must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” – Benjamin Franklin

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

            Unity is essential, in my opinion. And it is the one commodity that has always been the scarcest in the MRM.

            Agreed but for there to be unity there has to be agreement. I’m not for a pro-feminist perspective on anything that is why I don’t join such groups nor do I expect them to join us. Phil in Utah grew up in home terrorized by a female yet toward the end of the article shows little sympathy for men who may have reacted in a way he finds distasteful. To the men who may be provoked to violence I given the impression that Phil critisizes them too. Am I right or way off base? You tell me,Phil.

          • Primal

            Paradoxically, male (as opposed to female) unity comes from thrashing out differences. Our disagreements are our very source of strength…intellectual independence is our most potent weapon against the totalitarian ‘togetherness’ twits. What is essential is to create the container (crucible if you will) in which hot rage can be turned into cold steel.

      • Alphabeta Supe

        I downvoted this comment, not because I don’t believe Paul has a valid point but because in this case the minutiae is important. It’s of secondary importance to the purpose of the article, to be sure, but the difference in meaning between “self-defence” and “reciprocal violence” is, I think, so critical to DV matters that it warrants attention whenever the line is blurry.

        Why? Because this very detail is where many men come unstuck when up against charges of DV. In many cases accused men are simply pushed past their tolerance limit by a violent and abusive woman, striking out only to save themselves from serious harm, only to find that the DV industry doesn’t discern between “self-defence” and “reciprocal violence” when men do it. Such men are often sent to prison and/or have their lives and mental health ruined because of the injustice embedded in this very piece of minutiae.

        It was a poor choice of language by the original commenter and perhaps poor form to begin a commenting thread in such a way, especially in response to a new writer, but in this case I think the minutiae is central to the problem. Non-reactivity is always wise counsel, however.

        • Paul Elam

          I agree with your comment 100%, in principle. The distinction between self defense and reciprocal violence is important. Even more important I think is the distinction between self defense and assault, as men are highly likely to be charged with the latter when they “committed” the former.

          I especially agree with this: “It was a poor choice of language by the original commenter and perhaps poor form to begin a commenting thread in such a way, especially in response to a new writer,” except I would apply it to any writer or any MRA who comments here.

          Collectively we have the unfortunate, and I dare say male tendency to try to out “right” each other rather than engage in the kind of constructive dialogue that strengthens our ties and encourages the refinement of our ideas.

          I can’t muster the totalitarianism to try to control this kind of expression on the site, so I have to rely on the opportunity to address it happens by expressing my thoughts on it. And my thoughts are that we should save the derision for our enemies with each and every line we write.

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

            …constructive dialogue that strengthens our ties and encourages the refinement of our ideas.

            Isn’t that what we’re doing now?

            Human Stupidity nailed in well that some MRA’s still have mangina tendencies. I don’t throw the word “brother” around lightly. If I call someone “brother” I have their back and I expect them to have mine. I would definitely not call “brother” someone discovered the MRM last week but still has mangina/white knight tendencies.

          • keyster

            Only in an MRA forum could you find a discussion that nitpicks an opinion on nitpicking. :)

          • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

            @ keyster
            Just remember to spin it in the resumé as ‘detail oriented’. 😉

          • Darryl X

            You don’t need to muster totalitarianism. We need a common lexicon. As long as women are willing to pervert and distort reality then the only way to combat it is with a lexicon (and a bibliography) to contradict their delusions. Do we have a good collection of scholarly work cited in the articles on this site that can be compiled and used to prepare a lexicon? About domestic violence and child abuse particularly but also about paternity fraud and child support, etc… That lexicon can be published on this site for reference by anyone. Each term would be supported or cross referenced with citations in the scientific literature. Like paternity fraud. There are many scientific paper reporting different percents, but I prefer to report 10% (as the average of all the papers I’ve read). Then I like to qualify that with the definition and then state that really it’s 20% but the mother is actually right accidentally about paternity half the time so really she’s only guilty 10% of the time but isn’t sure 20%. Can you believe that mothers for one in five children out there are not sure who their father is? Astonishing. But very real. Because so many people are unaware of these mathematical phenomena, there are a lot of misconceptions about how common paternity fraud (and adultery) actually is. I think most men would be shocked to learn about the probability that cupcake is committing adultery. Not my woman. No way. Well, actually, the probability is greater than 50%. Anyway, just a thought.

      • JFinn

        In that spirit, I’ll state that I concur and sympathize with all the other sentiments of the article.

        We do have some things to learn from women. They all play for team vag. Though we shouldn’t take it as far as they do – debate creates meaningful progress. I saw a tweet by Demi Moore after she broke up her marriage, saying “as a woman and a mother there are certain values I hold sacred.” I threw up on my screen(right where it said “as a woman and…”)

        • by_the_sword

          “…certain values I hold sacred.”. Ha! This chick kicked her husband and father of her children (Bruce Willis) to the curb and runs off with the proverbial pool-boy (Ashton Kutcher) and she thinks she has values?

          Sometimes I think that all we need to do is step out of womens way and let them run off the cliff.

          It is only for the sake of my fellow men that I engage in any form of political activity at all. Otherwise I would just be a ghost.

      • Malestrom

        I admit I too have a tendancy to nitpick, if i read an article i am far more likely yo pick up on the points i disagree with than those i agree with. I tend to assume it’s implied that I agree wholeheartedly with everything else that was said, and felt no need to repeat it.

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

        I hear what your saying,Paul but at the same time we have to call a spade a spade. He even said that he hates men who hit women. What if that woman ran her mouth to provoke him after he got off working a long job that he throughly hates. Would the Phil’s in Utah still condemn him? Sounds like it.

      • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

        I agree with Paul that there is plenty in the article to support, though there is room for disagreement on specific points.

        Self-defense is just that. It is a response to violence in defense of one’s self. It is not an excuse to commit violence. Payback or retaliation is not self-defense.

        Reciprocal violence is violence between two equally aggressive partners. It is characterized by patterned violence over multiple episodes, though it can be a single episode where one partner starts the violence and the other escalates it beyond what is necessary for self defense thereby becoming an aggressor. About half of all DV falls into this category.

        About 71% of one-way DV is female on male. According to the studies I’ve seen anywhere from 60% – 75% of victims requiring medical treatment due to DV are female. A very large percentage of those victims initiated the violence and in fact female initiation of DV is the best predictor of injury to women from DV.


        • JGteMolder

          A slight nitpick, but agreeing with the general idea:

          It is extremely rare that one is able to successfully defend oneself without retaliation. Someone attacks you, you deflect the blow and throw your own that is self-defense, but since it is in the form of inflicting damage it is also retaliation.

          To be able to defend yourself without ever throwing a return punch either requires massive power advantage, massive skill advantage, or both, and that’s not taking into account weapons an aggressor may have.

          • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

            “Retaliation” is a bit vague and could include self defense. I meant it in respect to using more force than is necessary to defend oneself.

            Now its my turn to nitpick. Successful self defense can include running away. One does not have to meet violence with violence to successfuly defend oneself in many cases.it may not be thought of as “manly” but it can be a successful tactic. In a DV situation where the female is the aggressor, it may also be the most prudent since even legitimate self defense by a man can be viewed as aggression and lead to his arrest.


          • JGteMolder

            So does running away. After all only guilty men run, right?

            Often, just getting to the point where you can run, requires you to hit someone at least once.

      • http://Human-Stupidity.com Human-Stupidity.com

        I am BEYOND full support. I say the article is great, but too moderate, too weak. I fully support it and go beyond the article.

        How could this be interpreted differently? I actually lambast the men’s rights tendency to quibble among each other, while feminists would not even disown penis slicers or SCUM writers.

        I had tried to start a “radical masculist” series but met resistance from many men’s rights people so I kind of gave up on that

        Radical masculist manifesto: on equal terms with radical feminists  

        Paternity Fraud is Rape! Paternity Rape is worse than Rape-Rape.

        • http://mensvoices.wordpress.com/ Tom Snark

          “I had tried to start a “radical masculist” series but met resistance from many men’s rights people”

          That is a shame.

          Would a radical masculist manifesto have to be a parody of radical feminism, though?

          I get the point you make – look how bad radical feminists are, when we substitute men for women etc.

          But, all that aside, why not a radical masculist manifesto or position for its own sake, not to be ‘on equal terms’ with radical feminism. The two aren’t equal; feminism is an abomination. Masculism, to me, is fundamentally good. It is the logical outcome of MRA/MGTOW philosophy and activism.

          I saw your radical masculist manifesto piece some time ago. I would be impressed by an actual manifesto that isn’t simply trying to make a point about feminists, or even about females.

      • http://Human-Stupidity.com Human-Stupidity.com

        I totally agree that the lack of unity, solidarity and lack of clout is the main problem of men’s rights.

        There also is the main divisive line between sexual liberation theantifeminist.com line and father’s rights people who seemingly want to get the law to protect their daughters from sexual liberation.

        I posted a reply with 2 links that seems to be cought in the spam filter!

        I also have a direct line to a Wisconsin DA who is open to discussions as long as it is on a high level. He does not accept press reports, he wants the findings of fact and official court orders to discuss things.

        Can we discuss a few things via email?

    • Jeremiah

      “Whoever clearly hit first is the aggressor.”

      A minor point: I do not believe that whoever HITS first is the aggressor. It is quite possible to verbally instigate a fight. It is our politically correct world that claims that only physical violence is important. See Paul’s article here which explains how a man can be driven to commit physical violence even though he is NOT the instigator: http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/how-to-slap-your-way-to-slavery/

      I do believe that the vast majority of domestic violence is initiated by women either physically OR verbally. It is usually women’s selfishness that is the problem. After all, women are selfish by nature, moreso than men.

      • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

        Emotional abuse, emotional terrorism, guilt, shame and blame, and coercion by rationing sex are base, de facto, SOP, female modus operandi. Always have been. That the x-chromosome supremacist despots try and deflect the blame onto men and boys is the most epic, monumental and abysmally disgusting case of projection and deceit this world may ever have known.

    • GeorgeOlduvai

      Reciprocal violence implies self defense. Someone hits you, you hit them back. Reciprocity = response to stimulus in an equal manner. I take full responsibility for your apparent outrage at the phrase, as I edited it to be in bold (I believed it to be something that required a certain amount of emphasis). My apologies to the author if I was out of line. Mutual = from both sides. I would suggest that you are using these terms out of context or defining them differently to make a point. I agree that if someone strikes you, strike them back. Do so with sufficient force to prevent them from continuing to attack. This is pragmatism.

    • JGteMolder

      Totally agreeing with Human-stupidity.com.

    • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

      Female initiated violence and aggression is not different than person initiated violence and aggression. A slightly smaller person, who initiates violence and aggression is inherently afforded no special regard or protection. So what if Hitler was 5’2′, do we then dismiss his acts of aggression and punish Poland as the Primary Aggressor? What the fucking fuck is up with the current social mentality? How can people at large seriously be this fucking stupid and for this fucking long? Don’t we have like iPads and jets and the Internets and shit? Isn’t this 2012, the sophisticated, enlightened future? HELLO McFLY. THEY ARE LYING PsOS. TREAT THEM ACCORDINGLY.

      Hunt x-chromosome racist filth.

      After being assaulted, any person who expects me to do a genital inspection prior to self-defense and retaliation is truly, truly my enemy.

      You got make-up on? What the fuck do I care, a lot of men wear make-up these days. You stuffing your bra to make it look like you have tits? So what, cross-dressing and trans-gender is the norm. You wearing a dress? Whatever, see previous. A person assaults you, they get assaulted back, plain and fucking simple, genital tissue shapes do not factor in. There is simply no time to do a proper inspection and background check. It’s a matter of practicality. And don’t you ever let some fucktard x-chromosome racist supremacist tell you differently.

    • by_the_sword

      I think that Phil In Utah might need an increase in his Red Pill dosage.

  • Alphabeta Supe

    Superb article, Phil. Your experience will no doubt resonate with many men who once believed they were doing the right thing when they were supporting anti-DV feminists. Your words also capture the essence of the blue-to-red-pill experience rather well, which will hopefully inspire others (male and female) to make the switch.

    NB. I agree with the earlier commenter, though, that self-defense against a violent woman should not be termed “reciprocal violence”. A person who is being bodily abused has a moral right to defend their person with disarming force.

  • Zerbu

    I’ve been a victim of female-on-male violence myself when I was at college, and when I eventually pushed her away IN SELF-DEFENSE, I got into trouble because “it’s not nice for boys to push girls” even though if I hadn’t, I could have been in seriously pain.

    Plus, I’m not even a “macho man” and she isn’t weak at all. If anything, she was actually MORE masculine than I am.

    What punishment did she get? Close to nothing!

    • Booyah

      See thats what i wonder too was the term used to save men from the folly that self defence was acceptable and you would be safe? Yes in reality it is self defence but for a man to assume that puts him in a very precarious position legally. Im sure any sincere MRA wouldnt want to mislead men to the death traps on the minefield that is our society (or hers i should say) so he calls it as the courts do so men are not mislead.

      Great article Phil and if you werent in Utah you could be my brother by a description of your upbringing. So similar to my own story. This is what scares me for the children of today. My life would have been 5x worse without my father to cop so many of the blows only covering his own face in defence and we recieved so many brutal floggings from her regardless. For the children without fathers and mothers like this my heart bleeds almost more than it does for the plight of men.

  • Rper1959

    Bravo Phil in Utah, agree your sentiments especially your closing comments that all victims of violence ( family , interpersonal, domestic or what ever term you want to use) deserve equal and fair treatment, and the hypocrisy of feminists who claim such a stance is biased.

    Also agree with Human Stupidity and Alphabeta supe, feminists try to conceal much of women’s violence against men as self defence (often successfully and even to the point of justifying premeditated homicide ), so men who are resisting violence perpetrated against them should equally be able to claim this as self defence, and Mutual or reciprocal violence should be reserved to describe the situation where both parters initiate or perpetrate violence against the other on different occasions, and my understanding is that this is one on the most prevalent forms of family violence.

  • C.A. George

    I agree with Human Stupidity and Alphabeta; self-defense is self-defense regardless of the gender of the attacker. Calling it “reciprocal violence” gives off a tone of getting even with someone who harmed you, when in reality we’re talking about defending oneself against an aggressor. EVERYONE has the right to defend themselves against a violent individual, male or female.

  • http://forsakeneagle.blogspot.com/ ForsakenEagle

    It is most sobering to read another person’s story about facing uncomfortable truths. Phil, you are of greater character than those feminists and their white knight lapdogs. Everyone living in this nightmare will come to realize this in the end, even if they don’t admit it. The real perpetrators of hate will learn their lesson.

  • keyster

    Camille Paglia: the archetype all MRA’s should aspire to…in the context of socio-cultural commentary and criticism (…because let’s face it, that’s mostly what MRA’s are doing or all they can do right now).

    Almost everything MRA’s are stating today is a mere continuum of her opinions and belief system; which is why MRA’s are the only true feminists, as she was.

    Watch, listen and learn.

    • Tawil

      Loved that. always wanted to read her books but for some reason never got around to it. I think its time….

      • Phil in Utah

        Her best one is Sexual Personae. It’s really long, but well worth it.

    • Phil in Utah

      She’s a very brilliant woman. Too bad she’s more or less underground nowadays.

      • keyster

        You’ll notice she was the only person to openly criticize Feminism (or it’s Stalinist path), that was given a voice in the media at the time…because the angle, the storyline, was that an articulate, bombastic woman and former feminist, turned against her own kind.

        There is no way in HELL the media would and/or ever will, give a MAN this platform to speak from. That’s why I ask, “Who is the next Camille Paglia?”, because it can never be a MAN.

        MRA’s distrust Phyllis Schlafly because she’s a SoCon, (and she’s on her last legs now anyway). But Camille Paglia is a libertarian/liberal, almost a Ron Paul of sorts, but who opposes feminist militancy and victimhood (Ron Paul, being a man, could obviously never take a position on feminism).

        Paglia faded out of favor since she wrote a criticism of LadyGaga being “fake”, etc…and gays love Gaga.

        This was similar to what happened to Christopher Hitchens when he directed his atheist ire towards Muslims after 9/11. Bashing Christianity was cool to his circle of secular-progressive elites; but once he attacked Islam, he was deemed “insenstive”.

        Truly principled individuals, who want nothing but the fucking truth, such as Paglia and Hitch, are the great minds of the future. I say future, because no one listens to them until they’re long gone.

    • JinnBottle

      Yeah, Camille is very entertaining and a breath of fresh air in the cloistered rectory of feministers. You can’t take her 100% seriously, tho. There are times when she’ll go on about, say, GW Bush’s “cowboy boots”; times when she talks about her “grandparents having worked in factories”. Jeez, Camille, welcome to the goddam world – I’ve worked in factories myself, letalone “grandparents”. She can be downright precious and she’s never reliable – even to herself. Still love it, tho, when she “attacks feminism till Gloria Steinem SCREAMS!”

      • keyster

        Her perpetual references to her Italian-american heritage got tedious too. She used it to mock the racial grievance industry, but wasn’t always clear about it.

        Interesting how she exclaims feminism should have remained apolitical. But it’s the co-opting of the democratic party that really gave the grrls power. To Paglia that would be “the wrong kind of power”, as in women as a victim class, rather than self-reliant individuals…like “white men”, (her words).

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

      No,Keyster,MRA’s are nowhere near the definition of “feminism”. “Feminism” is about female supremacy whereas MRA’s are concerned with the rights of men. To say that feminism was a noble cause is like saying nazism was a noble cause.

      • keyster

        Feminism was never about “supremacy”, it you read The Second Sex and Freidan. Once it morphed into supremacy the great schism occurred between Steinem and Freidan. Steinem won because she had a magazine and gave good face in the media. As Paglia alludes, she became the darling of the NYC press. She was corrupted by her sudden fame.

        Freiden lost control of NOW and was driven out for the same reasons Paglia was; Feminism turned into a MALE HATE movement. That was never the intent.

  • Tawil

    Lets not all forget that corrective violence, or self-defensive use of violence is still violence, however justified. Phil’s point is a valid one employing standard industry-speak: “When a woman hits a man and he hits her back, this is not a male-on-female crime; this is reciprocal violence.”

    Great article Phil, and great to have you fighting for the MRM cause!

    • Stu

      The feminists call anything domestic violence that a man does apart from standing still in a submissive posture, being a willing punching bag for a woman.

      Calling it reciprocal violence when a mans fights back in some way is an improvement over the feminist narrative, but it’s still pandering somewhat to the political correct. The bald face truth sounds too extreme after so many decades of having feminist garbage rammed down our throats. The truth is that if someone calls you names, you are justified returning the insults……if someone spits on you, you are justified returning the spit…….if someone hits you, you are justified in kicking their ass.

      If feminists want to cry about confrontations not being fair because of men’s greater size and strength, then simple…..don’t fucking hit men. It’s a bullshit reason they are using anyway……because if I go and punch someone in the face that is bigger, stronger, and obviously able to kick my ass…..nobody is going to say……poor Stu, all he done was punch that 7′ tall, 30 stone biker in the face, and that bastard actually hit him back……scum of the earth he is. And what about when some old guy with a bad heart, or asthma, or arthritis, who is actually the underdog, and with limited ability to defend themselves, and at great risk is hit by a younger, more able bodied, and sometimes bigger woman.

      It makes no difference who is the weaker of the people engaging in the confrontation anyway, if the stronger of the two is not allowed to defend themselves, then what incentive does the attacking person have to discontinue their attack. And you should not be required to retreat from any location that you have a lawful right to be present at, to insist that one does have to, means you are saying that the instigator of the violence is the law…..and can lawfully evict the other from any public or private location. It is the attacking person that is the risk……that is attempting to deprive the other of their legal rights…..I care not what their victim does in self defense, or the damage it causes to the attacker……the answer to that problem for the attacker is…….don’t.

      Feminists don’t believe their own bullshit anyway. Every reason they can give about why a man should never hit a woman back, is bullshit…….the real reason they think that is because they think woman should have the right to abuse men…..for any reason….at any time…at any place……and us men should have no other option except to turn the other cheek and accept as much abuse and violence as they want to dish out…..because we are lower forms of life……sub human scum….and exist only to serve women…..not have rights…..that’s is just for women.

      And that is it….in a nut shell

      • Bombay

        The guy who defended himself when attacked in McDonald’s got off. Although the media and government tried very hard to put him away, the grand jury voted to dismiss the assault charges. Unfortunately, I do not think the media or government learn a lesson here.

        So in addition to juries, the grand jury is also a place to make a difference.

      • Phil in Utah

        I put it that way because I honestly don’t think that hitting somebody back is the best solution. If they have roughly equal strength to yours, chances are it’ll just escalate the conflict.

        • Jeremiah

          Most men can easily incapacitate most women. In a world where the government did not intrude excessively into family life, a wife who caused disruption and committed domestic violence could easily be subdued by a male because the male would not fear the government intrusion, and the female would quickly learn not to start shit. It is wrong to assume that this would escalate things over time. The only reason things escalate today is that men are UNABLE to defend themselves and discipline their wives when they attack them. Marriage was much more stable when men had power over the home: only a 5% divorce rate, domestic violence was rare, and the family stuck together through thick and thin. Leftism, of course, destroyed the family unit, with women as the weapons.

        • Steve_85

          People will treat you how you let them.

          By not fighting back, you are encouraging MORE violence because you have let that person know that they can win by simply escalating an argument to violence. You have not only the right, but the obligation to fight back.

          If you’re going to be a doormat, expect to be walked on.

        • Paul Elam

          I agree with you in principle, but I respectfully submit that whether violence is a viable solution or not, it is still self defense to “hit back.”

        • Stu

          I’ll tell you what escalates things in a domestic situation, especially if you are a man and you spouse heaps abuse on you…doing nothing escalates things. You may be able to cop your abuse and calm things down, but you have just taught her that there is no price to pay for abusing you, and that is exactly how to get you to cower and submit to anything she wants. She will increase her abuse over time and use abusive behavior in more and more trivial things just to get her way.

          Personally….I’ve been abused and assaulted by women, spouses on a few occasions, and I’ve never retaliated…..it does no good..sooner or later you are going to have to leave that relationship….and you will be treated exactly the same as a man who was abusive. My personal opinion now is that if you, as a man, are in any kind of relationship with a woman….and she’s abusive……dump her……period.

          That may mean walking out of your home…..that you paid for….and leaving your kids behind…..but that is still my advice…..because you either leave on your own steam…..or eventually you will leave in handcuffs…….that is wear women’s abuse ends….once they have done the yelling…..hitting…throwing……threatening…….etc…….the last abusive weapon they have at their disposal is the ultimate weapon……the cops, law, and the courts…..and to turn years of their abuse and your passivity around and make you the abuser and them the victim.

          That’s where passive pushovers end up.

          Why………why not……what are you gonna do about it…nothing…you have already proved that.

          • Steve_85

            “Why………why not……what are you gonna do about it…nothing…you have already proved that.”

            This. As Chris Rock said, “aint nobody above an ass whoppin” and by not giving it to them, you’re encouraging more violence.

      • JinnBottle

        Stu – you’re a fellow after my own heart – and my own tone, too. The feminists send men thru logical loop after loop, the Princess and the Riddle (aka Shit Test) (1) cos they think men are so stupid they won’t see the leverage feministas get with men distracted by chasing their own intellectual tails; or (2) becos they (the fems) really canNOT operate intellectually, outside a childilsh, or apelike imitating of men’s intellecting; and (3) the fems have no sense of principle or ethics – only tactics – but know men do try to maintain these things, and abuse accordingly. In sum: They don’t deserve a moment’s taking thought to answer them.

      • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

        I love Stu.

        He says it, so I don’t have to.

    • Jeremiah

      Violence is not inherently wrong. This is a politically correct (leftist) myth.

      • Tawil

        Who said it was inherently wrong? (scratches head).

        Let me guess… it was the “lefties”.

        • Jeremiah

          I was assuming you were implying with “still violence” that violence is inherently wrong to some degree, even in self-defense for example. It seems you were making a different point. Apologies.

      • Stu

        Violence is the only thing that maintains law. Fines, all other punishments mean nothing……fuck all….without the threat of violence to back them up. How do they get you to pay your fines…..turn up for your community service…….by threatening jail if you don’t…..and how are they going to get you into jail…….if they weren’t going to taser you…batton you, or even lay their hands on you……you could just say fuck off and kick their asses…….avoiding state violence is the motivation for obeying all lessor penalties.

        Think about it. What if you didn’t pay that speeding ticket…….oh……they might take away you license……but what if you just said screw you, I’ll drive anyway. Then when they pulled you over and you didn’t have a licence…..they would arrest you……..how…..what if you just said…….I’m not going….fuck off…..and drove off……lets face it……if they aren’t prepared to subdue you with violence…….no law..and no other penalty means anything. Violence is what holds it all together. Pacifists think they are superior to the rest of us because they will not resort to violence…..but they only survive by other people using violence of their behalf…..the only reason they are safe from murderers and robbers is because the police will come for them even though the pacifist will do nothing.

        I always told my son when he was at school in regard to bullies…..lay into them..and lay the boot in. Bullies do what they do because they are dishing it out……not getting it given to them. The pacifists answer to the problem is to be morally superior and do not lay and hand on the bully…..get someone else to do it instead……a teacher……principal….whatever. At the end of the day….the bully is free to bully until someone stops him. Someone may be able to do that without punching them in the face…..but the bully only submits to someones authority because that person can enforce their authority.

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

        Except when they commit it.

        They view everything in the lauguage of “leftese”. When using leftese we find that the war in Iraq is inexcusable while Kosovo and Somalia are totally justified. Using leftese at home we discover that Murrah federal building bombing was an act of terrorism while Waco and Ruby Ridge are justified. How are they justified? It makes sense if you don’t think about it.

  • Bombay

    Very good article/writing Phil. Thank you.

  • http://truthjusticeca.wordpress.com/ Denis

    This issue is why I became an MRA as well and I think the semantics of reciprocal violence that Phil puts forth is correct.

    Self defence is not just “hitting back”, self defence is justifiable force used to repel or prevent injury. Hitting back could also be retributive violence which is another issue entirely and is not self-defence. Reciprocal violence is a non-judgemental term that recognizes the dynamics of both parties in domestic violence. In the majority of these cases, it is extremely difficult to determine who is actually at fault, especially when the only evidence is the verbal testimony of the two parties.

    This is an important distinction from the status quo of laying blame based on arbitrary criteria without evidence and/or proper understanding of the dynamics of situation. I think we should prefer a cautious / non-judgmental approach rather than rushing to lay blame.

  • Adi

    Great article.

    Those who say any reciprocal use of violence is self defense are wrong. Yes you can defend yourself to a certain point, but beyond that, your use of violence becomes unreasonable. For example, if somebody slaps you with a flat hand and you take a baseball bat to their teeth, that is NOT self defense by any stretch of the imagination.
    It’s all about proportion really. The defender should have more leeway than the attacker but that’s not a free pass to do anything to them.

    In any case, the best response to partner violence (when possible) is to leave or somehow try to defuse the situation and then press charges AFTER things have calmed down. Do not call the police while she’s attacking you (unless you or somebody else is in serious danger) because this will most likely lead to your arrest (if you’re a man).

    If she repeatedly perpetrates violence, it’s best to get it on camera and take that to the police (and visit register-her.com).

    • Paul Elam

      Generally speaking I think violence is self defense any time you are under attack as long as it is used to prevent the attack from continuing. I agree that you have to employ reasonable standards. Mine are simple: Take the person down with whatever forced is necessary to ensure the attack will cease, and do it in a way that puts me at the least possible risk. If someone slaps me, I am not going to slap them back. I am going to apply enough violent force that I think it will succeed in preventing them from attacking me again.

      Rayon McIntosh picked up a metal rod and beat the women that attacked him severely, till they stopped trying to get up again. That was his response to being slapped. I think he was well withing reason to do so given the circumstances. The grand jury saw it the same way. I feel no legal or moral reason to allow anyone who is attacking me the possibility to continuing the attack.

      • Stu

        Yes, absolutely agree. And of course one can take things too far. But with the Mcdonalds case for instance….one of the woman slapped him…..then the two women chased him and went over the counter…he retreated from them at first…..but came out swinging once cornered. That is fair enough…at any time those women could have called off their attack….and they had ample opportunity to do just that…..they chose to chase him and corner him……even if he had of killed one of them…..I’d still say tough shit for her.

        Anyway, I’m not talking about what the law is…..I know what the law is…..if you’re a man…..attacked by a woman……you can’t even hold her arms to restrain her…..but I’m not talking about what the law is…….I’m talking about what the law should be…….if you initiate physical violence against someone….and they hurt you……you have no come back at all….none.

      • Adi

        The only way to be certain they won’t continue is to kill them.

        I think we basically agree though. The problem is that there are different forms of violence. A light slap, even tickling are classified legally as violence. Though most people would not call that an attack with intent to cause physical injury. And certainly doing whatever it takes is hardly appropriate here. Best is to simply demand they stop and gradually escalate it until they do.

        The case you mentioned gave him the right because he was a) outnumbered and b) they were being very threatening and hysterical. What they did was far more than just slapping. The situation was way past talking or defusing. They clearly posed a potential threat to him (he could not have know they were not armed) and that puts him in the “do whatever it takes” situation.

        When it comes to partner violence, I have a standard policy. She gets one warning and if it happens again, she has to get out of my life for good. That applies to anything like a slap. For more serious things there is no script I can lay out.

  • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

    “I still believe that men who brutalize women are the scum of the Earth.”

    Feminists who lie about women who hit men, and/or children are lower than the scum of the earth – way, way lower, and a far bigger domestic violence problem. And let’s get this straight too, feminists cover up all the violence against children that women perpetrate. I’ve seen that first had at a major, international d.v. conference, and in other mainstream taxpayer funded d.v. affairs.

    “According to the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services and DOJ statistics, more kids are killed by neglect and abuse in a year (1,460 in 2005), than all the female intimate partner homicides in a year (1,181 in 2005).
    And mothers are the single largest group of kid killers. They have a rate twice that of fathers, yet the taxpayer funded (gender feminist run) domestic violence industry would have us believe that women don’t egregiously batter men too. They’re lying!
    As shown by HHS statistics, the age range for those child homicides is about ten times narrower than that for female intimate partner homicide, making that rate of child homicide far more concentrated.
    Yet funding to prevent those child homicides is minimal, compared to the billions that go to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

  • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

    “I was too stunned to tell Lily about my father’s position.”

    You’re traveling through another dimension, a dimension not of reason, or sanity, but of evil, and insanity; a journey into a terrifying nightmare land whose boundaries are that of feminist ideology. That’s the signpost up ahead – your next stop, the feminist dystopia known as “Los Misandry.”

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

    Very good article – thanks.

    When I read your post the other day touching on this subject I was hoping you’d give us an inside view.

    Another scoop that the feminsturds will grit their teeth about has been added to the massive data base here.

    Paul is right about the futility of nit picking, and unity is far more valuable to all of us than for one or some of us to be right about the smaller points of a more academic nature.

    Paul. So far on this thread you’ve made five grammatical errors, four punctuation mistakes, three syntax errors two spelling mistakes and a Partridge in a pear tree.

    • GeorgeOlduvai

      “Paul. So far on this thread you’ve made five grammatical errors, four punctuation mistakes, three syntax errors two spelling mistakes and a Partridge in a pear tree.”

      Oi! That’s my job!

      P.S. you’re missing two commas.

      Back OT(ish): You are quite correct. Unity will get us further, faster, than nit-picking. Whilst I do my best only to edit content (as opposed to editing for content), on occasion, I cross lines. Again, my apologies if I misrepresented the author. Mea culpa.

      • Phil in Utah

        I don’t feel you did. I’ve already got another article in the works. The subject? Vietnam.

        • GeorgeOlduvai

          I’m very happy to hear that. I look forward to reading your next article before anyone else. Bring ’em on.

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

        You do a stellar job with the proof reading might I say and as it’s in your blood you see things most of us would miss and to that end and in advance here are my apologies for the lack of punctuation in this post

        At least there were no spelling mistales

  • OneHundredPercentCotton

    ………..aaaaaaaaaand HE got arrested also!

    • Phil in Utah

      As PFC Gomer Pyle would say, “Surpriiiiiise, surpriiiiiise, surpriiiiiiise!”

    • Steve_85

      Like I said above. By NOT putting her in her place (i.e defending himself) he allowed her to continue this far longer than she should have. If you’re going to be arrested anyway, may as well get your own back.

    • Poester99

      According the current Domestic Violence dogma, he must have done something to deserve this. He’s just putting on a front for the camera by meekly taking all these smashes to the face. At home he probably beats her black and blue every night while taking a break from drinking beer, and watching sports on tv.

      HA.. he doesn’t fool me! 8)

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        Gurrlfrin’ announced to the entire train he “cheated” on her. She was bein’ nice and all not to drug him and slice off his boy parts.

        I do’t know what bothers me most abut this…the women yukking it up or worried that he shouldn’t hit her, or that no one intervened.

        All things being equal, even the skinniest meekest little man would not have just sat there while a man beat a woman like that.

        Not one woman spoke up and said “stop it”.

        Not one female even expressed disapproval, just amazement at her continued misbehavior with the police.

        This goes to show exactly how the world would be if women were running things….


    • Bombay

      I do not see where he was arrested? He is a witness/the one attacked and it is not unreasonable that he would accompany the police.

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

    If your friend was so open minded why did she kick you out of the group?

    In my eyes: http://mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/2010/01/misogynist.html

    You’re still a mangina/white knighter.

    • Paul Elam

      If you’re really an MRA why are you putting energy into tearing down one of your brothers with this name calling?

      Are you trying to be an alpha dog, blue pill special-boy?

      I take a dim view of this shit here, and I give not a single fuck who doesn’t like it.

      You will not name call anyone who contributes here. Can it or find somewhere else to comment.

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

        I call them as I see them. If you read the same thing I did then why disagree with me? We’re in a war,Paul and everyone needs to be on the same page if we are going to win. I’ve been hit with both barrels over what I wrote why should anyone else be any different? If someone thinks I’m mean wait until the feminasties get a hold of them. I’ve been in this movement for close to 20 years,if you can match or beat that I’m all ears.

        I want this to be a poltical brotherhood but if I’m going to call someone “brother” that means that they have earned that title and that means I can count on them. I’ve seen too many flakes over the years call themselves “MRA’s” only to be the biggest manginas/white knights on the face of the planet. I’ve even seen where an alledged “MRA?” grovel and apologized to a radfem over what was written on his forum. Want to meet some of these “MRA’s”? Here they are: http://amasculistagainstacanadianliberal.blogspot.com/

        Female sympathizers? Let me introduce you to Emma: http://amasculistagainstacanadianliberal.blogspot.com/2007/04/emma-antifeminist-that-wasnt.html

        and A Feminist’s NIghtmare: http://amasculistagainstacanadianliberal.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-this-is-all-about.html

        And Julie: http://amasculistagainstacanadianliberal.blogspot.com/2007/03/is-julie-helping-me-prove-my-case.html

        If you went through what I’ve gone through over the years then maybe you’ll understand where I’m coming from.

        • Paul Elam

          I really don’t have time or inclination for this. I made my point and you are free to agree or disagree. What you are not free to do is name call the people who contribute to this site in the comments here. That is not a matter for debate. It’s a simple rule.

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

            Paul,the problem with having mangina/white knight tendencies is they are our achilles heel. The other side is going to turn up the heat. We’ve cost them a state women’s commission and bipartisian support for VAWA. I’ll bet they are very pissed and I’m sure they are going to want to roast our nuts for it. Weakness at this point is something we dare not show. We are making strides,we can’t stop now.

            You with me?

    • Bombay

      “A note about Lily: unlike most Women’s Studies majors, she was a sweet, open-minded person. Though I wasn’t present at any future meetings to confirm it, I heard later that when she had tried to push a pro-male agenda, she was kicked out of the group as well.”

      She did press the issue so she did begin to understand what Phil told her. Kudos to Phil for not remaining quiet and Lily for eventually pursuing it.

      Many people do not take the red pill until after tangling with the courts. Phil starting taking red pill juice without that jolt. He is way ahead of the curve.

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

        Phil in Utah said the following: I still believe that men who brutalize women are the scum of the Earth.

        This is why I critiquing Phil in Utah. If Phil had a violent father I could understand this but he had a violent mother.

    • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

      Masculist Man, your desire for purity is appreciated, technically I think I see the value in what you mean to say. However, form and respect matter; I strongly encourage you to critique the behavior that you find objectionable rather than the person. You may have some sound reasoning as to why describing Lily as ‘open-minded’ is an act of manginerism/white knightery. However, it’s hard to see that such is sufficient to justify labeling the person as a whole, one-dimensionalizing them, particularly in light of the excellent work to the contrary.

      • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

        I would add that suspicion regarding two-facedness and Trojan horses is a healthy and valid response to the nature of the misandry we face.

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

      So we have a guy writing about his own process of discovery and transition from blue pill to men’s rights activism, and because of your evaluation of perceived lapses of correct character, he’s a mangina?

      This seems pretty counter productive, in fact, it has the character of schoolyard name calling and alpha-male dominance gaming.

  • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

    Fantastic work by Phil, and a many warm welcomes. Brilliant to see great writing skills applied to this imperative cause. I was deeply moved by this piece in many ways. The clear and detailed view to the Satanic innards of the x-chromosome racism machine is thoroughly vomit inducing.

    Thank you greatly for this enlightening piece, Phil, which indeed shines a white hot spotlight on the cockroaches orchastrating male hatred and destruction behind the curtains.

  • http://menzmagazine.blogspot.com/ Dan Moore (Factory)

    Great article. Welcome to the game.

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

    Only in an MRA forum could you find a discussion that nitpicks an opinion on nitpicking.

    Just fine tuning the MRA attack machine to do maximum damage while sustaining and defending against attacks. A lean,mean masculist machine. When we’re through they would rather show women wearing dog collars eating out of dog bowls during the super bowl than fuck with us.

    • Paul Elam

      Just for the record, and I think it serves as a good example here, this is not a masculist website. Never will be. Masculism is a flawed, dysfunctional attempt at addressing men’s issues, because like feminism, it is elitist, reductionist and solipsistic. It is, in my opinion, the wayward counterpart to feminism that we really don’t need.

      That being said there are some good men who identify with that label, which is why I never made much of an issue about it, not even under the less than credible pretense of “fine tuning the MRA attack machine.”

      The fine tuning that goes into this place is one of internal culture shaping, not that of a debate club. The intent us to build community and through the use of interpersonal skills, because that is what our needs assessment dictates.

      We have debate masters out the wazoo here, any one of which I would put against any feminist you could pick and then count the ticks till they had the feminists head on a pole. Indeed, MRA’s are so good at debate (and usually at picking their arguments) that most all our opponents run and hide rather than face us in an open forum.

      All that is pointless without unity.

      • http://aleknovy.com/ Alek Novy

        Indeed, MRA’s are so good at debate (and usually at picking their arguments) that most all our opponents run and hide rather than face us in an open forum.

        Ditto, which is why when MRAs land on a certain news-piece, comments often get shut down.

        By the time the femi-journalist thinks how to spin things, all of her/his arguments have been ripped apart 50 ways by 50 MRAs.

      • keyster

        Pitch perfect response to some of these guys that spend more time fighting an imaginary enemy within, than fighting the one without.

        They’re so bold (and masculine?) to condem and criticize others they don’t agree with…
        …in an anonymous internet forum!

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

        Paul,I would say that “Masculist” and “Men’s Rights Activist” are synonyms.

  • http://lifespeculiarities.blogspot.com/ Izzey

    Excellent first article Phil. I say that, not just because of the writing, but the conversation it has generated.

    It also reminded me of a poem I wrote just last year.


    Once again,
    in dark night
    fear shouts its name

    Deliberate footsteps-
    announce Hate’s game

    Door’s kicked open;
    hinges crying out

    Both feet frozen
    for a one-sided bout

    safe haven
    in mind’s disguise

    Pain’s anesthesia
    for tear’s
    silent cries

    finding fury
    for the soul to


    A reciprocal


    Hate’s rage


    Now, you can envision a woman experiencing this.
    (no problem)

    But most women cannot fathom a man experiencing this. Nor could they justify the means to its end.

    I am also reminded of a quote…

    “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted”
    -Albert Einstein

    There is much more work to be done here. Statistically, there will never be an accurate count of DV perpetrated against men and boys.

    I can give you at least five reasons for that….but most of you know what they are.

    I’d really like to see less ‘nit-picking’ and a whole lot more brain-storming.

  • Auntie Pheminizm

    > “I still believe that men who brutalize women are the scum of the Earth.”

    Why even say that? Do you forget what forum you’re on? Why not say women who brutalize men and children are scum?

    And how “sweet and open-minded” was Lily, really? She asked YOU to leave, not the manginas. Sounds like she was, literally and figuratively, a ball-less wonder.

    There’s a loathsome group in my state called “Emerge. It’s composed of manginas, paid by the state, who shout and yell and abuse other men who must kow-tow to the douchebags in order to get legal releases signed per court-ordered “anger management” classes. How bitterly ironic that the “trainers” are allowed to be abusive in the name of protecting women.

    I pray that some day some of those attendees find those trainers and beat the living shit out of them.

    Really, guys: the days of talking to feminists and trying to make nice-nice are over. This is war! They had the facts and chose to ignore them because equality for men didn’t fit their agenda. So all bets are off now.

    Take no prisoners!

    • http://mensvoices.wordpress.com/ Tom Snark

      Thank you. The whole ‘blame feminists, not females’ thing is really tiring me out. As if every abusive female who hides behind state functionaries and uses them to abuse the man even further is a feminist.

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

      Thank you Auntie Feminism. About time some saw what I did. Yes,you are right,bro this a war and we can’t play nice nor have an achilles heel.

      Chivalry must be purged or we are doomed. That is the reality.

  • Auntie Pheminizm

    You often hear feminists saying the focus of DV prevention should be on women because they are hurt more.

    First, since women are more likely to use the element of surprise (or act when men are ill or sleeping) AND use weapons, who says they are hurt more?

    Second, what would we tell a small man who constantly started fights with bigger men…and constantly got his ass kicked?

    Wimmen: Don’t start fights you can’t finish!

    And don’t expect a man to just “match” your violence. Expect him to kick your ass as hard as he can to stop you from doing it again.

    > “…I have written many times that there is no political, legal, social or financial solution to our dilemma. Our oppressors can only be stopped by making them afraid of us.”

    I agree. It’s no use trying to reason with the enemy/feminists. Write or speak not to convince them, but to reach new recruits to our army.

    This is why war occurs: one party decides to deny the needs and humanity of the other. Then that other party finally decides it’s had enough, fails to applease/please the other, finds “reasoning” to be futile, and figures fighting back can’t be worse than enduring the slave-like present.

    Also, look at Greece. The population has told, by its actions, that it will not comply with political manginas and suffer for decades to repay banksters and others who duped them. Better to burn buildings and leave the EU than continue as slaves.

    So watch what happens when the US economy starts tanking, too. The latest round of “mortgage relief” is just a ruse to get the toxic houses off bank books and onto American taxpayers.

    There was a reason the book/movie THE ROAD did not have granola-munching Mommy trying to survive with a child.

    • Darryl X

      “There was a reason the book/movie THE ROAD did not have granola-munching Mommy trying to survive with a child.” Amen! (Love Cormac McCarthy)

      “So watch what happens when the US economy starts tanking, too.” The US economy is tanking. We are in the last throes of its complete collapse. Collapse started forty years ago – with feminism. Feminism is fundamental to collapse of the economy throughout thedeveloped world.

      For the past forty years, feminists have been snatching children and holding them hostage for ransom. Then they have been using that ransom extracted from one large fraction of the population (mostly men) to buy off another large fraction (mostly women) in exchange for political influence and power.

      Unfortunately, money from the men is running out. As inflation continues to go up, as men run out of money for feminists to steal, and as women continue to demand more excessive lifestyles without understanding their own responsibility in collapse of the economy, the economy will continue to descend.

      It’s funny that these stupid women think that the economy is money they steal from men to support their addictions instead of the hard labor for maintaining civilization that men exchange for a responsible lifestyle.

      As more and more men no longer enjoy a reasonable standard of living in exchange for their hard labor (but instead like me actually have to pay to work to pay child support – as if it is a privileage to work), fewer will work as evidenced by growing ratio of women and men in college, among other statistics, to pay child support or whatever.

      Then as these stupid women can no longer afford a decent lifestyle with the huge wad of cash they stole because inflation is through the roof and there are no more men to steal from anymore, then we will have won. We’ll be dead. But we will have won.

  • Auntie Pheminizm

    > “the folly that self defence was acceptable and you would be safe? Yes in reality it is self defence but for a man to assume that puts him in a very precarious position legally.”

    Because men let feminist define the terms!

    Men acted toward feminism like they do individual women hitting them. That is, they “take it” rather than fight back.

    On the other hand, when cops arrive at a fight involving a small and big guy, they don’t automatically arrest the latter. Instead, they ask WHO STARTED THE FIGHT!

    When feminists said it didn’t matter who started the fight, why didn’t guys speak up? Male muteness let blame for DV exonerate vaginates and those who are smaller.

    How’d that work out?

    The very first time feminists floated the idea that, say, “emotional abuse” was real, guys should have said women are emotionally abusive, too.

    When feminists said women matter more because they are smaller, guys should have said size doesn’t matter (!); what DOES is who starts fights.

    That is, instead of defining things equally, guys took a powder, remained mute, let “the little ladies” have their way, and now grouse about being jailed for name-calling.

    Dudes, YOU let that happen.

    Worse, DV is couched in terms of larger lies, like men having “all the power” and “marriage is rape” and hundreds of other male-bashing untruths. Yet they all add up to the cop arresting males, not females.

    Because guys remained passive and mute, the amputation of penises is now considered a joke, whereas a man raising his voice to his wife is deemed a near capital crime.

    Men let feminists dehumanize half the world. The result? All sorts of abuse is tolerated so long as the target is male. After all, men are controlling brutes who don’t have feelings the way women do. Ergo, hitting a man is no different than when a KKK member broke an axe-handle over a black’s head. It was considered no big deal since the black was subhuman, probably did SOMETHING to deserve punishment, and didn’t feel pain like humans did.

    Welcome to the plantation, boys!

    • http://mensvoices.wordpress.com/ Tom Snark

      “Dudes, YOU let that happen.”

      I didn’t because I was either not yet born, or a child, when all this happened.

      I have grown up in a world of female supremacy and have never known anything else.

      And you know what? I loathe them more than anything else and will do everything I can to tear this shit down.

      • Darryl X

        Yeah, I was born in 1967 and recognized very early in my life how evil feminism (and women) is. I grew up terrified of these lunatics. Their complete utter lack of sense or reason. I recognized very early on that these people were dangerous. I spent my entire life, almost every aspect of my life, protecting myself from the irrational lunacy of feminism. The only reason I am alive today and that I have an independent mind and can think is because I invested almost everything in protecting myself from an early age. I never acquiesced to their manipulation. If I hadn’t started very early, I wouldn’t even be here today. Not that this is any great thing. But of all the blessings I count every day, I count my sanity, because lots of people (feminists) aren’t sane.

    • Stu

      I’ve always been an anti feminist and seen through it’s bullshit even in my pre teens. I clearly remember arguing with a teacher in primary school…..I think I was in grade four….I argued that feminists wanted the benefits of being a woman, and the benefits of being a man….and the disadvantages of neither. I was sent to the principals office and received the strap….six double handers. I used to get pretty abusive with bully teachers when I was a kid. I held the record for getting the strap in the later years of primary school.

      • Zerbu

        Whoa! Only in fourth grade? That’s very early. I was at least 13 or 14 (don’t remember exactly) when I realised out the fraud of feminism. I’m now 18, almost 19.

        • Stu

          Well, I’m 49yo now, so it’s a long time ago. I had an early education, my parents split up when I was 6yo, and some of the women in my families social circle were what in hindsight I would call rad fems. I clearly remember an ad that was on tv here in Australia, a feminist man bashing ad. It featured stick figures……just black and white stick figures of men and women…..and a narrator….while the stick figures done things on screen. This ad was the first feminist ad I can remember…..I was about 10 or 11yo….and it portrayed men as users of women…..while women helped men get everything in life…men just kicked them in the head when they tried to share in the good stuff…….I remember arguing about this ad with my mother…….I remember thinking that feminists were on a man hating promotional campaign….of crying victim and lying about men……I decided at about then…..that these creatures called feminists were liars, haters, and were out to get men……..and I was right……and I’ve watched it get worse and worse ever since.

          • Stu

            By the way, it’s good to see some young guys joining the fight. Since you are a very young man…..I’ll give you some advice LOL

            When it comes to relationships….committment……just say NO.

            Never enter into any arrangement, relationship, that you can not just walk out of without losing anything. No joint property, no joint accounts….no living together. Keep an eye on the evolving laws, and keep yourself out of their reach. Live with the assumption that if you give a woman any legal power over you, or your assetts or income…..she will use it…..and you will lose it.

      • Darryl X

        I’m similarly disposed. I’m 44 and spent my entire youth defying teachers, parents and other family (three sisters), employers, etc… when they tried to impose upon me their insane and irrational feminist mentality.

        Like you, I’ve watched the circumstances of myself and others in this totalitarian post-feminist dystopian fascist police state apocalypse get worse.

        I spent the past seven years of my career cooperating with other like-minded (mostly men) colleagues to have our female supervisor reassigned and demoted to another work unit because of her sexual discrimination and retaliation against and abuse of men in my ranks.

        It took seven years. It was a second job and career unto itself. That it took so long to force my employer to have her removed and disciplined shows how much the system supports and enables these lunatics. She should have been terminated.

        I had a similar experience in another place of employment. Took seven years to have that feminist lunatic demoted. In the mean time, she did considerable and irreversible damage.

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

      Auntie Feminism,check out my blog: http://mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/

      I rather be one of the guerillas than one of the slaves.

  • Auntie Pheminizm

    Violence? Hmmmm. What to think or say?

    There are many ways to respond to attacks. Even in martial arts, there are “gentler” Ways like akido and t’ai ch’i. I used to think the latter forms superior morally (and they may be actually, in terms of fighting), but now? Dunno.

    I don’t believe in spanking kids. Ever. It’s always the adult’s failure if they have to use violence on smaller beings trying to make their way in the world.

    That being said, I think beyond a certain age, trying to “reason” with attackers is stupid, if not cowardly. Teens, for example, can be brutal. Trying to reason with them will almost certainly piss them off. They are just too far gone. If they weren’t raised correctly, it’s just too damn late.

    Now I know there are some “saints” who urge us to turn the other cheek and all. I suspect they’ve never been mugged or messed with themselves. Or are afraid to learn the “manly arts.”

    I think you have to treat thugs like rabid dogs. Put them down as quickly as you can. Otherwise they will take YOU down, one way or another.

    Let priests and social workers try to “reach” bullies.

    I know that most bullies were, themselves, abused. But so what? They’ve made a choice to attack innocent others, not their guilty tormentors. That is, they’ve crossed the line from thought to word to deed and now want to pass their pain on to others. You have to either flee or fight them. Talking will just get you stomped.

    I wish it weren’t so. But like opposing feminism, in most cases they’re beyond saving or being made to see your humanity. You waste time trying to “reach” them because, well, they view you as an insect.

    You have to deck them.

    Ditto feminism. It does little or no good to “discuss” anything with fembots. They are also too far gone. They had 5 decades to show SOME empathy for men and chose not to. So FTSU.

    The time to talk with those who view us as subhumana is after they’ve unconditionally surrendered. Until then, we must hit back hard, early and often!

    This kid embodies the MRM:


  • Klar

    thanks Phil in Utah, and thanks Paul Elam for insisting on your standard

    spoke at length to a former girlfriend tonight – i got some traction and it’s because i was able to speak sense of things that before were only seen as reactions – thanks to the back and forth this site has provided

    Stuff that makes me sick, like Hillary’s statement about the primary victims of war, is offset by this video, which is performed and dedicated properly:

    • Poester99

      Hmm… That’s pretty random 8)

  • http://Human-Stupidity.com Human-Stupidity.com

    @Jeremiah and others:

    There is the totally politically incorrect view, that women tend to go overboard, be abusive, do shit tests on men, and that the Bible was right that they need some carefully measured slapping to be kept in line and keep the peace.

    So if the man hits first, it still would be justified by prior abusive behavior by the woman.

    With some mediation by relatives and neighbors to prevent abuse by the rare immature male, maybe this would preserve marital peace and happiness.

    In the current feminist climate, this suggestion does not have much chance to prosper. It would require a very radical masculist men’s movement to seriously pursue such venues. But if men had half the clout and unity that feminists have, such goals might be reachable in the long term.

    What women have reached, politically, legally, is totaly amazing. Like forcing a man to continue paying child support after it is proven that the child is not his. Or making it illegal and punishable by jail in Britain to do a DNA test on your putative cuckold child.

    Women have the power to get the entire might of the state to descend upon a man. Just scream “rape”, “violence” or “child abuse” and the man is history. The power of carefully slapping or beating with a thin stick is more humane, less violent, and less dangerous then a woman’s power to command the police to interfere.

    I sometimes get to the conclusion that most laws made in the last 100 years should be repealed, be it about harassment, re-definition of rape, domestic violence, age of consent, quotas, …..

    How did we get to these issues?

    1) should a man be allowed to hit back, and is this self defense

    2) if a women is verbally aggressive, or passive aggressive, is the man hitting the woman also justified self defense?

    Of course, to find out the truly guilty would require constant discussions in a court of law. So by default, in the evil patriarchy, the man was the law.

    If the woman had picked a stupid jerk as her man, then she would pay the price by being dominated and controlled by an undeserving, unjust jerk.

    • Darryl X

      “2) if a women is verbally aggressive, or passive aggressive, is the man hitting the woman also justified self defense?”

      If you apply feminist logic to this statement, women should be hit regularly whether they did anything or not, but to preempt all the stupid things they are going to certainly do. I disagree with this approach, but that is the logic feminists have applied to men today when it comes to rape and child abuse and domestic violence. The difference being that most men aren’t going to rape or commit child abuse or domestic violence. But most women will commit child abuse and domestic violence (and sometimes rape) and preempting their statistically likely behavior kinda makes sense. As I’ve written before, after all the false allegations made against me, I wish that I had done something to justify them – you know, make the crime fit the punishment. I’ve been a real victim of this feminist nonsense my entire life. It’s amazing I haven’t been brainwashed the way so many other men have. Some men are too lazy and give into this nonsense too easily. I never will. I’d rather die a free man than live as a slave. Give me liberty or give me death.

  • billywms

    “When a woman hits a man and he hits her back, this is not a male-on-female crime; this is reciprocal violence. ”
    Um, No. Reciprocal violence is when both partners are brawling without one having first started the violence. When a woman hits a man & he hits her back this is SELF DEFENSE!
    AND the only one at fault in that situation is the woman.
    You have a right to defend yourself whether you are male or female, black or white, christian or muslim, etc…
    I enjoyed the rest of the article & agreed with it but that part i mentioned is not accurate & should be changed.
    Thank You!

  • Paul Elam

    @ masculist man

    “You with me?”

    Decidedly no. Not in the way you go about it. At this point I simply refer you to the latest article I wrote. I says everything I have to say on it.

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

      Where is this article?

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

      So let me see if I understand this. I’m taking issue with what Phil in Utah said:

      I still believe that men who brutalize women are the scum of the Earth.

      So going with that statement I refer to Phil In Utah as a mangina/white knight. Am I way off base in calling Phil in Utah a mangina/white knight? If so how am I off base? Is Phil in Utah someone you want to defend? So when I hold Phil in Utah accountable for what he said,the misandry he spewwed,I’m the bad guy? Is that how it is?

      • Raven01

        Brutalizing a woman (that was not in the process of attacking you at the time) IS abhorrent.
        Brutalizing a MAN (that was not in the process of attacking you at the time) is also abhorrent.

        You can obviously call bullshit on a claim that only attacking women is wrong. Or even point out the flaw that many of us see and agree with you on.
        But, attacking the man rather than the message [aints you as a wannabe alpha male.
        The last thing we need to do is have posturing BS making men just starting down the path of discovery that men are people too.
        Hope that makes matteres clearer.

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

          Raven, the definition of “brutalizing” is up for grabs these days. Just as the definition of “rape” is. Did she provoke him beyond his limit? I don’t know of any man who just walks up to a woman and strikes her without reason and the crime stats show that women are spared the violence men are put through. Phil’s post is very ambiguous.

          • Raven01

            Provocation that is not physical is bullshit. Understandable but bullshit.
            Yes, his post was ambiguous. But, counter the argument not the man.
            For instance I will counter my own argument that non-physical provocation is BS.
            One could state that non-physical provocation of men in some circumstances is MORE understandable than for women. For example the threat of denying access to a mans children on made-up allegations. The man has a very real reason to fear this as the government will trip over itself in its’ rush to help her do just that. The man has no support in fighting this injustice so, he is essentially cornered with no socially acceptable means of seeking redress. Is it any wonder that a man in that position may resort to violence? In his mind he has already lost what he holds most valuable, violence will not help him but it is unlikely to hurt his chances of correcting the situation by much. He was “guilty” the second the false allegation was made.
            See, I refuted my own statement all without insulting myself.

  • dejour

    Great article. This story is a great counter-example to the idea that MRAs are misogynist.

    Idealistic guy wants to help abused women, but gets thrown under the bus when he wants to help men too.