The Reason Men are More Violent Than Women

I was up burning some 4:00 a.m. oil when I ran across a comment just posted to my YouTube video “Domestic Violence, Women are Half the Problem.”  Actually it was a two part comment. The first half was just standard shame trip and ad hominem. Not worth posting here.  And while the second half of the comment was still peppered with feeble attempts to be insulting, it did contain a kernel of importance in the form of a couple of questions. Here that part of the comment, as written.

What you should concern yourself with is exactly WHY men have been responsible for the vast majority of murders, beatings, rapes, genocides, and incidences of pedophilia in the world, throughout recorded history. Bonus points if you can figure out how we can curb that reign of terror. Put your beefy male brain to work on that problem, sport. Keep me posted.

The broad stroking of so many social ills as all but male exclusive is ridiculous, of course. But the central fact that men are more violent than women is without dispute. The reasons for that, actually, are quite simple.  She (of course I am assuming this human individual has decided to self identify as female) should have thought of something more challenging.

Bottom line, men are responsible for most of the egregious violence in the world because every culture in the world expects their men to be aggressive and capable of extreme violence, just as it expects them to make themselves subject to aggression and extreme violence.

Those expectations come from women every bit as much as they come from men. Even more so in many ways.  Men are hard wired to reproduce, and women are hard wired to ignore men who can’t protect and provide for them. That’s the nuts and bolts, but there is more to the equation.

With most women choosing to either thug-fuck or money-fuck their way into a better standard of living, it makes competition even rougher. And the end result isn’t masses of power drunk males, but a standard that forces all men who want to compete to the disposable role of protector and provider. Once those men couple with women they are less likely to be violent toward her than the other way around.

So you see, your fight is not with men. It’s with Darwin, and you are getting your ignorant ass kicked.

The human race breeds violence. It is an artifact of 3,000,000 years of humanity in an environment that often boiled down to immediate survival. Add to that the ever present folly of human greed, which is hardly contained to men. That is what fostered sexual selection for violent capabilities; not an innate flaw in men but proof that they were madly successful at what they were challenged to do in order to reproduce.

Throughout the animal kingdom, in most species, the biggest baddest boy on the block gets all the action. Why? Because it works, you silly feminist. Because it works. If you think humans are all that different, I would suggest a straight shot of wake-the-fuck-up with a shut-the-fuck-up chaser. And for any possible MRA’s that are saying, “Ewwww! That’s so naaasthy! You shouldn’t sink to their level,” all I can say is please join the feminist at the bar and order what she’s having. This is a hard core bigot we are dealing with and this is not a coffee house conversation.

It’s a war.

Failing to understand the fundamental realities of sexual selection is not a failure based on simple ignorance.  It is based on an inability to effectively reason.  I keep that in mind as I approach the next question.

The fembot offered bonus points if I could figure out how to end the reign of terror.  Assuming she is not talking about feminism (which she should be); I will answer it as posed.

Again, cupcake, it’s real simple. If you want to curb the excessive amount of violence from men, you need to do two things.

First, women will need to start selecting men whose qualities and attributes are exactly opposite of what makes their pussies wet.  Forty years of feminist mythology that most women want “nice guys,” (when they want men at all) only changes the facts in the mind of the feminist. Women, wherever they can, still choose men for the same reasons they did on the African Savanna.

They don’t just select these men, they are lined up to select them.

The other way to address this problem, and one more practical than hoping for a shift in the ‘gina tingle, is for men to abandon the notion of protecting and providing for women entirely and refuse to compete for them on that level.

But oh, wait, that is already happening. It’s called the MRM.  And by its very nature it will be producing far less violent men. MRA’s don’t hit women, they send them packing- which is, after all a great move toward the independence we all know feminist want women to have.

So the way I see it, I should not only get extra points for knowing what to do, but I should hit the point jackpot for dedicating my life to doing something about it. That is, I would if I gave a shit about earning points from a feminist.

Now put your fishy female brain to work on that one.


    And for any possible MRA’s that are saying, “Ewwww! That’s so naaasthy!

    I agree, ewwww funny HA!

  • Nancy

    Sums it up! Excellent Paul. The onus is on women to make different choices of mates. Imagine the overnight change in men if the hotties started looking for the sensitive guy who was happy working at Walmart. Men would compete to be that guy in a heartbeat.

    The concept of holding women accountable is so foreign to people that they simply don’t think of it. Amazong.

    • BGolden

      Lol, Nancy…you’re not the brightest bulb on the tree, are you?

      “If only women would go for under motivated, undereducated men with little ambition.”

      Yes, because men pick women with those credentials to marry all the time.

      So, just to make sure i have your point….women should lower their standards and just make themselves available to all men, no matter what their character.


  • Falsely Acccused Soldier

    I have been spending less time commenting here because I found out that Amazon has forums. So I have been debating several feminists over the past two weeks about a LC4M. It’s nuts the shaming language that comes out of their mouths almost immediately once they find out you don’t share their views.

    This past week I have been called/told:
    -A male whiner

    -A college “boy”

    -I don’t know how to spell because I didn’t proofread and change your to your’re which means of course I never attended college

    -A Scumbag

    Here is a quote from one of them about what options guys have:
    If a man does not want a child he can:

    1) abstain

    2) have a vasectomy

    3) learn how to use birth control and use two methods without fail each time

    4) satisfy himself

    5) explore same sex options

    6) sleep with women who are past childbearing age or infertile
    —End Quote—

    The lack of empathy here is amazing. It makes me almost not empathize with any female pain.

    Just be selfish and only care about the pain of men and men only.

    Of course that would make me the male equivalent of a feminist.

    • An

      I have had similar experiences recently. It’s hard to feel compassion for those who are shooting to kill you (either with words or bullets). I have chosen to have no further dialog with those that can’t distinguish between assertive argument concerning their ideas, hypotheses and theories, and an attack on their person. These same types always resort to ad hominem vitriol. Self-preservation will eventually replace inclusion and a willingness to endure their abuse — empathy for such people is unworkable.

    • BGolden

      Please define feminism.

  • il128

    Women feed on emotional responses. Non-violent men are not desirable to women as they do not have all of the emotional responses women are looking for in a man.

    • BGolden

      Because violence is the only emotional response men have in their buckets?

      Have you ever thought the reason you’re not landing women might have something to do with you, instead of being the fault of the entire female population?

  • thehermit

    I’d like to add a few points.

    Men are taught from early age, that speak is only speak, deeds are what important.
    Human specy is an agressive one, that’s a fact, and that’s a key to our survive and successfulness on earth. Violence is agressivity what’s out of control, in a nutshell.
    Also not a question that females are agressive and can be cruel too- but their agression is mostly verbal, and manipulative. Do you think that kind of agression is never out of control?
    The fact they often get on with it without criminalization, does not make it less evil, or acceptable. They almost always leave the dirty work to males, avoiding the risk of being held responsible.
    We can often read about housewives paying an assassin to kill their husbands, that is a good example how it works. The statistics will only show another killer man…

  • AntZ

    “First, women will need to start selecting men whose qualities and attributes are exactly opposite of what makes their pussies wet.”

    “[second] … men abandon the notion of protecting and providing for women entirely and refuse to compete for them on that level.”

    Tactically, this about sums it up.

    Strategically, “do we want to fight Darwin” is at the heart of the current internal debate within MRMs:

    Follow Darwin: — fix marriage, reform family court, restore respect/honour to the male provide/protect role, continue to value the female nurture/moral compass role, etc.

    Fight Darwin — abandon marriage, re-define children as individual (rather than collective) responsibility, reject all gender roles (especially chivalry), individual freedom without collective expectations, etc.

    There are also a few points in common — legal and judicial equality of opportunity (but not of outcome), strict adherence to “evidence => fact” rather than “consensus => truth” mind-set, rejection of the feminist hate campaign against all men, rejection of presumption of guilt for men, rejection of “female superiority” social consensus, etc.

    • Aharon

      We may need to both fight Darwin and follow Darwin at the same time. I guess it depends on which approach would work best with the each unique challenge or situation being faced. I think that western (including of course American) women need to feel the full pain of what feminism is really doing to them since our pain often does not seem of much or no concern. By themselves, few women are emotionally and spiritually mature enough to take a stand against feminism simply for ethical and personal accountability reasons.

      I learned long ago that fear of loss of something is a greater motivator than a promise of gain. I support using the symbolic ‘carrot and stick’ approach with the stick coming first. Probably some idiot feminist will read that previous line and claim the stick idea is a real stick.

      • Poester99


        Yeah, waiting patiently for the “rule of thumb” feminist myth to appear out of the wordwork.

        • Aharon

          :) Yeah, that ‘rule of thumb’ claim has as much credibility as the myth that the ancient Crete society the Minoan was a matriarchy. Debunked. Debunked.

  • Aharon


    That was great. I’ll be happily thinking about your article while I eat my morning breakfast. It’s been an incredible journey lately. I’ve been up on probably 125+ sites that are anti-feminist/pro men’s movement. Some of the sites are by women and others by men. Every time I click on a new one there are links to many more.

    Something good is starting to grow out there.

  • fondueguy

    Women could easily be argued as a much begged liability to men than the other way around.

    For starters women are half the perpetrators of DV which males them quite violent. (Add to that they are the #1 child killers). But the catch is that their general aggression is useless to society and is just self serving. Their violence is not balanced out by productive aggression like firefighters or miners. On a similar not women are just as responsible as men for war but they leave all the fighting to men (not a distant class of people but their loved ones…). So both men and women are violent but only men are used as sacrifices for the benefit of society and women.

    Most of men’s violence happens to men so women have exponentially less to worry about the side effects of men pressured to be aggressive.

    Women from the military were more likely than men from the military to commit domestic violence. If I were to extrapolate from this and many other events I could say that if we put pressure on women to actually do something with aggression that isn’t self serving they would be quite violent. (I don’t remember but I think the rates for both were fairly low). Again women are already violent when they have no need.

    Lastly lesbians are the most violent type of relationships, more than gay men or hetero couples. That further suggests that women do have a violent nature, and could possibly be more violent if they were treated the same.

    Men are the primary victims of sacrifice, violence, and punishment.

    • http://donothaveone Sisyphus

      Um, Fondueguy, I hate to break it to you but you’re wrong about lesbian relationships being the most violent.

      (I apologise for the dryness of the article)

      The article deals more with child abuse than partner abuse as there have been no comprehensive studies done on same sex partner abuse (weird I know!)

      • John A

        Another Myth from Sisyphus.

      • BGolden

        Lesbian relationships the most violent? That’s a new one. Lol.
        Let’s just call it a day and blame women for everything from making us endure things we don’t like, forcing us to share equal footing, and not being the men we hoped to be when we were kids. Oh, and the fact that I can’t seem to get laid to save my life…that is clearly the fault of the entire female population…because I’m flawless.

    • Denis

      There are plenty of studies on same-sex partner abuse, do some basic research before you make false claims.

      Try google or wiki…great for beginners.

    • modestgrrl

      Pardon me for commenting on an older article, but I couldn’t resist.

      I used to work with victims of domestic violence, and believe me maybe 5-10% of the women there really needed saving. The other 90-95%? Well, some of them were abusing the system to get rid of boyfriends they didn’t want, some just wanted to shame the man, some were really the instigators but they weren’t the ones who resorted to physical violence first, and some of them really were the abusers but were smart/lucky enough not to leave any marks.

      Where I live, the law is still written to only protect women. In the few instances we received men who needed help, we held them to a much higher standard, and even then the judges would shame them for needing help. After all, real men fix their own problems, right?

      We did have a couple of men who also tried to abuse the system for revenge/coverups, but they never made it through the system.

    • BGolden

      Women are by default, #1 child killers because they are more often than not, the only caregiver.
      How is this a statistic that proves anything aside, “men don’t kill their children as often, because they’re not there to take advantage of the opportunity.”

      You make similar assumptions based on “statistics” where women are outside of their element, or severely outnumbered as evidence of the behavior for the entire female population. While this sounds good when making an argument, it holds as much water as claiming during slavery that, “black people are more depressed than white people because they’re black.” While ignoring the extremely turbulent circumstances that may be affecting the outcome of your statistic.

      Additionally, you claim women should not concern themselves with male violence because men hurt men more…but by a woman’s 18th birthday, 1 out of 3 will have been sexually assaulted or raped. The point being, men do not necessarily enact the same kind of violence on men as they would on a woman.

      I encourage you to think outside of the box, and never settle on a statistic until you’ve played devils advocate with yourself.

      • wakjob

        You can’t just drop a steaming turd like “by a woman’s 18th birthday, 1 out of 3 will have been sexually assaulted or raped” and not cite your source. That horseshit might fly where everybody’s tripping on the kool-aid. That is not where you are.

  • J.G. te Molder

    You know, you’re missing a giant point. What makes you think all that violence, and women wanting violence (and until recently for good reasons) somehow managed to miss women altogether.

    Women aren’t less violent than men, they are every bit as much so. It’s just that up until recently when feminist influenced the law starting punishing men virtually exclusively and held a hand over women’s heads they simply didn’t have the opportunity and/or power to do so. But now that more and more women do have the opportunity and power to be violent, lo and behold, the violence in women has come out of the woodwork.

    Which is the answer to what the question really should have been: why have women historically been so much less violent?

    Answer: they weren’t. Look at any female rule, the few that came to power, all of them violent, sneaky, underhand, manipulative maniacs. (Because they alone could get themselves in the position of power.) Cleopatra, for example, wanted all of the Roman Empire to be down in the dirt worshiping her shapely nose while she sat on her shapely ass, and so she first tried to seduce the emperor, and then when that failed a general and started a civil war that lost tens of thousands their lives. And not for some “spiritually evolved” reason, nope, pure ego(istic) reasons.

    • Paul Elam

      I’m not buying this. First, I think I made it pretty clear that violence was not a male exclusive domain. On the other hand, it’s clear that men are, on average, more aggressive and more violent. It is a theme that runs through the animal kingdom with solid consistency, and is quite well documented in our own species.

      I agree that women rely more on seductiveness and manipulation, and often recruit other men to commit violence on their behalf, but I am not going to dismiss the abundance of evidence regarding men in favor of a pro MRA PC myth. I think back to Dan Moore’s most recent article here.

      Male violence is an issue worthy of much discussion, especially with feminist ideologues talking about it all the time in terms of “toxic masculinity,” and especially considering men are the victims in most cases.

      The fact is that where it concerns women, men are less violent. I don’t think you can make the same argument in any other area of their lives, comparatively speaking.

      If you can, I am open to hearing it. But I need to see convincing numbers, and I am almost positive they don’t exist.

      • J.G. te Molder

        Runs through the animal kingdom? The Black Widow spider eats their own males after intercourse. Predator species often produce bigger, stronger and more aggressive females than the males. The male lion doesn’t hunt, the female lion does the hunting and killing and brings back the prey for the pack.

        What runs through the animal kingdom with but a few exceptions: the bigger stronger animal/gender is the one that is the most aggressive. Not because they are more aggressive in general, but because they CAN GET AWAY WITH IT.

        The weaker gender/individual doesn’t express their aggression because they’d get a beat down or will be outright killed. That doesn’t make these genders/individuals less aggressive, it just means they control it better – by necessity.

        Women can turn on their best friends in a moment, and accept nothing less than (social) annihilation. Their campaign to completely destroy their new enemy/old friend is every bit as aggressive and violent as any fight between two men. It just doesn’t turn physical, because the physical, they know, will be stopped; both in the past and today by the authorities, where in the past the authorities were the physically stronger men around them, who had a vested interest in keeping women alive and physically okay enough to function.

        Men, by contrast, can go from a fist fight, to a slap on the back, a shared beer, and friends. Why? Simple: those who annihilated their opponent completely, usually died a few days later while on the hunt. Either by a predator making use of the man too focused on his prey, or horned prey deciding the man could be speared quite nicely; and the guy he destroyed wasn’t their to save his ass. Result: those who respected fellow (near) equals and bonded with them get to live longer and pass on their genes. Evolution at work.

        Men and women are every bit as despicable, evil, violent, murderous, destructive and disgusted. Equally, men and women are every bit as giving, good, gentle, sweet, loving, and caring.

        The only real difference: the way they are expressed.

        • Type 5

          The only real difference: the way they are expressed.

          “For heaven’s sake, if a man is cheatin’ on you do what every other woman in this county does: take him to the cleaners. You can make him wish he were dead, but you don’t get to kill him,”

          -Mia Magness, prosecutor of Clara Harris – the woman who ran down her husband with her Mercedes

        • Paul Elam

          Runs through the animal kingdom? The Black Widow spider eats their own males after intercourse. Predator species often produce bigger, stronger and more aggressive females than the males. The male lion doesn’t hunt, the female lion does the hunting and killing and brings back the prey for the pack.

          And the male lions protect the pride more often than female. You will also see that in many species that produce large more aggressive females than males, that the females compete for males and that the males do the care of offspring.

          • J.G. te Molder

            Which I might add, is complete bullshit (in fact, feminist inspired bullshit), especially the human race.

            There are quite a few animal species where the males are both competitors AND choosers. One or a few males defeat others, and that means they get to take their preferred mate. The lesser males get the lesser mate.

            Chimps for example are rather democratic. A leader of the pack isn’t simply the best at brow beating the opponent into the ground, no he spends his time building up support among the males and females first, before challenging the current leader in a staring contest. Not obviously, who has the best physical strength, but who has the best nerves of steel and looks best to the rest of the pack. When the new leaders backers bully/attack a lesser chimp, the leader better stop his backers, despite the fact he could lose them as backers. For if he does not protect the lesser chimp, which has his own mate, I might add, he will find a new challenger comes along and he will lose because he didn’t lead fairly.

            In the human species, men have been choosers as well. For example, as we went to stand erect, one of the sexual attraction signs; the curvature of the ass, became less visible. Breasts grew to be useless lumps of fat; but, the cleavage looks like the curvature of the ass, and thus those women were more desirable. And men must have been choosing the women to procreate with, or having bigger breasts would not have been such an advantage in ensuring offspring, that women’s breasts developed until they became they way they are today.

            Similarly, our lips. Our lips are thicker and more pronounced than with our closed cousins, let alone other families of animals altogether. Our lips look like a pussy, and a pussy is interest to put your dick into. Yes, men CHOSE women with more pronounced lips to have sex with – we literally bred our women to give us blowjobs.

            We’re not done yet. What purpose does the head of our penis serve? It is perfect to scoop sperm behind the edge back out of the pussy. That seems counter productive to ensuring procreation if your penis pulls your sperm back out. Unless of course it pulls a COMPETITOR’S sperm out. Apparently pulling your competitor’s sperm out, was such a boon to procreating yourself, that those men who didn’t have our head died out. That of course, equals women who had multiple males as sex partners, and those who were better equipped to get those other partners’ sperm out were the ones who procreated.

            Which incidentally completely fits with the size of our penises. We have the largest penis-size to body-size ratio in the animal kingdom. A gorilla being two to three times our size, having an average penis of 1.5 cm, while we have the average penis of 15 cm. The deeper we could get our sperm-scooping head, the more competitor’s sperm that came before us we would scoop out, and the deeper we could inject our sperm, the less likely it was that a competitor could reach ours to scoop out.

            The above of course, describes a human species that procreated not so much through choice, but through gang bangs or even full on orgies. The male sex partner’s after all, had to happen fast enough after each other, that there was still competitor’s sperm left in the pussy to scoop back out.

            Also, the major problem with the whole dogma of “competitors are more aggressive and violent bit”, is that they watched and only so the most obvious aggression and violence, which is where the feminist view point being of males being more aggressive seemed to be confirmed and they didn’t look further. If they had, they would have found that the females are every bit as aggressive and violent as the males are, they just express it differently and the times they express it equally, they’d be stopped by a stronger male. (Remember that chimp leader and the weaker chimp he had to defend? Isn’t just male chimps he has to defend, it goes for females too.) In other words, what the proper conclusion should be, is that the “competitor” is more PHYSICAL, while the chooser expressing their violence in a more manipulative, underhanded, backstabbing manor.

            They are however, equally expressions of competitiveness, aggression, and violence.

      • An

        The theme in the animal kingdom you refer to, Paul, may not be as consistent as it might seem:

        “The belief was that male and females differed greatly in nature but the psychologists found that if the chimps’ resources come under threat, the females could become just as aggressive as males.” ….

        “Simon Townsend, who led the study, said: “It’s true that males are much more often seen to engage in extreme physical violence than females, and this has led to the notion of violent and demonic males in contrast to quite peaceful females.

        “However, our research shows that, under the right socio-ecological circumstances, these chimp gender stereotypes collapse completely.

        “If their resources are under threat, females can become just as violently aggressive as males.” ”

        I agree with you completely that “where it concerns women, men are less violent.” As for other areas, I suspect the competition for resources, as in the case of the chimps above, is equalizing the propensity for violence while at the same time blaming men for it. And the gender feminists are redefining violence, too:

        • http://donothaveone Sisyphus

          An: here’s another link referring to chimp “warfare” (regarding Pan Troglodytus not Pan Paniscus of course.)

    • Type 5

      Which is the answer to what the question really should have been: why have women historically been so much less violent?

      I would argue that the question should have been, “Why should you or I or any of the other readers care if men are, in general, more violent than women?” Why did Paul feel the need to write this article at all?

      I don’t know about you, but my entire experience with violence was one schoolyard fight in second grade and another in fifth grade. (Certain ideologues might count the fact that I played high school football, also.) In my life, men’s violence levels compared to womens’ is no more important than knowing that silver is more popular than red as a color for new cars.

      If I were the type to be wringing my hands over the levels of violence in society, it stands to reason that the social attitudes/legal consequences that could be applied to successfully deter violence in men would equally deter women from violence (if those attitudes/consequences were applied equally to women). Thus, the relative violence levels per sex are irrelevent when addressing violence.

      The seeds to why I should care whether men are more violent than women rest in the reasons why the useful idiot who inspired Paul’s article cares. She cares vitally about repeatedly trumpeting men’s violence because she wants to establish and reinforce the stereotype of men as violent brutes. She is trying to influence what society is to assume about any given man she may ever find herself in conflict with. Feminism has pushed this stereotype so successfully that all men in our society are pretty much presumed to be violent brutes.

      You and I and every other man reading this site – no matter our character, background or standing in the community – are all presumed to be four beers away from beating the crap out of the next woman or child who wanders into our field of vision. We have been the more or less unknowing victims of a half-century long PR campaign against us.

      That’s why I care whether or not men are more violent than women. That’s why we can’t just nod our heads and accept the assertion as “common sense” and go about our way. That’s why we have to bring up the substantial amounts of violence committed by women. That’s why we have to make clear every, single time the subject comes up that the vast majority of men are not violent and that’s why Paul has written this piece on the pressures society and women place on men to be violent.

  • Poester99

    @Falsely Accused Soldier

    It’s good that you’re challenging their hegemony. I can see all the touchy/feely nerd types cowering in their boots when the aggressive gender warriors appear to begin spewing their venom all over the forums.

    The Spearhead had a huge influx of them with the infamous SciFi review article a while back. They left just as quick when they found we wouldn’t back down and accept their nonsense at face value.

    Just recently I told off a “strong empowered” women who was telling off a sci-fi fantasy writer that she wouldn’t read his books unless he espoused a feminist viewpoint in his books. You know, that a 120 lbs women could swing a 20 lb sword just as well and as for as long as a 220 lb man.

    • The ScareCrow


      Can you give a link to the spearhead article that you are referring to?

      I must have missed it.


      “Just recently I told off a “strong empowered” women who was telling off a sci-fi fantasy writer that she wouldn’t read his books unless he espoused a feminist viewpoint in his books. You know, that a 120 lbs women could swing a 20 lb sword just as well and as for as long as a 220 lb man.”

      Hmm I found some photos of this type of women and the type of organization she represents below.


      Above and below, Non-feminist scifi book burning 1933



        “Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.” (German: “Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen.”)—Heinrich Heine, from his play Almansor (1821)

  • The ScareCrow

    “your fight is not with men. It’s with Darwin”.

    I would question this one – do not women do the majority of raising of children?

    So – if men behave violently, couldn’t we blame such violence on the women who raised them that way – and not this “Darwin” guy?

    Forgive – I cannot find the statistic I was looking for – but I heard:

    women are twice as likely to cause injury to their male children as they are to their female children when hitting them.

    87% of people experience their first act of violence from a women (I think it was 87%). It was definitely the majority.

    Who is raising the majority of the children – and where exactly is it these children are learning the violence from.

    My theory – it is from Mom.

    And lets not forget:

    Boys are taught not to hit girls.
    Girls can hit a boy if they feel upset.

    Again, where are they learning this violence from?

    Oh well – just a thought.

    Excellent article.

    • Paul Elam

      There are so many relevant points in your comment I could spend an hour on them, but let me give you my short answers.

      One, domestic violence, including that toward children, is not all that a significant source of violence compared to other aspects of life. And since any manner of normal marital conflict now gets treated as criminal violence it even further dilutes the significance DV in the big picture.

      Women do indeed raise the majority of children, but they are not the sole influences on their development by any stretch. So while I am sure that the legions of dysfunctional mothers in modern culture are creating dysfunction, often violent children, we need to rely on the incidence of violence before that family breakdown.

      That still trends well toward men.

      I totally agree with you that girls are being trained to assault men throughout their lives, but again this falls under the domestic heading.

      • Pankaj

        Got to disagree with you Paul.

        “domestic violence, including that toward children, is not all that a significant source of violence”
        Its not significant in hospital reporting, but it is effective at teaching children.. when you don’t get things your way from someone less capable of defending himself/herself (mostly himself).. use violence. Lets not forget that this is the time when children ARE learning about how the world operates. Then there are effective teachings of obeying authority without question (with violence waiting in the wing for resistors).

        This may not clench the argument, but just look at any culture that has majority female raising. You find a whole lot of eager cannon fodder in there as compared to dad involved raising.

    • BGolden

      “Males abandon their children…mom is left to raise them, therefore, by default, mom is likely to have more marks on her for abuse.” Do you also credit women for the greatness of our nation compared to other developed countries? Or do women just get the blame for bad, while men take the credit for good?

      So, just so I have your argument correct, we’re blaming women for men abandoning their children because she stuck around and raise them? Doesn’t it make more sense to blame men for abandoning their children, and leaving mom to struggle alone, pulling out her hair, stressing to the point of aggressiveness and frustration, trying desperately to to support your child, alone?

  • Lovekraft

    And let’s not forget the repercussion of driving out male aggression: rendering our society weak and ripe for conquest (read: Islam).

    • Pankaj

      Defense is not aggression.

      • Whitney

        OK, you get a bunch of girls defending against a hoard and you don’t stand a chance. You need to be aggressive and able to dole out significant amounts of violence in order to be defensive.

        That is of course, unless you build a wall and don’t let people in. Good luck with that.

    • BGolden

      I know many men who could defend the people they love with the ferocity of a lion who would not lay a hand on anything or anyone unless it was required to protect their loved ones.

      Random aggression is the personal responsibility of the person being aggressive and their lack of self training and will power to learn how to control their own knee jerk behavior.

      Random aggression and violence is not the same as defending. There are many forums where men and women can train their skills and strength in defense without launching off like a loose cannon. This erratic behavior is nothing more than a lack of self discipline and nobody is responsible for it aside the person displaying the behavior.


      You may now continue blaming women for your inability to control yourselves.

  • fondueguy

    I have no reason to think women haven’t always been violent and regardless you can’t blame their violence on Feminism. They haven’t been treated will callousness, violence, lack of emotional support, and lack of financial support like men have and yet their violent. Imagine them in men’s position, theyd be treated with more violence and strong pressure to provide. Women are also opportunisticly violent such as their violence to weak children. They didn’t need to feel equal to men, strong enough, to kill kids.

    The point I forgot to make in my last post is that men as a whole have little network support and men have the huge burden of providing. Studies show that long hours of work are very stressful send bad for your health. Basically men are more so on their own and have high stress from being sole providers.

    These are two major points That we need to get across in the MRM. Society needs to work on rehabilitating and supporting men like they do women. But also men need to be told that their wives can share the burden of work to ease men’s stress.

    (Long hours hurt your health)

    (“Their findings reveal that the desire for more “family time” is widespread, with 82% of full-tim this.” The article is done by some stupid women but the point is that men don’t want to be at work all day and more till the day they die.)

  • AntZ

    “It’s a war.”

    Can anyone identify a historical example of a systematic dehumanization campaign that did NOT eventually lead to an attempt at physical extermination/genocide of the victims of the dehumanization (successful or not)?

    The Feminist campaign of sustained, systematic dehumanization of all men is beginning to look like the opening salvo of a barbaric gendercidal war of extermination.

    • Paul Elam

      Sure fire comment of the week.

    • AntZ

      My question is actually in earnest. I am feeling quite despondent and am looking for an example of a dehumanization campaign that did NOT lead to an eventual extermination campaign, so that I can have hope that this will not eventually end in some kind of violence.

      My common sense tells me “are you nuts, of course this will not end in a shooting war!” However, I cannot ignore that none of the vanished victims of extermination campaigns ever imagined their own fate. From a historical progression point of view, dehumanization campaigns naturally lead to violent extermination, even when neither the victims nor the perpetrators wanted this to begin with.

      Once the status of men as second-class beasts of burden is firmly established, why would the female overlords not get rid of the dangerous male brutes altogether? Perhaps after advanced robots begin doing the hazard duty that the men of the future can look forward to?

      • Paul Elam

        Sorry to say that I chose your question as comment of the week, not because of the question itself, but because of the answer.

        We all know what the answer is, don’t we?

    • Poester99

      I’ve been thinking a lot about this as well lately, as to what the plan B will be when the gender war battle is actually “joined” in earnest.

      I think that modern (and/or asymmetric) warfare lends itself, more than any time in the past, to the possibility that it can be waged successfully by women, and by women, I mean ONLY women. There are going to be a huge shortage of white knights in the future due to them beginning to die off, and this seems to be one of the possibilities.

      Another is the intentional mass abortion of all male fetuses. You know kill that rapist, abuser, murderer, pedophile, etc. before he is born before he gets a chance to abuse a women or girl somewhere. Versions of this are spontaneously happening due to easy access to abortion and sexing of fetuses. Right now in India and China fetuses are being aborted because they are female, for cultural reasons in India, and as a side effect of totalitarian social planning in China.

      I think, that if someone actually looked at it closely, and aside from certain recent immigrant communities, we would find that abortion was being used to sex select for girl babies instead of boys. It may be a lot of hot air, but it would be the sort of thing that social researchers being mostly of feminist persuasion, might go through great pains to keep secret.
      I mean why try to ram though a androcide right now when, you can just “encourage” all women to just “not have” male babies, to do their part to make the world a “better” place. Maybe they’ll start giving cash incentives to women that have only girl babies.

      I can go on forever.
      So am I paranoid? or are they actually all out to get me.

      • AntZ

        In all Western nations, it is currently much more common to request female sex-selection than male sex-selection. We hear horror stories about China and India favoring boys, but few people know that in the United States, all European nations, Australia, Canada and New Zealand the overwhelming sex-selection is for female children.


      • Pankaj

        It is a difficult question for any man who understands his responsibility to his child. I myself, knowing the little chance I have to provide a decent life, would not prefer to have a son. For I also believe that a man has an obligation to make sure that his children are born to live free. But then, if that is freedom is gender dependent – I am not sure even the girls thus born would be free.

        It is things like this that make me call for young men to fight for freedom before they fight for reproductive rights.

    • Introspectre

      It’s the insidious process of rationalizing and teaching those dehumanizing assumptions to the point that they become entrenched in a cultures perceptual framework, that leads to legalized suppression of the targetted group which in itself appears, (to the masses), to be a justification of the assumptions which then encourages the fanatics indoctrinating those assumptions to both beleive even further in those assumptions and to expand the definitions of those assumptions.

      When this process reaches a certain critical mass it becomes the next fascism and certain power hungry elements among the super-wealthy and police, courts etc. intentionally enable these processes in order to wrangle more power and control for themselves. When you rationalize, enable and indoctrinate hate like this, it does tend to take on genocidal overtones in time, and the checks are usually no longer in place at this point to prevent the inherent injustices from occurring.

      Feminists are the latest examples of this vulgar irresponsibility and a reminder that those held least accountable, inevitably become the most dangerous.

  • B.R. Merrick

    Bottom line, men are responsible for most of the egregious violence in the world because every culture in the world expects their men to be aggressive and capable of extreme violence, just as it expects them to make themselves subject to aggression and extreme violence.

    Thus, we have “Support the Troops” all over this land mass, whereas I, the anarchist, the 9/11 Truther, the anti-war lover of men of all kinds, the one who would very much like to see these fine young men put down the state’s arms and refuse to do the state’s bidding, am vilified as anti-American. (This, in spite of the fact that being an American used to mean being essentially anti-state and anti-war.) You are absolutely correct that cultural forces still to this day overwhelmingly advocate for virile, physically strong, unafraid, tough, and violent men, so long as it’s directed outwards “for defense purposes.”

    But are there not also biological factors at work? Not that violence is biologically programmed in males, but perhaps a more visibly natural consequence of the cultural influences you point out, for a sex that is generally physically stronger and more physically oriented? Also, what would you say is the extent of the influence of childhood trauma on making either a man or a woman more violent?

    • Pankaj

      “what would you say is the extent of the influence of childhood trauma on making either a man or a woman more violent?”
      A WHOLE LOT.

      Although I have found out that it also depends on the child. I have noticed that different children are “driven” by different things. Some imitate their parent’s ways, some demand consistency, some justice and some the-path-o-least-resistance.

  • TDOM

    “Throughout the animal kingdom, in most species, the biggest baddest boy on the block gets all the action… [women] don’t just select these men, they are lined up to select them.”

    Toxic femininity at work.


  • Kris

    Great article! The feminist fraud lies in this – women can follow their Darwinian instinct to wherever it would lead them to, but then make the state shield/compensate them from the downside of their actions while allowing them to enjoy the upside to themselves. In fact, feminists were not content with that. They devised number of schemes (with state sponsorship of course) to arbitrarily rob men to provide compensation to the same irresponsible women. Now, we have come to a pass where just being a woman is enough for untold entitlements from the rest of the society. The vast majority of men who don’t see thru the feminist matrix would blindly follow their Darwinian instincts to their ultimate ruin. What Paul has done here is twofold – firstly expose the feminist fraud in its raw form; and secondly show the path, the other one, for those men who can understand.

  • Serithe

    My very own men’s rights activist article, how delightful! You can imagine my surprise and elation when I woke up to find this.

    Overall, though, I have to give this a charitable D-, mostly because you don’t offer any real evidence and are pretty much just talking out of your ass. Extra points for the feistiness though; that always makes reading this sort of drivel more fun. Stay classy.

    Now for the crux of your argument.

    “With most women choosing to either thug-fuck or money-fuck their way into a better standard of living, it makes competition even rougher. And the end result isn’t masses of power drunk males, but a standard that forces all men who want to compete to the disposable role of protector and provider. Once those men couple with women they are less likely to be violent toward her than the other way around.”

    Wow. Citation needed.

    Here, I got this from the very first link that showed up on Google.

    “In a 1995-1996 study conducted in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, nearly 25% of women and 7.6% of men were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or dating partner/acquaintance at some time in their lifetime (based on survey of 16,000 participants, equally male and female).”

    “In 2000, 1,247 women and 440 men were killed by an intimate partner. In recent years, an intimate partner killed approximately 33% of female murder victims and 4% of male murder victims.”

    Where exactly are you getting your data, sport?

    So since “getting action” obviously isn’t stopping men from being violent, your argument has no legs to stand on.

    Now for your solution. My fishy female brain is having a hard time following.

    “First, women will need to start selecting men whose qualities and attributes are exactly opposite of what makes their pussies wet. Forty years of feminist mythology that most women want ‘nice guys,’ (when they want men at all) only changes the facts in the mind of the feminist. Women, wherever they can, still choose men for the same reasons they did on the African Savanna.”

    You’re trying to say that women are attracted to ultra-masculine men that are prone to violence, correct? Well, all right, but studies don’t agree:

    In this study, women preferred feminine-looking male faces, because they considered feminine-looking males warmer, more honest, and better parents. Even if you don’t buy the study, the evidence is out there. Look at how popular guys like Justin Bieber and Zac Efron are with females of all ages. The ape brow and lantern jaw isn’t exactly in right now.

    “The other way to address this problem, and one more practical than hoping for a shift in the ‘gina tingle, is for men to abandon the notion of protecting and providing for women entirely and refuse to compete for them on that level.”

    Holy crap, something I agree with!

    One time, I read a comment on Jezebel from a feminist who remarked that she couldn’t understand why MRA’s were so belligerent toward feminists. MRA’s oppose domestic violence; so do feminists. MRA’s want fathers to have just as much of a right to care for their children; so do feminists. They both have similar goals, so shouldn’t they be allies?

    Likewise, I want to put an end to this provider bullshit, too! And I think it would do a lot toward curbing domestic violence, since financial dependence is a key reason why a lot of women remain in abusive relationships.

    Unfortunately, I don’t think you chaps want any allies. I think you are among a number of people from both genders, all races, and all walks of life who have a natural propensity to see themselves as victims. The very core of your identity rests on the perception that you have been wronged in some way; without it, your entire outlook on life would crumble. Unfortunately, you are (likely) a white male, who isn’t and has never been a real victim. So you end up as a fat lion who BAAAAAWWWS all day, oblivious to the fact that nothing in the history of your absurd movement has caused anything except reflexive eye-rolling.

    Am I close?

    • Paul Elam

      No, and I will show you why when I come back to this later this evening.

      But in the meantime, some ground rules for the bigots that visit here. You are an anathema to equalitarian values (not to mention common decency) so the rules are a little different for you.

      For your posts to be on this site, you will refer to me as Mr. Elam or Paul, and nothing else. Likewise for other readers that may post to you here, you may use their username, or sir, and nothing else. And the snarkiness has to go as well. That’s the rules, cupcake.

      Yes, there is a double standard. No condescension from sexist bigots. You can present your points, and they will be debunked by myself and/or others. But you are in the presence of people that are better than you, so mind your place. Otherwise it is the ban hammer for you.

      I didn’t use your quotes to inspire another lame round of phony debate from a feminist, but simply to point to the toxic stupidity that makes you such festering lesion on the ass of society, right next to your brothers and sisters in the Klan and Neo Nazi groups.

      You will only be treated as the sometimes useful garbage that you are.

    • Carlos

      Typical bull-shit ranting about white privilege mixed in with a whole lot of projection.

      Did a feminist actually accuse men and MRA’s of a “propensity to see themselves as victims?” Are you being serious or making a poor attempt at comedy? Aren’t feminists the one who call female pedophiles, rapists and batterers (along with every other woman) “victims?” If a woman were to cut off a man’s penis tomorrow, any mans, she would be a feminist icon — a symbol of female empowerment and the “true victim.”

      As far as your stats, I just got another one that’s equally relevant to this discussion from the first hit on google:

      “The price of tea in China is currently $4.67/kilo”

      I always wonder how feminists can claim with a straight face that they support fathers when they generally regard them as superfluous to child development and advocate for a presumption of male guilt and credulity of female accusations that precludes many men from being any more than walking wallets to them while mom goes out thug-fucking and bringing the scum of the earth around their children. Feminists support fathers at mom’s discretion. If mom wants to deny visitation they blame dad. If mom commits parental alienation they say parental alienation is “junk science.” If mom makes false accusations, they say “false accusations are rare.” Feminists are polemically pro-female and anti-male and, in an act of sheer hypocrisy, go around chanting a mantra of “equality.”

      Here’s an exercise for you. Name one area where society, culture or the law discriminates against men. Just one. You almost certainly cannot. It’s not in the way feminists are indoctrinated to view the world. Even if you can pull your head out of ass for enough to name one, I can trivially point out mountains of “Women’s Studies’ research” that “shows” that, not only is that area not discriminatory against men, but it really discriminates against women. That’s feminist integrity and scholarship for you.

    • Snark

      Could one of you, just once, respond like a human being and not a robot programmed to speak in Sass?

      • Snark

        Seriously it’s like that Jive scene in Airplane with you people.

        “Yo douchenozzle McDouchery Douche! Your article, which oh my gosh was like totally about ~*ME*~ is like omg WTF are you ceiling cat? Fail! But keep it up, sport. Someday you might achieve that 90 IQ points TEEHEE! Anyway douche I award you a douching F- and omg you should just stop BAWWWWWing”

        The standard feminist response to anything is about as incomprehensible as the above, although I have spared all the additional shaming tactics (gay, mother didn’t love you, small penis, can’t get laid, et cetera).

        • Introspectre


    • AntZ

      Can someone put this spaghetti puke back in its box?

      Just for your information, Mrs. Priviledged Priss, I am a white male, and I was sexually abused by my PAID PROFESSIONAL FEMINIST MOTHER when I was 13 years old, along with my two brothers who were 11 and 12.

      She pimped us out for older women to “make men out of us”, according to strict Feminist doctrine, because we were not acting out your collective Feminist “depraged predator” construct of what males are. We were children acting like children should … not good, since men=evil in your biggoted book.

      May you rot in hell, self interested Feminist ghoul.

    • Nancy

      Gone are the days of relying on research as a means to prove or disprove. Our social science “researchers” are so steeped in sexist ideology that most of their results are worthless. There are likely a few out there who are maintaining their allegiance to good data and good research but by and large most of it is propaganda. Our centers of higher learning have lost their minds and are drunk on feminist bs. Data that contradicts one’s hypothesis used to be treated as a means to adjust the original idea…but now data that contradicts the hypothesis is treated like a toxin and avoided at all costs.

      No, at this point, clear thinking and logic are the best tools and frankly I see a lot more of that from MRA’s than from feminists or feminist researchers.

      • Snark

        Feminist research = Nazi propaganda


      Dude – if you are a dude- I am black! Well anglo-indian, born bread and living in Melbourne Australia.

      BTW if we did see ourselves as victims we would not be doing this.We would support the status quo.


      A little off topic, below is one of the over 300 laminated MRA posters I have put up around Melbourne, this example in my local shopping mall.



        More of my MRA work below.

        Click on images below for larger versions.



        Mwaaaa hahahahaha! :)


          Also at my local shopping mall.

          Click on photos to enlarge


          And the AFP trying to give someone the shaft below.


          • Paul Elam

            A million armies of one, for sure. Sterling!

          • KARMA MRA MGTOW

            If Mr Martens wins his $45m I Hope he donates some to this website!

      • Alphabeta Supe

        Hey, I know that wall!


          HA! :)

    • An

      When the next World War comes, as inevitably it will, and with the coming currency collapse it may be sooner than any of us think, this issue is going to self-correct, Serithe. It will be a very rude awakening for you and all of your feminist friends. I hope I live to see it.

    • Alphabeta Supe

      Serithe, you silly little girl, your disingenuous comments display low character, disgraceful manners and pseudo-intellectual buffoonery all at once. You’re as close to understanding Paul’s point as you are to understanding the workings of your faulty feminist brain, which is to say as close as hell is to freezing over.

      Paul’s given you a rare opportunity to venture into the sacred world of men’s rights and you’ve marched right in like a fat-assed elephant with a belly load and shat all over the roses. If you want to be seen as anything more than a crying wet kitten, you need to do something more than vomit up last nights feminist passion pop and present something more than than the results of a few key strokes on your computer. Citing random Google documents and articles by the American Bar Association and do NOT constitute an argument. Seriously, did you give this rant any thought at all?

      Your initial comment in YouTube was disgraceful. It was utterly disrespectful of Paul Elam – a serious man with serious things to say. His work is of immense value to the MRM and he is a man of stature in all the forums in which he has an online presence. His YouTube videos are a rare and privileged journey into the noble heart of the everyman wounded by rampant feminism and misandry and he is deeply admired and respected by virtually every blogger and commenter in the manosphere. His years of hard experience in counseling troubled men and women and whose deep insights into the toxic consequences of gender misrepresentation and misunderstanding could fill a dozen textbooks.

      He has also devoted countless hours to the MRM, mostly at his own expense, with very little thanks and with only a handful of true grit activists watching his back. He is often the first onto the battlefield, risking his reputation and sanity, to ensure that wounded, maltreated and forgotten men have a strong and comforting voice in what is often their time of deepest need. He has earned his place as a venerated leader in the MRM and he sure as shit has earned the respect of every man who reads his blog. Girl, you need to wipe your feet and say your prayers before you enter here.

      Wipe the smirk from your face, banish the mockery from your tone and re-post your comment with due consideration to Paul’s venerated position, time and intelligence. If you can’t do this, take your childish prattle over to ManBoobz – he’s more your type.

      • Carlos

        I wish I could give this five thumbs up.

    • The Man On The Street

      10 plus year old information from a patentlu lopsided feminist prospective – is there anything else when speaking of the evils of men – does not a credible citation make.

      Try again tinkerbell.

      As per your alternate reality to darwinism, you are sort of right. Women do in fact want that metrosexual-pussy-beta -boy… to support her, fulfill her princess desires, and in the end – as always – fill her coffers – Most certainly not her v-jay-jay. That’s what the Alpha-manly-man-toughy-tough-unshaven-come-see-come-sa-thugs with the Corvette are for…..

      OOOOooooo I just got a little tingly jes thinking about that bad boy! And I’m a guy! Can you feel it? Sure you can….

      Oh wait, you claim to get all wet and sticky over Justin Bieber, that’s right.. Ohm… Seems to me a word comes to mind…. Coug… mmm no. Uhm… paedophile! Yea that’s it. Oh wait, that isn’t it either.. you’re allegedly the possessor of the great labia of power – thus cannot be a sicko that drools and twinkles privates to Bieber-bop.

      Next sweetums!

      Quoting a feminist from Jizzabel? Are you serious?

      Next Pookie!

      As for your victimology – you’re jes jealous cause men – yes evil vile menz – can actually be a victim too. The evil patriarchy (TM) and it’s evil overlords with peni cannot possibly be a victim of anything… Oh, unless he’s LBJT or ABCD…. LMNOP.

      That threatens your whole dogmatic sensabilities… WHOA! Did I say sensa…. aww nevermind.

      So in closing, for I tire of that hole in your face, I will leave you with this, project much?

      Now move along little girl, big people are talking.

      TMOTS – Just another “sport”

      PS; Little over the top Paul? Snicker.

  • Snark

    Anyway, Bad Boys was good.

    • Paul Elam

      Yeah it was, lol!

  • Snark

    O/T: I just saw this on Scarecrow’s blog and burst out laughing at the inanity of it all.

    A superb commentary on the feminist idea that there is a ‘rape culture.’

    • Carlos


      ScareCrow has some really insightful and hilarious stuff over there.

  • An

    Feminism Explained:

  • Paul Elam


    • Snark

      We’re coming to get you, radfems.

      We’re hiding in your spaghetti and WE’RE WAITING FOR YOU.

      – Signed, The Patriarchy

      • Snark

        Oshit I made a joke about rape I am a bad bad man

        I just promoted the real rape of real women

        The shaming it burns

        I AM A BAD BAD MAN

        • Paul Elam

          I recoil in horror at the foulness of thee. I spit at thee, for the sake of hate.

          This is a moment of great shame for all men. Someone please notify Kilkimmel.

          • jaytheman

            paul i spirit of that pic you posted i present another funny pic i found once. enjoy!

      • An

        Thanks for the comic relief! I need it today.


      Trevett allegedly killed by neighbours

      Businessman Adrian Trevett may have been killed, allegedly by his neighbours, over unfounded child sex allegations, police say.

      PHOTOS: Five people arrested…

      More below…

  • fondueguy

    “We’re coming to get you, radfems. We’re hiding in your spaghetti and WE’RE WAITING FOR YOU. -Signed, The Patriarchy”

    And yes, We have over 9,000 penis’

  • Dave

    It’s true. I’ve found that in order to attract a desirable woman I have to step up more aggressive and cocky behaviour. women want these qualites in men. do an experiment; Meet a beatiful woman. Be nice to her, sensitive, caring… see how far you get. There was one woman I was dating who kept going back to her old boyfriend who hit her during arguments. I told her the reason you go back is because it turns you on. She stared back blankly.

    • keith

      Have you considered the possibility that the reason women choose violent men is because it’s a no lose situation for them. Violent men are emotional, pretty basic. Emotional people have buttons and are easy to manipulate. They win when they (man)ipulate and they win if you turn violent!

      My first spouse once said she would rather I hate her, because at least I felt something! She believed that hate can be turned to love. The only time you can be manipulated is when your emotionally invested. Otherwise your indifferent.

      • Carlos

        Wise words indeed.

      • Frank

        Totally correct. If you don’t care enough to hurt, you don’t care enough to love.

        We haven’t taught men to hurt others just because we need soldiers. We’ve taught them to hurt others because it makes them human.

      • calabasa

        Women who are conditioned to see themselves as inferior and beings worthy of abuse (which is all of them, but some more than others, due to life circumstance) go back to abusers because that’s the relationship paradigm that makes sense to them. They may actually be more suspicious of someone who treats them nicely than of someone who hits them. And maybe they don’t feel worthy of love, or love is not what they’re looking for; abuse is. If men really want women to start choosing nice partners over violent ones we need to stop the hateful messages and abuse that they receive from when they can first understand language; we need to start treating women as people who are equal to men, and people first and foremost, before they are anything else. Every problem that MRAs complain about that is at all legitimate (i.e., that isn’t itself misogynist and a “why are they taking our privileges away?!” whine) stems from the same system that so disproportionately harms women. Patriarchy.

        • Bryan Scandrett

          Try and prove the patriarchy exists. Show me how I oppress women for my benefit? Because I see to be short some cheques.

          • calabasa


            I have no use for your hate site.

          • calabasa

            Man you are a fucking idiot…that’s about all I have to say. I feel sorry for your daughters. I can guess what messages they’ve received, growing up around someone like you.

          • Grumpy Old Man

            You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (general contempt for the work AVfM does). [Ref: 5634]

            Additional remarks:

            I’ll help you along.

          • Bryan Scandrett

            And there goes our feminist crushing the puny male with her awesome logic and leading us all to equality.
            I’ve noticed this with feminists on the web recently, straight to the false allegations without hesitation. Just vicious.
            Smells like fear and desperation to me.
            I wouldn’t be a feminist for quids.

          • Bryan Scandrett

            And as for my daughters, the big lie came from mummy dearest.

  • fondueguy

    The number one child killers are the mothers but aren’t there are large number of boyfriends too? If that’s true that would just be one connection of females being attracted to thugs.

    • Nancy

      Yes indeed Fondueguy, it is sometimes the BF or step-father who does the violence. If this is the case, why are we not holding women accountable for bringing violence into their households and endangering their children? No one ever points the finger at these women. I wonder why?

  • Can’tGetLaidMan


    Hey Elam seems to me that you want bend the truth so that it fits a very personal agenda for you.

    You want to validate the notion that men are more violent than women for purely selfish reasons. So that you can make the case for yourself, as an ethical, non-violent man, whom women should choose if they want to put an end to “male violence”.

    ‘Those guys are violent because they’re competing for you and you keep pickin the most violent ones. if you stopped pickin them and picked a non-violent type like me, they’d stop fighting.’

    Eeeyuck – the moistness in the mentality I’ve just put words to makes me physically sick.

    What a wank.

    • thehermit

      Show us something new dude, or at least try to be creative.

    • Alphabeta Supe

      the moistness in the mentality I’ve just put words to makes me physically sick.

      What a wank.

      The moistness in the mentality you’ve just put words to ought to make you physically sick.

      What a wank-er.

    • Frank

      You are commenting in Paul’s house, and you had goddamn well better submit to Paul’s rules while doing so.

      Paul has made these rules clear: You do not name-call Paul. You do not put Paul in a box. You do not challenge him in any way.

      Others pay Paul the respect he has earned by being a man among men (which, by the way, has little to do with being ethical or nonviolent, desirable though those traits may be). Either do so or get out.

      To quote a famous Marine, “I would rather you just said thank you.” To quote Paul, “You are in the presence of your betters.” Show them deference; ideally, do so by shutting the hell up.

  • Can’tGetLaidMan


    “The moistness in the mentality you’ve just put words to ought to make you physically sick.”

    mmm, yuh kinda . . . I guess LMAO!

    (pure unadulterated lameness)


    I see what you’re tried to do but you didn’t quite pull it off. LOL!
    The boomerang effect you were going for is almost too weak to percieve.

    But let’s explain it to the classroom. betastoop is trying to say that I’M THE WANKER because I expressed a strong distaste for lames who label other men violent as a means to sell themselves to women on the NOT violent ticket.


    Well uhm, nope, not feeling sick about my intolerance for pussy beggars, and still feeling a strong distaste for total wankers.

    But it gets worse for pussy beggars, because whenever I come across the pussy beggar/”nice guy” mentality offline, I want to get violent with the lame displaying it. And for THEIR sins, I have done on many occasions. Can’t stand em, neither can most men, or most women, because you’re weak, sickly, pathetic, whiny and



    Nothing more unethical, dishonest, dishonourable and downright unmanly than a man who misrepresents himself as a man of peace for no other reason than he thinks it’ll get him laid.

    Like I said what a wank.

    • AntZ

      I think the guy you are talking about is called “Christopher Kilberten”.

      Also known as “wanker in chief!”

    • jaytheman

      i think we all know who the one is that is concerned about getting laid. shut the fuck up with your “oh look at me i’m better then all these pussy beggars” speech. no one on here thinks being the nice guy will get him laid and Paul was just mentioning it and it wasn’t the ultimate point you dumbfuck. other men are violent to protect women don’t tell me you don’t believe that. We get it you think your better then us and that your just a troll hiding in a MRA’s clothing. go ahead say your for men rights then shame us, because it wont work on me again.

      • Paul Elam

        If you guys want to toy around talking with this fuck-knuckle it is fine with me. But if any of you would rather see him gone, just let me know.

        • Alphabeta Supe

          No need from my POV. This boy obviously needs a mentor. I chastise myself for acknowledging his post at all.

          • Snark

            That boy needs therapy

        • Whitney

          Although the delivery is a little crude, the commenter is right. Men need to be aggressive in order for ANYTHING to get done. An expected consequence of this is violence.

          We need more aggression. It is true that society is becoming feminized. Paul is an aggressive man. He may not be violent, but I’ve seen his aggression. His point is valid that women have bred us to be this way.

    • Poester99

      Uh oh, sounds suspiciously like another mantard101 graduate, the “fine” art of stupid and pointless aggressiveness, combined with feminist style shaming, homophobia and an utterly baseless sense of superiority.

      AND you didn’t even bother to read the damn article.

    • Alphabeta Supe

      The boomerang worked, you dolt. It’s a grammatical tactic used in written debate I like to call subsuming an anacoluthon.

    • Frank

      Those who are man enough to post here know that being a man of peace does not get one laid.

      What gets one “laid” – literally, or even figuratively in the sense of earning respect and place in the world – is being a MAN. That means putting your own personal convictions, false morality, and anything that bears even a passing resemblance to PC aside, and stepping up to the obligations of your forefathers, your biology, and your Tribe.

      Nothing is as “downright unmanly” as a man who thinks he can put his humanity ahead of his MANity. Such a man deserves hell.

  • The Man On The Street

    Are we just emotional tampons to these loons or what?


  • Can’tGetLaidMan

    So sorry, Can’tGetLaidMan, but a user wanted you gone. so you are.


    • Frank

      Thank God. Fire hardens steel, but tiresome compassionate morality only rusts it.

  • Whitney

    HAHAHAHAHA! Ban Hammer … BAMB!

    I’ve always contended that we are here because our mothers’ chose our fathers. Their mothers chose their fathers and so on. Aggression is bred into us and NOTHING on this planet would be possible (outside orgiastic rituals) without men and their aggression.

    And some of us are violent … big whoop!

    • Snark

      I never, ever feel violent, except when under the influence of feminism.

      • Carlos


        I think that was meant as a joke, and it was funny… funny cause it’s true. I think of my young son and the world that feminists are creating for him, the hatred that they are inspiring against him and know there is little I won’t do to protect him and other boys, and girls, who are being alienated from their fathers and breast-fed hate from Uncle Sam’s great big feminist titty.

        • BGolden

          Just think of the world left behind for our nation’s daughters.

          From one male voice to another…feminism isn’t “scary” unless you feel women are less equal than you and asking for something they don’t deserve. If you find feminism terrifying or bad for your son…you should take a moment to step out of your own familiar element and brush up on your history. There are many reasons women have been forced to fight so hard, and sadly, just to have basic rights men have adorned upon themselves for centuries. Let’s not get into the rates of murder, abuse, violence and rapes women endure at the hands of “entitled” males who felt their struggle for freedom and equality was undeserved or futile.

          Unfortunately, I feel the concept that somehow “women fighting for their rights to be strong, independent individuals” somehow affects you or your son’s upbringing and chances at being a successful male…is why feminism still needs to exists today.

  • Pingback: Domestic Violence: A Long Winded Response to Paul « A Voice for Men()

  • Cassie

    I think I was intrigued then your use of language to annoy and provoke just made me see you as childish…

    • Paul Elam

      Hi Cassie,

      Good. It annoyed you enough to make a personal insult.

      In my line, that’s called successful writing.


      • Kimski

        “-When you’re taking flak..You’re on the right track!”

  • Anon

    You are ignorant to the fact that Darwin’s theory may not be correct. Point being darwin believed you can only be born male or female.. there are species of fish that change within a life time! The female species bear children and are nurturers by nature point being some male species carry they baby such as the sea horse. Also darwins theory believed ALL species were heterogenous. turns out people and a lot of animals are both.. elephants and other species mate with the same sex. so if you are basing your whole argument on Darwins theory and how it is womens fault men are violent… then your own theory may be flawed. There are 2 sides to every story, there is a ying and yang to both. Both sides should take responsibilty for the world we live in… NOT one person or one gender should take the blame!

    • Sting Chameleon

      Much ado about nothing. Yawn.

      • BGolden

        I think it was probably just over your head Sting.

  • prometheus1666

    In the workplace I’ve always noticed and tried to figure out the snarkiness of women. Whenever a employee shows up especially if its a female the comments start, if shes never had children and cute, she better watch out because these women are out for blood. Ive never noticed men commenting on what a guy wears to work, anyone ever noticed this behaviour by women?? Its funny but sad to watch:(

    • BGolden

      Meanwhile, I’m in a forum where catty men are gathering together like confused children, rallying to blame women for their inability to control themselves.

      Guess it’s really about perspective, isn’t it?

  • Andromeda09

    “On the other hand, it’s clear that men are, on average, more aggressive and more violent. It is a theme that runs through the animal kingdom with solid consistency, and is quite well documented in our own species.”

    It’s not true that in the animal kingdom males are the most aggressive ones, in fact the most aggressive and dangerous animals are females defending their youngs. The female of the species can express aggression and violence far greater than the male, it will literally fight to death and even Rudyard Kipling wrote about this in his poem “The female of the species”.

    “WHEN the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride,
    He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside.
    But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail.
    For the female of the species is more deadly than the male. ”

    So men commiting more violent crimes may be part of competition and masculinity but that doesn’t mean women and females aren’t capable of aggression and violence.

    • BGolden

      This was my thought as well. I feel like this article is more of an opinion piece versus a factually thought out piece of literary work.

  • BGolden

    While I agree with the premise of your argument, I find it a too broad a generalization to imply “most” women are trying to “thug-fuck” or “money-fuck” their way to a better life, therefore, men have to compete for these lower rung tarts by lowering their own personal standards.

    This argument may be the case with a particular brand of women, but it is as fair and incomplete as an assumption as it is to say most men don’t fall in love and just want sex. Granted, this may encompass a lot of male’s perspective, but it hardly speaks for “most” men.

    Additionally, you speak about Darwinism as if men are out of control and violent everywhere, when in fact, there are many countries where men are notably less violent than those in countries like America, or 3rd world countries where female influence is nearly non-existent.

    In fact, there is more evidence to suggest the rate of male violence in a community is directly linked to the presence of women in the community, how well we educate our females (and males) and the equal representation of female voices in the political, decision making forum.

    Now, there may be some truth in the idea that this cat and mouse game has forced men to be more violent, but that is not the whole story by a long shot.

    Thank you for your article and opinion on the matter.


  • BGolden

    Honestly, I think it’s cute that so many men are terrified of women and their struggle for equality and find it suitable to blame women (what’s new?) for their own actions and behavior.

    You appear to be upset and insulted at women for building their own independence, individuality and embracing their gender, while empowering other women to seek fairness and equality “ie: man hating” as if there is no historical reason or concrete statistical evidence as to why women may feel there’s a need to defend themselves and their rights within a patriarchy.

    I mean seriously…would you like your tiny violin shipped to you 2 day delivery or overnight?

    • Kimski

      What independence?
      The kind that they acquire from state sanctioned thievery in the shape of fundings taken from men, while they choose soft jobs in air conditioned surroundings, and leave the dirty jobs for the men to carry?
      That’s not independence…-That’s just exchanging the roles of the men and women in the 50’es with the state as women’s new sugar daddy.
      It’s still men who pays for the party through their income taxes, and without that funding women would be even worse off than before. Because in their struggle for “independence” they’ve succesfully signed over any shred of independence, personal freedom, and human rights of everyone, to the state in the process.

      As far as individuality goes…If you’re suggesting that the female herd mentality and women’s magazine driven portrayal of “how a woman should look” has anything to do with individuality, you must be a huge fan of the Clone Wars and Huxley’s Brave New World. Of course, that would also make you just another soma addict.

      • J. Williams

        And yet, when physically strong women, capable of doing the harder jobs, try to acquire the higher paying men’s jobs- they get a whole lot of harassment and shit! Come on now! Look at some of the women that are ‘passing’ for firefighters today- they’re tiny and cute. Hmmm- gee, the big tough dykes (that dudes hate) can do the job, but they’re essentially shut out. But they’ll allow these women who aren’t threatening- but aren’t necessarily suited for the job. Unbeknownst to most people- women aren’t all weak or the same….!!! Gasp! It’s just that dudes feel threatened by everything! YOU KNOW IT! So quit using your ‘we are all just animals and are driven by our instincts’ shit; you guys love to use that argument. But if that were really true, women would come into estrus only once a month (and wouldn’t be available to the sexual advances of men for the remaining 25 days). Female animals rebuff the advances of males when they’re not in estrus. It’s funny how human females are willing to be receptive outside of estrus; hmmm, goes against their instincts. Women have been conditioned, in a male dominant society, to adjust- to survive. Men used women- women used men! We, all of us, are trying to move beyond that- so we need to quit blocking each other. Allow change to happen. It’s scary, I know- but necessary.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      “You appear to be upset and insulted at women for building their own independence, individuality and embracing their gender, while empowering other women to seek fairness and equality ”

      Awesome, BGOLDEN, and WELCOME to the forum!

      Not so “stong or independant” woman here that really, REALLY needs some help and empowerment from you incredible empowered women.

      Here’s my empowerment wish list – how about you pick one of these issues and help a sister out – let’s show these quaking, fearful emasculated men how to get things done RIGHT!

      1) I want to see my Grandson.

      I want my Grandson to know he has a large and entire family that loves him and wants him to be a part of OUR lives.

      I want the same rights my Grandson’s MATERNAL Grandmother has. We are BOTH women, why are we not BOTH equal just because I am mother of a son?

      After all – I didn’t do anything wrong. I kept it zipped. I wouldn’t have fallen for “I’m on the pill”. I didn’t have a one night stand with a cocktail waitress who didn’t realize the expensive sports car, nice home and speed boat were in the process of being repo’ed because his former girlfriend already plundered.

      I didn’t sign away MY (Grand)parental rights after the threat of false accusations.

      I’ll sign some agreement not to ever divulge to my Grandson or his mother’s future marriage prospects my son was not a “dead beat, but the victim of a gold digger committing paternity fraud, although it won’t be necessary – I wouldn’t WANT my Grandson to know that. It would only hurt him.

      After all – it’s SUPPOSED to be about The Children, and what decent human being would deny their child HALF their life legacy, or HALF the people in this cold, cruel world that are willing to love and care for him?

      2) I want my SON to have equal opportunity to earn scholarships, even if he is an evil white male. I can’t help being a bit resentful that my son would have EARNED a scholarship based on merit, which put the burden of helping pay for his schooling on ME while women whose daughters were less qualified get to BRAG their child EARNED a scholarship.

      3) I would like to know my son will receive Due Process Rights and a FAIR TRIAL if accused of a crime, instead of presumption of guilt because he is male. It’s hard not to be a gender traitor when you KNOW you raised your son to be a good person, only to have a mentally disturbed person falsely accuse him of a crime he didn’t commit.

      As the mother of a son, I do not want to be asked to sacrifice my son “for the common good of women”. As a woman I know if I am capable of lying to get what I want/save my own ass/seek revenge, I am pretty damn sure other women – AND MEN – are equally capable of it. We’re ALL human beings, after all.

      As a woman veteran I took an oath to defend the Constitution. That oath did not include exceptions for siding with The Sisterhood – especially when I’m expected to side with a mentally disturbed woman over my own son.

      4) I want YOUR daughter to sign up for The Draft on her 18th birthday, just as my son was FORCED to do.

      5) As a woman, I want full and equal rights to love, cherish and protect my son just as much as I do my daughter without being accused of being “in denial” or a “traitor” or an “enabling bitch” or a rape apologist. I want my love for my son to be just as important and respected as my love for my daughter. I want the “what if it were YOUR daughter/mother/sister” shame tactic to equal “What if it were YOUR son/father/brother”?

      I want MY womanly sainthood upheld just as much as any other woman’s.

      So. BGOLDEN. Let’s pick an empowerment issue to help me gain equal footing with parents of daughters and let’s get started on it….

  • driversuz

    You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (general attack). [Ref: 3709]

    Additional remarks:


  • driversuz

    You have been banned because of a serious and direct violation of Comment Policy (trolling). [Ref: 3903]

  • David Turner

    An interesting article, ruined by some rude referencing. It boils down to some people are just ass holes and men do not have exclusive rights to that. The focus on domestic violence is wrong. It should cover all aspects of domestic violence from against women, men, children, the aged and children’s violence against adults. Focusing on just one core aspect will solve nothing. While there is no excuse for violence there are reasons and being unable to draw a distinction between the two is a bad place to start. For example: There is no excuse for a women to be preyed upon if she chooses to wear reveling clothing. However the reason she may be assaulted is perhaps because the person assaulting her is physiologically incapable of distinguishing between a sexual suggestion and one that is not. This is a simplistic view I know but you cannot possibly know what goes on in the mind of a person, how they intemperate their social surrounding and so on. Domestic violence is a different matter, is the perpetrator a bully, emasculated, unstable? One thing for sure it will not be solved by the victims cries for help as is often the case these cries are silent.

  • libby

    Typical misogynistic bs. Blame someone else for you being an asshole. A man who is violent is 100% responsible for his violent actions. It is no one else’s fault but his. Do you still live in mommy’s basement, Paul?