On Friday the 25th of November, 2011, I was honored to join Paul Elam and John the Other in the work of editing and managing A Voice for Men.
Some of you old-timers already know me, even from years back. But for others, I am just Mutt Wulfe or Vince Verngehetznor who has recently popped up on the radar scope. So an introduction is very much in the warrant here, don’t you think so?
All right, I start with a confession: I confess that I am a lucky bum. Many people have arrived in the pro-male sector by the road of bitter experience and even, at times, horrific tragedy. But I can’t claim that distinction for myself, and that is why I’m a lucky bum. For yes, I am oh-so-lucky that I arrived here by the merely conceptual pathway, the path of deciphering reality and following my nose because something didn’t smell right.
There was a time, believe it or not, when I felt neutral or indifferent about feminism. In those days, I had nothing particular against feminism, but the fact is, I paid it scarcely any mind whatever. For me it was eccentric background noise, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing. And to be frank I was more invested in such weighty affairs as panlogomachia and chronopolitismus. (Don’t ask!) But shortly after Y2K I grew keenly aware of feminism as of a fetid breath from a quagmire, and I commenced to sniffing around.
What I discovered did not please me, so I put away panlogomachia and chronopolitismus and embarked on a journey which led me finally to the online men’s rights community — such as it was in those days, when the word ‘MRA’ didn’t even exist yet! Here I lingered and learned, participating in mail lists, forums and so on. I also started digging into feminist books that I excavated from used bookstores. Oh…and I will never forget the time when I first set eyes on the Redstockings Manifesto, in a feminist anthology, at the downtown Seattle library. I remember copying key passages into a notebook, which proved unnecessary because it was easily available online. But oh…those were heady days of dawning awareness and discovery — rich, ripe, juicy and full to the brim with a bracing sense of mission.
In October 2006, I started the Counter-Feminist blog — and oddly enough, I did this on a whim, on the spur of the moment. Prior to then I had compiled a body of writing for the purpose of organizing my thoughts, and this material formed the backbone of the blog in its early days. The blog got off to a rolling start, and the rest is history. Which brings me up to right now, to this very day, to this very minute.
I drool at the thought of exploiting the AVfM platform for my own dark, nefarious counter-feminist purposes. Such opportunity! I am rubbing my hands together like a villain as I contemplate this. And yes, I am even saying things like “mu-ha-ha-ha!” Curse me, but this here is a bully pulpit indeed.
All right, I have an agenda. Call it a vision for the future; an idea where things ought to be heading. And no, I don’t mean AVfM. I mean ALL of this. The whole game. The whole revolution. The whole damned enchilada. Just imagine: a world without feminism. What would such a world look like? Well, you haven’t got far to seek, because that world is here today. It exists, has always existed, and always will exist, even though feminism is loud enough to drown it out sometimes.
Feminism, I would have you know, is no better than a guest who has overstayed his welcome. Or then again, perhaps we never invited that so-called guest into our home in the first place. But either way, this unwanted person must be shown the door. Are you with me? Now, we would have some rights in the case of a literal unwanted guest, and these would be covered under trespass law. But in our actual case, we face a spiritual kind of trespass that no earthly statute, civil or criminal, may remedy.
So it looks like we must take the SPIRITUAL law into our own hands, eh?
And that is what I, for one, would like to talk about. Among many, many other things.
In truth, I have so many ideas for kicking feminism out of our spiritual home that they jam the exit door of my mind and can hardly issue forth. But the crowning imperative, to expel the rascal rudely, overshadows everything else. We mustn’t stand on ceremony, oh no! And if the application of this involves discipline, political finesse, and a host of details in practice, the core of it remains, ever and always, primitively stark and simple. I mean that we do not “persuade” this monstrosity to make its departure, but rather cause it to be removed from our premises by any efficient method or combination of methods our ingenuity might suggest. The key is, that whatever works, works. So the problem is to figure out what works.
Bear in mind that feminism is not the world. It is only a part of the world, and it holds power only at our sufferance – until we elect to suffer it no longer. And when feminism is gone, the world will still exist – and we will still understand it. And feminism’s disappearance will have expunged no wisdom. So we can understand almost straightway what the world without feminism will look like, because we have only to recall what we have always known. As the sign in the shop window says, “Inquire Within”.
I repeat, part of the world is feminism and part of it is not. And let us never forget that the latter is the larger portion. For knowing this, we know that the line is drawn and the die is cast, and that from here on out the story will get interesting. Yes, we live in interesting times.
But we shall speak further of these matters.
13 Posts in Total
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.
If you don't have paypal, check out the other options.
If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store.
Stu:
Jean Valjean:
Charbroil:
Peegies:
Doug1:
Well said matey and chocks awaayyy, this bird up and flying.
Yes a world without feminism… one day we’ll say ” I can barely remember what all that crap was in the first place. “
Feminism is a victimhood INDUSTRY.
We’re talking millions of dollars in private (and some public) funding/donations (or extortion fees).
It’s as if we’re talking about toppling the Humane Society and all the evil puppies and kittens that it finds homes for…(as metaphor).
That’s the challenge. Presenting a convincing public argument that puppies and kittens are bad. It’ll take the likes of you Fid, with your way with words, to do it.
People around the world eat dogs, so bring it on.
So true.
I have the same great rush and butterflies in my stomach that I had on my first static line jump at Ft. Benning. I can’t wait to hear the words “GO! GO! GO!”.
I remember my first static line jump in Arthur Ontario. The jump master said “Go” and I did … right into a barrel roll. It was “earth / sky / earth / sky / earth / sky … ” there for a while. Hope this “jump” is less traumatic.
A fine introduction, and much appreciated.
And now I must go back and read all that I have missed after going out of town for the holiday weekend. Geesh – leave for a couple of days to come back and find that new forces were aligned and new global readers/writers were reached. I truly love the momentum of this movement.
Sorry about this Fidelbogen…And welcome
O.T. I’d appreciate it if any of you folks out there could take some time to lodge a complaint to this site.
You will see when you view the site there is a section in green called “Dump A Hubby”. I’ve already made my position clear to this sad excuse for a male (Steve Murray) and also shared this information with a fellow MRA from this site.
I think you will understand the nature of my disgust when you take a look via the link. Any attention towards this would be superb.
Thanks in advance…Merlin
http://www.dialahubby.co.uk/
If I started a “Dial A Wifey”, I’d get sued into oblivion. Guaranteed.
Exactly my point MrStodern
As we know, these remarkable double standards are rife. Nothing seems to be done where men’s concerns need addressing.
I’ve written three emails to the company in question, and on the third reply the person corresponding to me gave up the argument. They could not explain away the fact that this companies slogan (Dump A Hubby) is completely misandric.
I notice I’ve upset a feminist with the red thumb Lol
Tough! get used to the return match…
Fidelbogen, Welcome to team FTSU!
Welcome Fidelbogen from another lucky bum. I agree totally with the idea that feminism is like a guest overstaying their welcome but would add that this particular guest has been in cahoots with the landlord and forced a great many rules that support her continued and unwanted occupation. She has also helped to create rules that she will be protected and allowed to stay even if she is underserving and she has stocked the HOA with cronies that continue to pump out regulations to her benefit including special protections from the security people. Getting rid of a guest such as this will be very tricky business since almost everyone involved supports her free ride and feel slighted if she is held accountable in any way.
What is spiritual + what is moral (ethical) + what is logical = what will work. This work is like swatting flies because feminism is non of the above. I look forward to seeing your vision unfold so that the voices here become unstoppable.
Swatting flies is both very easy and very difficult. That’s the hell of it….
Sometimes I think it is more like swatting mosquitoes.
Flypaper + honey = advantage
Let me just put down this shit down over here, and I’ll be right with you, Fidelbogen.
-Will there be lots of ‘Mu-ha-ha-ha’ and rubbing of hands??
Hehe, with your writing skills Fidelbogen and my research, I bet we could come up with a few kick ass articles someday.
Thank you for your response, Kyle!
*bookmarks dictionary+thesaurus.com
Great to have your support here Fidelbogen, and good luck!
“Bear in mind that feminism is not the world. It is only a part of the world, and it holds power only at our sufferance – until we elect to suffer it no longer.”
That mental picture was invoked as I read, it is the alternate view and it will be realised..
So now I got another boss around here?
Good thing I’m not getting paid or I’d be PISSED.
Oh…and by the way; “I am rubbing my hands together like a villain as I contemplate this. And yes, I am even saying things like “mu-ha-ha-ha!”
…SIMPSONS DID IT!!
Ok I’m done. Welcome aboard man.
Thanks Fidelbogen, “panlogomachia and chronopolitismus” , don’t ask! not in the dictionary makes one even more curious!
“feminism is no better than a guest who has overstayed his welcome.”
and having ignored the polite and subtle hints that it might be time to leave, now needs more concrete encouragement, I look to the AVfM community to lead the way…. to the world without feminism.
Things That Make Me Go Hmmmm
-What would a world without Feminism in any form look like?
-Are all forms of Feminism bad?
According to Wikipedia Feminism is a:
a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women.[1][2][3] Its concepts overlap with those of women’s rights. Feminism is mainly focused on women’s issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, some feminists argue that men’s liberation is therefore a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles.
-Was Feminism as defined by Wikipedia bad?
-Was defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women bad?
-Were these goals once good, but now they are bad?
-Have these goals been achieved, such that Feminism is no longer necessary?
-Was Feminism ever necessary?
-Was there ever any need in the history of our planet to define, establish, and defend equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women?
-Have women always had equal opportunities to men?
-Did Feminism make any true gains for women?
-If Feminism were to die tomorrow how would the lives of women and men be changed?
Per Wikipedia:
Feminist activists have campaigned for women’s rights—such as in contract, property, and voting — while also promoting women’s rights to bodily integrity and autonomy and reproductive rights. They have opposed domestic violence, sexual harassment, and sexual assault. In economics, they have advocated for workplace rights, including equal pay and opportunities for careers and to start businesses.
-If Feminism were to die tomorrow would women lose the right to bodily integrity and autonomy and reproductive rights?
-Would domestic violence increase/decrease?
-Would the definition of domestic violence change?
-Would sexual assaults incease/decrease?
-Would the definition of what a sexual assault is change?
-Would acts we once described as sexual assaults be decriminalized?
-Would date rape no longer be a crime or would it simply be a bad night with a jerk?
-If Feminism were to die tomorrow, what would replace her?
-What would the death of Feminism actually mean?
Hmmmm
I’m interested in what you think.
No comment eh Red? Disappointing.
I have a lot of thoughts on the subject. But, my response will be long and it’s bedtime…. My DH is already snoring…. I promise to post tomorrow.
Good Night!
Thanks.
By the way, please check out Joakim’s links to seven videos from a Norwegian series titled “Brain Wash”. These can be found as a comment in the “Absurdistan” article. Its very interesting.
Good Night.
“I’m interested in what you think.”
Suit yourself, but I’m not. We’ve had a good half-century to hear what these people think, and I’m thinking it’s time to turn the page now.
They’re all relevant questions but thrown out like tentacles to distract from the central feminist tenet of “equality”.
I repeat, part of the world is feminism and part of it is not. And let us never forget that the latter is the larger portion.
It depends entirely on how one defines feminism and unfortunately the majority is terribly misinformed.
“It depends entirely on how one defines feminism. .”
Exactly. And on that basis, it will be established that non-feminism is the larger portion. Our work is cut out for us. Stay tuned.
Obvious troll is obvious. Wikipedia lies and you know it.
This person appears to be a feminist who hasn’t gotten the memo — that feminism does not self-define any more.
It is a state of mind known as feminist subjectivism.
In the present case, our subject has employed a classic device known as the “talking-point trick.”
Anyhoooooo, these people must be schooled. Gradually. Little by little.
Or else simply brushed aside.
Some nice knocks to the nose might also suffice. I imagine this person will keep coming back as long as she/he can keep someone playing the talking point trick. Shock schooling and a big bump back onto her/his butt might secure us from further mischief while at the same time respecting free speech.
That said I will defer to you on this one since you have been in the game longer than I have.
To the general public: When Primal refers to “bumps” and “knocks”, it is only in a theatrical, metaphorical sense. Ça va sans dire, bien sur!
And I might add that I, too, heartily enjoy such “theatricality”.
LOL “date rape”. Short of some sleazebag slipping drugs on your drink or something, there’s no such thing as “date rape”.
Reproductive rights? LOL, they can get knocked up on a whim and name a father on command, and have been able to “get remedies” when they didn’t want a child for centuries.
“Sexual assault”= “some guy I don’t like grabbed my ass/stared at my rack”. Yet if a man gets subjected to the same treatment, he has no recourse.
Domestic violence is usually a mutual affair and men get battered just as often, with even more lethal results because abusive women use weapons.
Feminism was pushed by the banking elite to make more money, period. More money and less cohesive communities= more power to control the masses.
The worst thing you can do in a scenario like this, is to argue talking-points with them. That’ll just stick you to the tarbaby.
I know answering truthfully to trolls is an exercise in futility, but I was bored and felt like venting a little
.
I wasn’t quite awake when I started my rant above.
Things started to come into focus right before the ‘Who am I kidding’-part.
Yeah, I know how it is. We all feel like venting a bit, from time to time…
“If feminism were to die tomorrow what would replace her?”
Let’s hope some sane, ‘ane’ (as opposed to inane) and humane womanism which loves and respects ‘manism’, which serves the common good and which is genuinely just. Let’s hope for truisms instead of lies, scholarship instead of propaganda, free speech instead of totalitarianism, love instead of hate, beauty instead of ugliness, and respect instead of ridicule. The death of feminism means the death of infantile female entitlements dressed in false female victimhood, the death of gratuitous male oppression and the birth of big women who can handle adult responsibilities, adult reasoning, and adult respect.
According to me, Wikipedia is Maoist pornographer Jimmy Wales’ retarded totalitarian racket. Wikipedia’s feminism page/feminism related pages are an utter insult to anyone who has a brain and knows how to read. As anyone who even glances at the history of the feminism discussion page knows, the feminism page is written by and for fascist feminist partisans…and belongs in the trash can rather than as a reference for further discussion.
Here’s a better definition for the sick secular superstition: Mainstream feminism is a collection of influential but insipid dogmas aimed at falsifying well known sex/gender realities, establishing feebleminded female-centric fantasies as fact, and instituting superior-as-equal political, economic, and social rights and opportunities for women. It is also about destroying, demeaning and scorning men as male/masculine people. Mainstream feminism is focused solely on women’s issues, but because feminism seeks female sexual superiority, most feminists also believe that men’s psychic murder/torture/enslavement is therefore a necessary condition for feminism to succeed, or that men should become good little ‘girls’ so that there is no need to murder/torture/enslave men to create the feminist Utopia.
Don’t know how old you may be, but, no one is an adult until they reach an age between, 30 – 35. That’s when things really start to come into focus and make sense…. Everyone younger than 30 yrs-old is just a kid.
Pffft. We aren’t falling for this transparently childish little ploy of yours.
“They have opposed domestic violence, sexual harassment, and sexual assault.”
No, they have twisted everything into a victim/perpetrator-merry-go-round, while deliberately hiding statistics that show women to be more violent in the home to every other resident of that home,-have covered up womens sexual harassment in the workplace, -and falsified the statistics showing women to sexually assault children, (especially boys), on a slightly below equal rate.
“In economics, they have advocated for workplace rights, including equal pay and opportunities for careers and to start businesses.”
No, they have made the workplace conditions unbearable for the male gender by controlling the narrative,-have given men disadvantages in all areas in order to be able to compete, while giving themselves a head start, -and have set up small hairsalons and feel-good stores, claiming those to be businesses and not slander and gossipshops. Nothing in this area has been accomplished without using men as steppingstones in one way or another. Nothing.
“-If Feminism were to die tomorrow would women lose the right to bodily integrity and autonomy and reproductive rights?”
Women would be held accountable for their own actions on a far greater scale than now, first of all. If she chooses to keep the child, she pays for that right herself. If the man chooses to keep the child, she provides the child and he pays for the upbringing of said child. If that doesn’t compute, you should not be allowed to have sex. Sex is a two-way street and that goes for responsibility in relationships too.
“-Would domestic violence increase/decrease?”
It would propably remain static, i.e. women would still be the instigator and perpetrator in the majority of the cases, no matter if the victim is the husband or the children. She would just be held accountable for this.
“-Would the definition of domestic violence change?”
When a growing number of women goes to jail, because they’re held accountable for their violence, there would be no need to change the definition as long as there is made no difference between the genders.
“-Would sexual assaults incease/decrease?”
That depends on whether we’re dealing with the skewed feminist-numbers or the real deal. If we choose to live in the real world and are talking about rape, there will always be a certain percentage of psychos, both males and females, that are proned to do this kind of thing, but no gender-group should ever be held accountable for the actions of one individual.
“-Would the definition of what a sexual assault is change?”
Most definitely. You would no longer be able to drink yourself stupid and claim rape, or regret actions done under the influence and claim those to be a sexual assault. Or cheat in a relationship and blame an outsider for rape. Accountability would again be the key word. If that doesn’t compute, you shouldn’t be allowed to drink or have sex.
“-Would acts we once described as sexual assaults be decriminalized?”
See the above as an example. Futhermore, if you dress like a slut/whore, don’t expect to be treated like a princess, and don’t go into areas that even men stay away from, dressed like that. Think a little, once in a while!
“-Would date rape no longer be a crime or would it simply be a bad night with a jerk?”
Sting Chameleon answers this question below. Again, do some cognitive thinking once in a while.
“-If Feminism were to die tomorrow, what would replace her?”
Hopefully gender peace, and people getting along and minding their own businesses. Why would you want to replace one ideologue with another, BTW?
“-What would the death of Feminism actually mean?”
Peace? No more whining and victim playing? No more being held at a different level of accountability in courts? No more cheating and lying to take hold of a mans possesions or his rights to his kids? No more FRA’s? No more false DVA’s? No more advantages given to get a head start? No more using sex to manipulate, betray, or retaliate imaginary wrongs? No more legalized hissy fits?
Naaww..-Who am I kidding..?!
All that shit is never going to change, and we all know why.
With respect to the drink yourself into a stupar type date rape… I think this is a toughy. Should it be a crime??? Clearly the situation where she’s drunk and he is drunk and they fall into bed. I don’t think he should be prosecuted. That is not a crime. However, the situation where she has drank herself into a stupar at a bar and sober Jimbo and two of his friends take her in the back and do their thing, there is seriously something wrong with Jimbo. Should he go to jail hmmmm…
I agree. There would be something seriously wrong with Jimbo and co. But wouldn’ t that be taking gross advantage of a person more than actually rape, if she is consenting to the acts taking place?
No matter if she consents or not, the aforementioned still applies:
“..there will always be a certain percentage of psychos, both males and females, that are proned to do this kind of thing, but no gender-group should ever be held accountable for the actions of one individual.”
There would also be the question that what is she doing there in the first place, if she can’t hold her liquor, to take into consideration. -It’s a well known fact that men can take a lot more alcohol as opposed to women, so what is she doing drinking with the boys?
-And of course, moving along that line, the question of taking responsibility for ones own actions also comes into place.
BTW, I almost forgot to ask you this:
Have you ever tried to say no to a woman who wants to fuck, because she is drunk?
I think you should try doing that, if you really want to see what they are capable of, when it comes to verbal and emotional abuse.
She is an absolute loser. Why is she drinking with the boys b/c her friends left her b/c… she is an absolute loser. But, she’s comatose. Jimbo is well aware of this. Is she a victim? hmmm. She is as much a victim as a sleeping man on a Central Park bench at 3:00am who gets his wallet taken. Incredibly, stupid but still a victim of robbery. Should the DA prosecute her case. No, probably not, unless Jimbo is hanging out at bars waiting for such a scenario and has done this # time previously.
As for your other comment, (Me<~~ Girl) No, no strictly, dickly.
@td9red.
As to You ~~> Girl.
It was pretty obvious.
As per the whole rape question, the only thing that matters (when you boil it all down) is the the sticky business of proving things in a court of law.
Which, in turn, boils down to a very simple phrase:
Standards of Evidence.
Allow me an additional little experimenting here:
“According to Wikipedia Communism is a:
a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for the workers.[1][2][3] Its concepts overlap with those of the workers rights. Communism is mainly focused on the workers issues, but because communism seeks equality, some communists argue that capitalism is therefore a necessary part of communism, and that the capitalists are also harmed by unequality and the political positions of it’s leaders.”
I’m pretty sure I’ve read this before somewhere…Hmmm…
The welter of overlapping/conflicting definitions is a smokescreening trick, meant to keep your head a-whirl and maintain you in a state of target confusion.
Hence the need for Target Consensus.
Yup, that thar’s a key term!
Does not work.
I usually just get pissed when people try that shit.
Slightly OT…
Before I learned about MRA’s, I had to attend a sexual assault briefing and one of the topics was date rape concerning about the usual “women can’t give consent while drunk” guff. I raised my hand and I asked:
“Who would be raping whom in drunken lesbian sex?”
I got the evil eye but I thought it was a valid reductio ad absurdum with the subject at hand.
With my relatively new ingestion of the red pill I will use this when my next “sexual assault briefing” occurs which seems to be a monthly (snark intended) occurrence.
I find it very telling that they didn’t have any kind of answer prepared, they just got pissed off that you had the balls to ask such a valid question. They weren’t used to red pill men, I’m guessing.
You know, that’s one of the things that probably most disturbs me about the whole “drunk = rape” argument. Not only is the whole idea preposterous, and sets up excuses people shouldn’t have for their behavior, but it’s extraordinarily, inherently one-sided, as everyone who’s ever dated knows that men generally have a more difficult time convincing women to take their clothes off while said women are sober than while they are not. And women choose to get drunk around men, now more than ever, because they feel empowered with the knowledge that if the guy they wake up with the next morning looks like me, they don’t have to live with that, they can file rape charges, and they’ll be even more likely to stick than they normally would.
Not to mention that whenever feminists speak in support of laws that would criminalize men for having sex with drunk women, they don’t give any thought whatsoever to one very important fact:
Not everyone who has sex with drunk women has a penis.
So what the fuck are you supposed to do about a lesbian who “takes advantage” of drunk chicks? Lesbians exist, and they can and will swoop in on drunk girls and have sex with them, AND sometimes straight women will get drunk and have sex with other (usually) drunk women, so obviously that must be addressed if you’re going to make laws protecting women (and only women) from having sex while intoxicated. You can’t argue that women can’t penetrate other women, because: 1) Women have fingers, and 2) There exists an invention known as the dildo. So what’s the fucking difference between a dude banging a drunk girl and a girl banging a drunk girl?
This is just one of many reasons why outlawing drunk sex is just a waste of everyone’s time, and causes more problems then it solves. If men are to be unfairly targeted by such a law, then it frees up women to have all the drunk sex they want, which obviously doesn’t solve anything, it just extends the definition of rape beyond reasonable limits, thereby resulting in more men being locked up.
If it applies to everyone, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, then it’s even worse because then you have people getting arrested left and right for raping each other. Of course, that eventuality would also require that the law be fairly applied, which we all know it wouldn’t, because:
1) Men who get hammered and bang Free Willy are as likely to report that as a rape as they are to report when they are ACTUALLY raped. Even when we do feel violated, our natural, and highly socially re-enforced, reaction is typically to ignore it, just gut it out. Hardly anyone fosters a feeling of victimization in men, they reserve that for women.
2) Men overwhelmingly have greater motivation to offer alcohol to women, even if it’s only as an opening to initiate conversation, as women generally don’t feel any need to offer men anything but a view of their cleavage or backside. And whether they intend to have sex with any man, let alone the man who offered them a drink, or even so much as converse with said man, women are still generally very likely to accept the beverage, and drink it. Because it was free, and women are, generally-speaking, the cheapest creatures on Earth.
3) No matter what, in the current climate, hardly anyone is going to accept the idea that men can’t be held responsible for their behavior while drunk. That, like the victim card, is reserved for women alone.
*sighs* What a world we live in, eh?
I’ve got the Vincent Price laugh to go with the rubbing of hands. All we need is a hunched back posture and a long curled up mostache…….a train track with an oncoming train, and some chains……then we’ll show those feminazies.
Your campy sense of theatrical melodrama is delicious, sir!
Welcome aboard Mr. Fidelbogen.
Personally, I can tell that feminism is going to get shoved out the door one way or another, because of one simple fact: Once you’ve taken the red pill, there’s no going back.
So, our numbers can only grow, especially as we reach the younger generations of men and women. We mold them into real adults, rather than the pretend ones all over the place now, and when they grow up and the fake adults get old and die, feminism won’t have a leg to stand on anymore. It’ll be done.
However the question remains: How do we speed this process up? I think getting more representation in media is a good start. Tom Leykis may be great, and he may be coming back next year (which I’m REEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAALLY looking forward to), but he can’t do it alone. We need more. A lot more.
I’m looking forward to your ideas Fidelbogen.
“All right, I have an agenda. Call it a vision for the future; an idea where things ought to be heading. And no, I don’t mean AVfM. I mean ALL of this. The whole game. The whole revolution. The whole damned enchilada. Just imagine: a world without feminism.”
This is what a
men’s rights activist
looks like.
===============
WANTED:
People to engage in Men’s Rights Activism
I wish somebody would put those sayings on T-shirts so I could buy them and wear them.
It would be nice to find one, or two, other good MRA’s within a reasonably close driving distance so we could collaborate on men’s rights activism projects. What’s close? Los Angeles County/San Fernando Valley for starters. Out of several million people living in my neighborhood, you’d think one, or two, wouldn’t be hard to find.
I think it would be better to issue t-shirts printed with “this is what a non-feminist looks like.”
I love you Fidelbogen and my love grows.
U give and you gave lots to me. I can’t express how much but I can say we built big on you in NZ.
You rock+!!!! But then you don’t like rock, lol.
“You rock+!!!! But then you don’t like rock, lol.”
Well no…that’s not quite accurate. Anyhoo, It’s good to hear that I rock.
Lol, xxx. I look forward to you being a part of a voice for men.
Things That Make Me Go Hmmmm (Response)
According to Wikipedia Feminism is a:
a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women.[1][2][3] Its concepts overlap with those of women’s rights. Feminism is mainly focused on women’s issues, but because feminism seeks gender equality, some feminists argue that men’s liberation is therefore a necessary part of feminism, and that men are also harmed by sexism and gender roles.
-Was Feminism as defined by Wikipedia bad? Looking at Wikipedia’s definition, it seems pretty harmless. It’s certainly not bigoted on its face. Though, the real issue is what in fact is the true definition of Feminism today? How do MRA’s define the Feminism that they hate?
-Was defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women bad? Again, it seems harmless.
-Were these goals once good, but now they are bad? Hard to say, certainly at one time in our history white women were the pampered sex. But, is that the way it is today? Today in most families both the mom and dad work outside the home. According to statistics, on this very site, when adding up the amount of work performed outside of the home and inside of the home men and women perform about the same amount of work. If this is true, how could one maintain the belief that women are pampered? Is the work women perform different than that performed by men? Certainly. In the average family work is divided up between mom and dad based upon the work that they are more suited to performing successfully.
-Have these goals been achieved, such that Feminism is no longer necessary? Many of the goals of classic feminism have been achieved. Is maintenance required? Probably, everything requires maintenance.
-Was Feminism ever necessary? I think so.
-Was there ever any need in the history of our planet to define, establish, and defend equal political, economic, and social rights and equal opportunities for women? I think so
-Have women always had equal opportunities to men? I don’t think so. In addition to the time that women could not vote; there were times in our history when women were not educated, they could not own property. In many countries women could not even inherit property. Children born to married women belonged to their fathers, women had no right to custody. Many of these things happened ages ago, some still persist in other countries. But, these things did happen.
-Did Feminism make any true gains for women? Not sure if the feminist movement actually made the difference or if we as a society would have come around…
-If Feminism were to die tomorrow how would the lives of women and men be changed?
Oh but how could she die, Feminism is like a Butterfly Effect. Every step she takes drastically alters the lives of men and women near and far to the point that it is impossible to discern how life would have been or would be had she never come around.
-If Feminism were to die tomorrow would women lose the right to bodily integrity and autonomy and reproductive rights. (I think not, reproductive freedom for women = reproductive freedom for men. Meaning, if the Pro-Life movement were to achieve an end to abortion and outlaw all forms of contraception which interfered with the implantation of an egg in a Feminist’s womb, not one person would pull out and stop having sex. Instead, there would be even more unwanted pregnancies, even more unwanted children. This would be as devastating to men as it would be to women.)
-If Feminism were to die tomorrw…
Oh but she won’t die, certainly not in time for you or me. It’s so hard to kill her. Feminism is like an X Chromosome. Every baby boy and girl has one. Feminists are born in and out of hospitals everyday. Most remain feminists until their deaths. Some like those here on this and other MRA websites, have been converted. They have learned how to escape her Borg-like grasp. But, the fact that she needs no converts strengthens her greatly. Beyond defeat? Hmmm, I don’t know…
-Would domestic violence increase/decrease? Wash, its human nature to hit each other. We hit children. We would hit adults even more often, if it were not a taboo.
-Would the definition of domestic violence change? Yes, it would include domestic violence perpetrated against men.
-Would sexual assaults increase/decrease? Wash, people who want to sexually assault others don’t pay attention to things like the Feminist movement or the MRA movement, for that matter.
-Would the definition of what a sexual assault is change? Probably, the expansion of the term would certainly stop.
-Would acts we once described as sexual assaults be decriminalized? Doubtful, once a crime always a crime. We rarely decriminalize anything.
-Would date rape no longer be a crime or would it simply be a bad night with a jerk? I think date rape would remain a crime, or at least what I believe entails date rape – you go out to a movie with Jimbo which he paid for, now on the ride home Jimbo decides he’s getting some whether you like it or not. Jimbo is fully aware of the fact that you don’t want to have sex with him. Jimbo over powers you and penetrates you anyway. I think even without the Feminist movement, most men and women would still think Jimbo did something wrong and needs some jail time.
-If Feminism were to die tomorrow, what would replace her?
Oh but she can’t die, I think she might be immortal. Soo much a part of our psyche, soo much a part of our world that most don’t even recognize how she might have changed. Maybe instead of trying to kill her, she could be convinced or GAMED into thinking that some of her actions have been harmful and hurtful. Was it her intention to hurt the other? Hmmm, in some sense, Yes, but, not entirely, as hard as it may be to believe, she does love the other and as much as some of her personalities try to resist these feelings she can’t escape. These feelings are simply biological. So why does she hurt the other, in her mind she was in a battle to free herself from perceived wrongs and injustices by the other, some of which were in fact real others of which were imagined. As in any war she fought with everything she had and she took prisoners. Is the war she fights over? Is any war ever over? If she were to pick up in leave would those she fought off simply come back? This is what she fears. As such, she keeps going. Could she be convinced to leave her Feminist self behind and convert to a Humanist… I think so. But, it’s gonna take some work.
-What would the death of Feminism actually mean? Hmmmm
From the Top:
-What would a world without Feminism in any form look like? Can’t imagine it.
-Were/Are all forms of Feminism bad? No…
“Could she be convinced to leave her Feminist self behind and convert to a Humanist”?
who cares?
it’s a toxic brand, even you seem to understand that
“But, it’s gonna take some work. ”
yeah, best of luck with that.
“How do MRA’s define the Feminism that they hate?”
Non-feminists have various definitions of feminism — just as feminists themselves do. Hence, for the sake of political focus, clarificatory discourse is under way. It is a work-in-progress, encompassing the broad spectrum of the non-feminist sector (which includes the notorious “MRA” cohort).
td9red, your chosen definition of feminism makes me go Hmmmm…
Feminism is a sickness, or more accurately it is a syndrome. Let me quote Wikipedia “a syndrome is the association of several clinically recognizable features, signs (observed by a physician), symptoms (reported by the patient), phenomena or characteristics that often occur together”.
Because feminism is essentially a cluster of behaviors (syndrome) we cannot reduce the whole thing to one word “equality” or one behaviour “equality seeking” as does the Wikipedia description of feminism. We need to include misandry, violence, oppressive rule, narcissism, and many other qualities belonging to the syndrome. These behaviours are demonstrated by all feminists, all over the world. Moreover, when we name the latter characteristics we see that the syndrome also includes dissociation and denial of these more negative elements belonging to the cluster, as the negatives are never included in feminist-inspired definitions.
So here is a more accurate definition of the syndrome feminism:
-seeks power under the euphemism of “equality”
-is narcissistic
-misandric
-violent
-interpersonally controlling and exploitative
-has overly positive view of itself despite negatives
-displays dissociation and denial of negatives
Now lets talk about what feminism has achieved.
Your point was well made but unfortunately using Wikipedia as reference discounts credibility..
I really wasn’t trying to chose a definition. I picked Wikipedia just as a convenient place to find a online definition. When I posed the question I was more interested in an MRA’s definition of feminism.
“. . . I was more interested in an MRA’s definition of feminism.”
As I suggested in an earlier comment, the non-feminist coalition has not yet arrived at target consensus re: the definition of feminism. We consider that a political ‘work-in-progress’.
But to my mind, Adam Kostakis summed up feminism quite elegantly:
“Feminism is the project to increase the power of women.”
… at the expense of men. Power is a zero-sum game.
@Sting Chameleon:
“. . … at the expense of men. Power is a zero-sum game.”
Yes, precisely. But. . .we are building up to that, by stages!
BTW: I like your nick (“Sting Chameleon”).
…and to destroy the power of men.”
@ Sting Chameleon
Is it possible that men and women can share power? Or, is men on top the only proper way…
@td9red
“Is it possible that men and women can share power? Or, is men on top the only proper way…”
Share power? As in, a coalition government?
Trouble with that paradigm is, that they would still effectively be separate political power blocs, jockeying for advantage.
Team Woman v. Team Man.
However, as men begin more and more to exist politically, it is possible that such a scenario will indeed come about. Time will tell.
An alternative would be, that SOME men will be on top of SOME women, and SOME women will be on top of SOME men.
So that way, the categories “men” and “women”, as political abstractions, would not be part of our discourse, and civilization would no longer be a “house divided against itself.”
As you might guess, the alternative scenario which I have proposed has been our human reality for most of history.
What can I say Fidelbogen, I’m a huge fan of Mavericks
Reference to a single factor of the cluster of behaviours that is feminism proves inadequate. It must be defined as a syndrome. In saying that I agree with Kostakis contention that feminism is a project for increasing women’s power, i.e., power-seeking is a distinct element within the cluster of behaviours that is feminism. However, it is philosophically flawed to believe that power-seeking leads to all the other feminist behaviours – narcissism, violence, misandry, and so on. We could equally say that narcissism or misandry lead to power seeking. So lets avoid reducing feminism to ‘first causes’ and instead take a phenomenological approach to the definition.
A successful MRA definition of feminism must completely do away with the notion of first causes and stick to the conceptual framework of syndrome, in which no element within the syndrome can be said to lead to any other element in linear progression. Everything is ‘just there’ together.
And I think we have the cluster (icluding Kostakis focus on power) in this:
-seeks power under the euphemism of “equality”
-is narcissistic
-misandric
-violent
-interpersonally controlling and exploitative
-has overly positive view of itself despite negatives
-displays dissociation and denial of negatives
FWIW.
@tawil:
As I reflect, it seems to me that most of the items on your syndrome list are tied to power-seeking in one way or another.
Well, that isn’t a phenomenological definition, and it isn’t a philosophical definition, but is does qualify as a teleological explanation- the most reductionistic way of explaining a phenomenon. It it’s favor it does satisfy (though incomplete) as a short definition of feminism, and is one I’d be happy to use on people with short attention spans.
“. . . people with short attention spans.”
Such, alas, is a huge slice of the public we are dealing with. Say what you will, but this is politics, and ya gotta know your constituency. And let’s face it, how many of them are going to give a rip about “teleological”, “phenomenological”, “reductionistic”, etc. . . ?
teleological”, “phenomenological”, “reductionistic” were for this conversation alone, not intended for deployment to the general public. The simpler phrases used further above, the ones I suggested, are ones most folks could easily grasp: seeks power; narcissistic; misandric; violent; interpersonally controlling and exploitative; overly positive view of itself; denial of negatives.
The point is simple enough- we dont have to reduce the definition of feminism to a power grab. That’s a reductionistic explanation that leaves far too much out. Again, not that I disagree with the valid claim that feminism seeks power for women.
However it gets defined simple does get good mileage in conversation, as you suggest.
You might have tried googling this page and look at the overwhelming amount of censorship recently used against it, to learn a lot about feminism and it’s agenda. As well as our opinions on both.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Mens+right+activist&fulltext=1
We are the non-existing men and women in here.
Following the Men’s Right link on the page, Wikipedia states: The men’s rights movement is part of the men’s movement,[2] and advocates are known as “men’s rights activists,” or MRAs.[3] They see themselves as the oppressed providers.[4] The men’s rights movement claims that men suffer shorter lives, higher successful suicide rates and higher incidents of most stress-related disorders than women do.[5]
Certainly, men die sooner b/c they are involved in more dangerous activities. Also, men die sooner b/c they refuse to regularly see a doctor.
Men have higher successful suicide rates b/c men attempt more violent means of suicide, also (below)
Men have more stress related disorders b/c dealing with stress and pain in one of the strengths of women. Generally, women can endure more physical and emotion pain (or stress) than men.
This is a link to an article about the differences between men’s and women’s brains. It talks about stress. Men’s brains are 11-12 % larger. I would have thought that meant that men had the potential to be smarter. But, this article actually claims it has nothing to do with intelligence.
http://www.mastersofhealthcare.com/blog/2009/10-big-differences-between-mens-and-womens-brains/
@td9red:
You can take 68% of what that Wikipedia article says about the so-called “men’s rights movement”, and flush it straight down the crapper.
This article suggests that men do have the capacity to be smarter than women because of their larger brain size and that this evolved b/c women prefer mates who are smarter than they are. Hmmmm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-405056/Men-intelligent-women-claims-new-study.html
@td9red:
“Men have more stress related disorders b/c dealing with stress and pain in one of the strengths of women. Generally, women can endure more physical and emotion pain (or stress) than men.”
Where the hell did you dig up THAT garbage?
I find no reason to credit the veracity of this, and considerable reason (based on my own observation) to suspect that the opposite is the case.
Let this be one small hint as to why feminists are so cordially despised — that they insist on repeating such stories.
@td9red:
That is REALLY interesting, because all I get is this:
“The page “Mens right activist” does not exist.”
-And pressing the link just gives me more of the same shit.
Fidelbogen
In The Woman Racket: Sex in Care-Men’s poor health stems from the status syndrome, Moxon says that men “suffer significantly greater health problems” than do women. This largely because men are forced to compete (absorb huge amounts of stress) for the attentions of hypergamous women whereas women are accepted by men for “their given attributes of youth and beauty.” It’s also because males as the disposable sex are considered ineligible to receive the care and protection they are obliged to provide.
It’s very unlikely that women have to handle huge amounts of stress in the first place. Everywhere women are given a choice they run from stress. In the military, they go into health care rather than combat roles. In society, they tend go into soft government jobs rather than hard private sector jobs. Women also prefer art over sport which makes sense because women are far more fragile as sports stars.
Bottom line: men have more stress disorders because men bear the lion’s share of stress AND because men suffer from serious reverse sexist health care discrimination to boot.
@Primal:
Yes, have read Moxon’s book.
Anyhow, the way I look at it, is to picture a platoon of typical, average women under the most horrific combat conditions imaginable. The Battle of the Bulge, let’s say.
Realistically, how would they stack up against men? I think we all know the answer.
@Fidelbogen.
You don’t even have to go that far.
I’ve seen grown women suffer breakdowns just from the drill sergent shouting at them, on the obstacle course in the marines.
In an actual event of battle, I would try to put as much distance between myself and any female combattant as possible, for two good reasons:
The men fighting alongside her will be distracted by her mere presence, and under fire they will drop everything to help her, if she is wounded.
Both behaviors will have the same outcome:
Everybody dies.
@fidelbogen
On the stress issue. There are lots of articles (other than the 2 I cited) which suggest that women deal with stress better men b/c of the difference in the make up of our brains. One of those articles talks about how women are more prone to depression and other similar emotional problems b/c of the constant flux of hormones.
@Primal
Men and women go into different types of jobs and different areas in the military b/c men and women like different things. Additionally, with respect to the military men tend to believe more in their invincibility and to be excited by danger. Women are far more reserved and fearful primarily b/c we are acutely aware of the weakness of our frame. Personally, I believe women should only have very limited roles in the military. Women are not designed to be soldiers. I agree that women in the military also make men less safe. As much as some MRAs are so opposed to any form of chivilry. The desire of men to protect women is biological. And, this will lead them to try and help a wounded female soldiers.
@td9red
You can’t have it both ways girlfriend. The people who do the most difficult work/bear the most dangerous risks for a society deserve to have power over the others who do not. This is what enrages any thinking man about feminism, that is males suffer and die for the female supremacist bigots who now rule the Cunt-culture while those very same bigots rely on the pussy pass to live long, comfortable, risk free lives.
No indeed, women do not belong in combat. Yes, men biologically want to provide unconditional ‘live’ to women in return for unconditional love but today’s women believe that unconditional hate (feminism) is the proper response to male chivalry. Therefore, for males, chivalry is now suicide…and especially chivalry to feminist bigots.
Do we have to let the Muslims or the Chinese destroy our freedoms before you silly feminists come to your senses? Is Ashton Kucher and his pussy-whipped cohort of metrosexual monkeys likely to protect you from what is shaping up to be a very dangerous world? Do you believe that any man in his right mind would willingly protect you as a feminist?
Much as this may shock you, we don’t enjoy being the disposable sex in any case,but we particularly hate to be the disposable sex held under the thumb of a bunch of entitled infants who spread anti-male hate as a matter of course. The rage you see here is just the beginning. When we really start to roar en-masse, fearful feminists bigots will quake in their slippers and run to Daddy but there will be no more Daddies to run to.
@Fidelbogen
Looks like women can’t even handle soccer (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/magazine/11Girls-t.html?pagewanted=all) much less Hitler’s SS henchmen.
@Primal
I get that the one taking all the risks should have the greatest reward. But, I get all bothered my the idea that “one deserves to have power over the other” When I think of someone having power over another, I think of someone being controlled, put in their place, chastized, treated like a child. Relationships b/t men and women should not be master/servant. They should be one person equal to the other and together we will make familial, financial, political… choices that benefit our little corner of the world. You didn’t mean the words you chose to be taken literally?
@td9red
Male power will always be confusing to girls as will female power to boys. Therefore, ‘power OVER’ and ‘UNDER control’ is how things will always work. Equality between opposite sexes is feminist Valley Girl nonsense but equity is possible in good relationships.
As for you or for feminists who lie cheat and steal for power, being overpowered, controlled, chastised, spanked, and treated like spoiled brats is perfectly appropriate where you have earned such ‘respect’. As many previous posters have alluded, you are in way over your head here but like an infant you don’t even know that you are running into the middle of a busy street. Protection is what male power is for so consider yourself protected.
And before you pull a hissy fit, just remember that you and your sex do same thing the other way around…sometimes appropriately and sometimes inappropriately.
If you are really interested in gender-feminism’s foundation go read the chapters on ideology in Spreading Misandry or Legalizing Misandry. You’ll see that the ugly reverse-sexist ‘animal’ is made from garbage recycled from the trash heap of history (to use their description). You’ll also see why we hate this female supremacist hate movement so much.
Your writing style sounds awfully close to that of feminist Michael Flood, with which I’m familiar. coincidence? He also pats himself on the back for engaging with MRAs to try and sway their ignorant hearts… Whatever the case you obviously have the same aim as he.
No idea who Michael Flood is…
I’m glad you mentioned Michael Flood. I’ll have a few words to say about him in days ahead. . .
Talking to feminists is like talking to religious fanatics…it’s all faith-based. Back to Uncle Jimmy (Wales) and his gang of oppressive ‘gender’-goons we go. Hate movements will always look ‘harmless’ to those who believe in the white-washed nonsense that Wikipedia editors are infamous for spreading, to those who have a vested interest in pretending that hate is love, to those who believe infantile entitlement is ‘equality’ or that feminist bigotry is ‘justice’, and to those who cannot or will not consider any possibilities other than self-serving ones.
“-If Feminism were to die tomorrow how would the lives of women and men be changed? “
Such condition being given, the juggernaut of feminist innovation would cease, and women would be compelled to make the best of whatever advantages and “goodies” they might possess precisely at that moment, because there wouldn’t be any more in the works.
Meanwhile, men would be able to “freeze” their state of disadvantage at that particular point, and would then be free to evolve viable and stable coping strategies that would serve to maximize their advantage.
And feminism would not be around, to block such adaptive strategies by men. Therefore, male creative energy and genius would surge to the fore and make great strides.
A “natural” balance-of-power between men and women would gradually reestablish itself if feminism were abruptly put out of operation. (It must be understood that feminism is a dynamic process rather than a static ‘thing’.)
But if feminism continued in operation, it would continue to siphon the tangible and intangible goods of life away from men, and toward women, in a zero-sum game that would always be to the advantage of women. But this would lead to a dangerously lopsided and potentially violent situation that would not be healthy for men OR women.
It sounds like a safer bet, all around, to halt the operation of feminism in society.
Something to add to this: Men would/will be able to begin liberating themselves from their traditional gender roles. It is an important step, as it further creates balance between the sexes. Feminism has stood in the way of it for some 50 years now, and I very much credit that effort on its part as a major reason why things are so out of whack now. You can’t have one gender be free to reject its traditional roles while locking the other into theirs, it just doesn’t work, and it just isn’t fair.
Hire a team of genetic engineers, then. Gender seems to be a lot more nature than nurture, despite what feminist propaganda has taught you.
I’m aware of what gender is, but altering DNA isn’t necessary. What is necessary, is for women to be freed of their unwillingness to marry down the socioeconomic ladder, and for men to be freed of their attitude that rejecting the role of provider and protector (by not having a family, or not being able to provide for one) makes them less of a man. We here may not have that problem, but a lot of blue pill men do, it’s a big part of what so often makes them white knights as well. Their inherent nature to protect women, whether they need or deserve protection or not, serves as their downfall. Women have much enjoyed being able to become as financially successful as any man, while rejecting any notions of getting married and having children, and earning praise as a direct result. They can embrace whatever masculine attributes they wish, without fear of their sexuality being questioned by society in general, never feeling like less of a woman for doing so. As of right now, men do not have that freedom, nor can they so easily avoid insults and mockery from embracing a career but not marriage and children, or from rejecting pursuits of a career, and instead electing to care for their home and children while their wife makes the money (or most of it). Men who embrace inherently feminine traits are all too often the subject of harassment, their sexuality is constantly questioned, their ability to feel like a man diminished by the words and actions of others. Men are not allowed to be cowards, to be victims, to feel vulnerable. Women can be all those things, or none of them, and be accepted either way.
NOTE: Yes, sometimes women who shave their head and dress like how men usually do are accused of being homosexual, but really, that doesn’t happen as often if they’re still attractive despite chopping off their hair and not wearing blouses, tube tops, skirts, or short-shorts.
Yes indeed. The most important thing men must do is to stop volunteering to die like dogs in places like Afghanistan, or to work like dogs in the nation’s essential industries for the feminists. We need to show women that nothing they currently take for granted is free.
That’s a great way to start, and something that is likely to happen as we MRAs continue our work. Honestly, how many men who have swallowed red pills can say that they’d be more than happy to take a bullet for a woman? Or risk their lives on an oil rig just to feed a woman?
Exactly.
That’s why I know our liberation can happen, it may not be complete in my lifetime, but it’s doable.
Of course, it may just be easier and quicker to make women resume their traditional roles, after we dismantle feminism. But I don’t really want to do that, not when we can both be free to exchange attributes and roles and expectations of each other. What I want isn’t necessarily for women to become the majority of the primary bread-winners in households across the country, I just want them to be willing to, I want them to not hold men to that responsibility so often. It’s only fair that if we’re going to encourage them to spread their wings and fly that we be allowed to fold ours up and walk around instead if we wish. I like the feel of the ground beneath my feet, you know?
While feminism has done a lot to shape our lives, our futures. Men must also take some responsibility for their own culpability. No matter what you believe about whether we live in a patriarchal society or a feminist driven society, there is no question that men, nearly exclusively run our governments. Especially, in the U.S. Men are fighting an dying in Afghanistan, Iraq, and everywhere else on this planet b/c other men placed them there.
@td9red
“Men are fighting an dying in Afghanistan, Iraq, and everywhere else on this planet b/c other men placed them there.”
That is not completely true. -Actually far from it!
As I recall, one of the primary aggressors behind the Lybia-campaign was Hilary Clinton, and she was backed up by a whole lot of women in the Senate. As well as a lot of women in my own country’s goverment.
Furthermore, when the weapons of mass-destruction were not found, the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and most other places became a campaign of ‘liberating’ the women of those places instead.-Especially in Afghanistan. This was by far an agenda pushed by the feminists in the goverments of Europe, Canada and the US.
And if you go take a search on the ‘White Feathers’ of WWI you will see that the suffragettes made the shaming of men, to make them go get killed in the trenches of Europe in massive numbers, their primary goal for years.
Women are far from being without responsibility on these matters.
And you are beginning to sound like you’ve been brainwashed with the usual shit coming from the feminist frontline. Women are just as likely to be violent as men, and if the DV-stats are telling us anything, it sure as hell is that they are even MORE likely to.
The only difference is that women prefer to use violence by proxy. And as that ‘proxy’ mostly is men, the outcome will always be ‘that women don’t commit violence or start wars.’
-And that is, quite frankly, a load of bullshit, no matter how you look at it.
@MrStodern
We are on precisely the same page. As soon as women ‘pay’ for the pussy pass privileges they currently rape from men, we will see what free choice really looks like. To force that payment men will have to become equally ‘enlightened’.
@td9red
Please spare us anti-patriarchal whining. Women deserve no position at the table before women help protect/build the table. The great tyranny of feminism is the falsehood that women deserve female supremacist rights for free.
As for war, there is a Helen of Troy behind every war. In other words men fight primarily for pussy…something that the manipulating second-sex knows very very well. Were women to deny pussy or the promise of future pussy to male pigs (see Newt Gingrich’s quote about men and women in war), warfare would cease right away.
Women prefer male beasts because women USE male beasts to do dirty deeds for female entitlements. This is where women need to focus now. The Dark Side of Woman is infinitely more evil than the Light Side of Man.
@Kimski
Quiz: Other than Hilary Clinton, name three (3) other women in the US government who are in a top position, such that Obama would have to listen to them? And, I don’t mean Michelle. Real Hard
Than name three (3) high powered men in the US government that Obama would have to listen to? Easy
@td9red:
“Especially, in the U.S. Men are fighting an dying in Afghanistan, Iraq, and everywhere else on this planet b/c other men placed them there.”
Try telling that to the men who got placed there.
And while you are at it, be sure to poke those same men in the ribs with a “check your male privilege” stick. I’m sure that your politics will endear you.
@td9red:
“Especially, in the U.S. Men are fighting an dying in Afghanistan, Iraq, and everywhere else on this planet b/c other men placed them there.”
I will edit your ‘sexist’ statement to read as:
“. . . men are fighting and dying in Afghanistan, Iraq, and everywhere else on this planet b/c powerful, influential people placed them there.”
Fixed.
@td9red:
I don’t personally give a rip if Obama has any highly-placed women he must listen to. . . or not.
If it could be infallibly proven that such women would speak for MY interest (both as a man, and as a “little man”), than I might feel motivated to give a hoot.
@td9red:
“Men must also take some responsibility for their own culpability. . . . there is no question that men, nearly exclusively run our governments.”
No.
CULPABLE men must take responsibility for their culpability. And yes, there is no question that men who run our governments, nearly exclusively run our governments.
Some other time, perhaps, we will talk about culpable women (in or out of government) who must also take responsibility for their culpability.
Actually, women have been using their sexual power to stop tribes from killing each other for eons, when it suits them.
@td9red
“there is no question that men, nearly exclusively run our governments. ”
Run them at whose behest? Women are the majority of the voters.
@td9red.
No, I won’t.
I’m done playing feminist ping-pong with you.
Every time I debunk one of your statements, you change the rules or the questions. If you you want to hold on to that crazy ideology and it’s wild statements, then go do it. But find out where your lifejacket is first, because that version of Titanic is going to sink in a not too distant future, and there will be no room for feminists in the lifeboats.
-This time it will be men and children first..
@td9red
This war was started by women as man-hater Maureen Dowd crowed in: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/opinion/23dowd.html It’s easy to get all high minded and moral when one’s sex doesn’t have to do the dying and the killing. Samantha Power (A Problem From Hell) is fun to listen to because so is so idealistic but she is also dangerous because she is Obama’s right hand ‘man’. Wet- behind-the-ears women who have never seen combat have no business sending men into combat. Nor does that Hillary (an ugly feminist who demeans men regularly) have the right to shake any Libyan freedom fighter’s hand because she has never risked her ass for anything.
As I seem to recall another commenter saying (and I paraphrase), gender essentialism complicates the picture here.
However, my own vision of the post-feminist future would be one in which freedom of choice in such matters would be greatly expanded, in which an agreement would be concluded to mutually respect such choices, and finally in which a coalition of forces built precisely on such mutual respect would keep feminism on cultural and political lockdown.
Mutual respect is definitely going to be very important when moving forward. The thing that we most need to avoid is the appearance of becoming the type of society that feminism has always claimed us to once be. After that disease has been properly excise, what needs to happen is healing, not vengeance, because that’s what feminism has been justified by this whole time: retaliation by women for both injustices and perceived injustices. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard women speak of discrimination against men, when they acknowledge that it takes place, that if it happens, it’s deserved, because “women were under men’s boot for so long”. I suppose they would agree that black people should be allowed to make white people work in fields picking cotton then, eh?
I fear that in the future, because men are likely to still end up being the majority of politicians and wealthy individuals, even after feminism ends, we’re just going to end up with a situation that leads to feminism’s rebirth.
Of course, that’s assuming that, once feminism is no longer poisoning their minds, the majority of women are going to go back to embracing their traditional gender roles, which means going back to the way things were, except it would obviously be by choice this time, rather than something being imposed upon them by men in any way. Despite it being their choice, I do believe this outcome would only eventually lead to more feminism down the line, as men and women being locked in their traditional gender roles, with women desiring freedom, and men being willing to give it to them while ignoring their own liberation, is what brought the disease about in the first place.
However, if only some women embrace the old ways, the ones that don’t have any career ambitions, and as long as they are in the minority, and their choice is respected by everyone, which is possible without feminism’s influence, and men become just as free to reject or embrace the old ways, then things should be far more balanced.
Men’s liberation is an essential ingredient to preventing feminism’s return, because without it, it’ll just look like we rule the roost again, whether there’s any accuracy to that assessment or not. It’s going to be a lot harder, though I am encouraged about the prospect of men not really losing but amending their policy on protecting others to not be so focused on women, especially as women grow in their ability to protect themselves and others, and adopt similar policies. Men are also likely to be quite tired of being the primary bread-winners so often, and reject the whole notion of marrying down the socioeconomic ladder simply because that’s what they’re “supposed to do”. As more women marry up the ladder, that choice will be fostered rather than suppressed, as it is now. I think perhaps the best thing that could happen to us is for women to rule the majority of family units and thereby gain a true understanding of the responsibilities that go with that role, and rather than shy from it, only embrace it more as time passes.
Then again, maybe we should go back to the way things were and have men give feminism a scary face next to time it comes around, and hopefully that will be the end of it. But I’d prefer my vision of the future, honestly.
@Mr.Stodern:
I must say, your vision of the post-feminist future is quite similar to my own.
I’d rather have women held accountable for their shit once and for all. Oh wait, that will never happen.
“Oh wait, that will never happen.”
Then it will be made to happen?
By blood and steel if at all Fidelbogen.
“By blood and steel if at all Fidelbogen.”
Blut und eisen??
Oh come now, surely there is room for guile in your thinking. . eh?
I mean, we don’t want the name of being bloody steel swingers. . . do we?
A “natural” balance-of-power between men and women would gradually reestablish itself if feminism were abruptly put out of operation.
In your “natural” balance-of-power theory, do you place man on top?
I might be able to admit that the framework of our maker, had man on top with women by his side in his ear manipulating him. I might be able to admit this…
“In your “natural” balance-of-power theory, do you place man on top?”
I don’t place anybody anywhere. I leave it open to the “free market”. Que sera, sera!
“In your “natural” balance-of-power theory, do you place man on top?”
Depends what you mean by “top”, doesn’t it?
Take a straight look at relationships between the sexes. Who gets their way more often?
A lot of words justifying a movement that is solely and completely based on hate..
Only it’s deniers and enablers are unable and incapable of admitting it..
Sorry CJ if I should make this point elsewhere but I’m too busy to look – gosh don’t I come across as bureaucracy.
The hate is the biggest lesson. The ‘why’ gives the lesson. Yep, pretty much gender issues are around people with passion who have been harmed by the opposite gender. Their passion to fix their own shite is put on all of society.
But in saying this…. I must add the idealism of those involved in politicising gender since the 1970s. We can;t stop it even if we all want to. It’s a train on track without a destination.
If the train is on a track, then it must have a ‘destination’ — namely, the end of the track. Likely a swamp in the middle of nowhere, but that is still a ‘destination’. Of sorts.
“Men have more stress related disorders b/c dealing with stress and pain in one of the strengths of women. Generally, women can endure more physical and emotion pain (or stress) than men.”
Women are about twice as prone to stress disorders, both acute stress disorder and PTSD, than men. My online DSM is not pulling up tonight, but here is a link to webmd about women & stress disorders.
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20061121/stress-disorder-more-common-in-women
This article states that women are more likely to suffer from post traumatic stress disorder. It only focuses on this one disorder. There are no claims made about how men and women deal with stress in a general sense or other stress disorders.
Show us some serious research about female stress-related superiority or go on to other things. We’ve been wasting a lot of time running around on your personal opinion with no data. It’s time you begin to behave more manly for us so we don’t have to chase you around the Maypole.
Would you be so kind as to name some other stress disorders for us? Please? Yes?
I mentioned Acute and PTSD. I also mentioned that my online DSM was not opening. Will you be a dear and name for us, ohhh, I don’t know, say three other stress disorders?
Oh, wait, my bad. Those are the only two ‘stress’ disorders that exist. Now if you wish to go into anxiety disorders, I will be more than happy to quote you the figures for, say Social Anxiety Disorder (Epidemiological and community based studies suggest social phobia is more common in women than men), OCD (equally common in adults, more common in boys than girls), Generalized Anxiety Disorder(55-60% women), Panic Attack (no specific gender data), Panic Disorder(with & without Agoraphobia, 2/1 women/men with, 3/1 women/men without)…
But since I actually have my physical copy of the DSM IV-TR here in my office today you may not want to play this game. Women in general are more prone to all anxiety disorders than are men. Nut up, bucko. You lied, I called bullshit. Game over.
“Generally, women can endure more physical and emotion pain (or stress) than men.”
Could it be, that women are more apt to meekly put up with ‘bullshit’ without getting mad about it, and on somebody’s scale that counts as ‘endurance’?
Could be, but when you see how much mean spirited ‘cowshit’ most ‘quiet desperation’ men put up with meekly without getting mad about it, I really have to question whether women really DO endure more physical and emotional pain than do men.
Good move getting Fidelbogen on board, the great consolidation continues. Let’s get all the best voices under one banner.