I am glad that I put up my own video about the Lara Logan rape, because it gave me some valuable insight into the work that needs to be done in order to set men on the correct path to their own empowerment. The reactions revealed to me that many “MRA’s” don’t fully understand what the concept of gender war is all about and what it fully entails.
In the video I said that if I were to see a woman being raped I would continue on as if nothing ever happened. And I still stand by that statement without apology. I assert that I am 100% justified in this line of thought.
The fact that I said this must have triggered some innate male protector instinct in many MRA’s that the rest of us who actually understand what gender war is all about eschewed a long time ago. Their main argument is that I’m promoting violence against the entire female gender by saying that I wouldn’t risk my life to protect a woman from violence unless she was a member of my family.
I think the problem here is that maybe men have not yet started to consider that when women and society at large decided to burden men with the job of selflessly saving women from violence, that this was, in and of itself, an act of violence against the entire male sex.
The sexually selective rescue effort on the titanic was also an act of violence against the all men. And the expectation that it’s a man’s duty at great personal risk to his person and his life to save adult females from violence is an act of violence against men. All my ideas do is neutralize the violence that has been foisted upon men by advocating an act of non-violent, non action.
Refusing to defend women from violence is a non-action and therefore cannot be violent in any way, yet you have feminists and MRA’s alike claiming that I advocate rape. You even have one feminist saying that for me to advocate non-action in regards to violence against women is an admission of rape; which is just another attempt to broaden the definition of rape, and another reason why men should refuse to offer defense to women.
MRA’s whining about my stance are resorting to the same tired old white knight shaming tactics employed by their feminist sisters. And of course they add in, for good PC measure, as though that even applies.
These simpletons really are starting to tire me. Sure, not all women are fat lesbian man haters that pen scum manifestos on their free time. However, how many women have trapped men via child support and alimony; a form of legalized slavery? How many women are actively speaking out against this type of enslavement? If you were to ask the average woman on the street if she supports child support and alimony enforcement for women in divorce and custody disputes What do you think she’ll say?
Most women are feminists by association and approval of feminist doctrine. They are feminists by proxy and any MRA that says otherwise has failed miserably at understanding the true nature of feminism.
Women have used their most desired biological asset (reproductive ability) to subjugate the men who naturally desire to perpetuate the human race. They have legislated their biological greed aggressively against men in order to use the state to demand more of the myriad of biological assets that men bring to the table, such as productivity, adaptability, ingenuity and most importantly the ability to defend the female collective.
They’ve used the tradeoff of outdated and breached social contracts to obligate us to defend them, while they either abort your reproductive payoff or use it to enslave you with child support, which we all is just a euphemism for woman support. The ability to defend the female collective is the only biological male quality that at least as of now the state cannot force us to engage in.(in the civilian sector at least).
Any true tactician will identify that as a chink in the armor and withhold that defense.
I’m gonna say it again. Men and women are in direct competition with each other.
IF you’re an MRA, act like one. Identify with us and our needs, not feminists and not women. And try to attain a level of awareness higher than the utopian REM sleep that you’ve been living in if you think that men and women aren’t at war with each other.
Men and women are in direct competition with each other. I’m gonna say it again Men and women are in direct competition with each other. We are competing for resources healthcare education our children, our money our legal equality and our freedom. And yes, women are doing this of their own volition.
Some MRA’s ask, “Well, isn’t the state the real enemy? Women are being manipulated also they suffer from feminism as well.” My response to that if it weren’t for the need to explain this as best I can, would be who cares whether or not women are victims? This is a men’s movement, so we will concern ourselves with men’s issues period. This isn’t some fantasy reality where men and women are going to get together to sing Kumbaya and pretend that feminism never existed. Once again women have acted against men as a collective for the better part of sixty years.
Don’t give me that “It’s not about saving women it’s about honor,” bullshit. Women haven’t acted honorably for almost three times longer than I’ve been alive. Fuck that.
The pit bull was blindly following an order from its master; it’s a pawn, a tool incapable of reasoning. Women, however, were given the tools with which to attack men, and they possess all the powers of reasoning of a fully functional adult human being. In the last scenario the pit bull was a tool that the master used with malicious intent, whereas women were given the tools with which to attack men and left to their own devices.
They willingly chose to attack men. They actively sought and lobbied for laws that made it easier to attack men and harder for men to defend themselves. They, since the very beginning of modern feminism, have acted not as innocent pawns that where manipulated into committing acts of evil, but as willing collaborators that used the promise of preferential treatment from the state over men as a means of attacking them.
So my question is when exactly will men fight back and why exactly does the mere suggestion of ending our part of the already defunct social contract, by placing the responsibility of women’s safety on the shoulders of women, lead inexorably to a disingenuous and thoroughly disgusting marathon of white knighting on the part of self-professed MRA’s?
Why are MRA’s calling for obligatory male defense provisions for women?
Don’t give me that “it’s not about saving women it’s about honor,” bullshit. Women haven’t acted honorably for almost three times longer than I’ve been alive. Fuck that. Take that apathetic, traitorous garbage somewhere else. Like my fellow MRA Richard Rich said, “The MRM isn’t some sanctimonious justice league. MRA’s don’t have the right to interject their selective gender based morality into this movement. We’re focusing purely on men’s issues, men’s rights and the empowerment of men. How exactly will telling men to risk their lives to save women from violence help to achieve this?
It won’t.
And in a society where men are still going to be considered rapists no matter what we do, there is no reason to help a woman out of a violent situation up to and including rape. These are the harsh realities of the gender war.
We will not give economic opportunities to women we will not hire them to any jobs. We will reserve that position for a qualified and competent man to combat discriminatory affirmative action laws against men. We will never spend money on relationships with women. We will reinvest that money into our own individual male interests. We will assess the weak points in the relationships between women and the state and we will exploit them in the fight against corrupt females and the state.
Now are there women that have earned the right to call themselves men’s rights activists and advocates? Sure, women like Erin Pizzey come to mind. But it’s time we start fighting fire with fire. And women like Pizzey are already there holding the torches. A group of people that insist on the defense of another group of people that have attacked them mercilessly for decades are not acting honorably – they are acting stupidly.
Tags: Barbarossaaaa, Lara Logan, Men's Issues, Men's Rights, Rape
3 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.
Dan Perrins:
Jay:
Suzanne McCarley:
GQuan:
Turbo:
David G:
Inaction/passive resistance is a given.
If women are equal, they deserve no protection for being women – period.
They claimed they want to be held to the same standards as men – I will hold them to it, even if they decide that actually, they benefit from being the special protected caste.
As for socons who want to tell me to ‘man up’ and do my duty – I have no similar argument for you, but you have proven yourselves to be the greatest enemies of free men since time immemorial, and I do not take orders from you.
Feminists and socons: fuck both of you.
Women are big and tough enough to fend for themselves.
“Women are big and tough enough to fend for themselves.”
Absolutely-they have insisted upon that notion long enough (about 60 years) we finally get it. And agree.
This also means that should a woman violently attack me-I will defend myself.
The feminist mantra should be:
EQUALITY UNTIL IT’S INCONVENIENT!
Absolutely. They want to be seen as equal to men, but only when it suits them best. At all other times, they want men to protect them. The switch between “independent woman” and “victim” to suit their personal interest at the time.
In fact, they want superiority over men and they call that equality. Then they need to be protected by men when the wolf growls at the door. In addition, they want to make laws to prosecute men are reluctant to put their own lives in danger to protect them.
What a bunch of narcissistic assholes.
If say, I were to come upon a man and a woman entwined in the act of coitus in a back ally or some bushes in a park, the woman moaning or screaming out in either ectasy or pain, I’m not sure if by acting, I’d end up being either a hero or a villian.
So just in case, I’ll keep walking and mind my own business.
If I saw a woman getting raped…like real rape…I would totally try to help her…what about doing the right thing? Its not because youre a man, but because someone is being attacked and fucked against their will….would u not help a child getting raped because the child is female?> wtf
like one time, in ft lauderdale, a sick guy had a kitten on the girll and was poking it with a fork and laughing as the little animal was meowing and crying, and the neighbor, a women, saw what was happening and had a shit fit, she jumped over the fence and rescued the kitty but he had to be put down due to severe burns…i tried to get the guys address cause I was going to firebomb his home, but i was unable to do so…should she not have intervened?> i mean, come on.
There is no moral equivalence here.
The idea that women are like defenceless little kittens is what got us into this stupid mess.
A guy hunting and taking down a grizzly bear is a more appropriate comparison.
I might not be a fan of bear hunting, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to fuck with the guy with the gun, because the odds are that the bear is going to tear my throat out anyway.
Walk on by.
I wasnt likening women to kittens…it was a true story. You can continue to walk on by…thats your choice…but i wont. if somehow not assisting women in anyway regardless of the circumstances makes you feel like youre more of an MRA then run with it.. what if that woman is an MRA…, or just a nice lady taking a walk….there really are some bad people out there…
You need to justify why you think ‘assisting’* specifically women is a specifically male duty.
*Taking 100% risk, i.e. up to the point of death, for the sake of any woman you do not know
Because that assertion is an act of violence against all men.
I take it, she’s talking about women specifically because that’s what everyone else is talking about. Call me a “White Knight” if you want, but I’m not the type of guy to just “walk by” when someone is in danger regardless if it’s a male or female.
It’s personal choice. I’d help someone in danger if I could, but not because of their gender and not because someone else expected me too.
The obligation to help women is wrong. Helping women through personal choice is not wrong.
You need medication.
Anyway since when was rape such a bad thing? Id rather have a red ring for a few days than spend a month in hospital after been mugged.
Ladys just lay back and think happy thoughts, no big deal LOL
EDIT:
This comment, old as it is was just brought to my attention as something which would be deleted by Paul, Dean or myself had we seen it in the current climate. I’m not sure this is the case. It’s certainly a stupid comment, rape is a violent crime. However, as there is not a serious or ongoing pattern from this user to derail discussion in the comments thread, the comment will stand, even as it’s moronic and a clear attempt to be offensive. I trust the readership here are all mature adults and can handle the simple task of paying no attention to an obnoxious utterance.
~JtO
. . the odds are that the bear is going to tear my throat out anyway. . .
Is that ALL that a 1200 lb. Kodiak brown bear with razor-sharp 8-inch claws and the strength of 20 Hulk Hogans is gonna do to you? Mercy sakes, you should be so lucky….
Jumping in late on this one.
I think you should be publicly shamed here for bringing up the kitten story. That is just plain repulsive. You are a sick individual for equating MRAs with kitten-grillers; you are obviously unbalanced for obsessing over this story this way; you are showing flawed and maybe deranged judgment when you say (direct quote!) “i tried to get the guys address cause I was going to firebomb his home”.
And even though you didn’t, in fact, firebomb his home, your violent rhetoric doesn’t belong on this site.
I’m disgusted with you, Giselle. You should be banned from AVFM.
(Guys, how’d I do with the shaming?)
@Giselle,
Let’s take your cat example.
Scenario 1: A cat is being tortured by a MAN, and a WOMAN rescues the cat. Result: man goes to jail, woman is a hero (and cat is saved).
Scenario 2: A cat is being tortured by a WOMAN, and a MAN rescues the cat. Result: woman cries “DV” or “rape”, police beat the man within an inch of his life, man goes to jail, man gets accused of rape, DV, and animal cruelty … nobody even remembers the fucking cat.
Here is why men cannot, must not, defend women: men have no rights of any kind in any situation before any government authority in any nation.
Get it?
Walk away, brother, because if you get involved, you get arrested.
what? How about woman abuses cat, man saves cat and sick bitch goes to jail for cruelty to animals. So basically what you’re saying is that you should fear all women like the feminists teach you that as a woman you should fear all men…bullshit. isnt there anything worth fighting for anymore? I dont get it.
Could part of that be because society does not expect you to do the fighting? As a woman there is no social expectation for you to do anything but BE PROTECTED.
Why do you have an issue with men for deciding to choose whether or not they want to protect strangers?
Is that their choice, or yours?
Well, you’re right Paul, society does not expect me to protect others ( at least not men) because i am a woman and thus smaller than he..in other words, if he cant fight off the attckers how would i be able to do so? But i think that minding your own and pretending nothing was happening, like turning your back on a straving animal is more of a crime than attempting to at least do or say something..anything. i understand the legalities (possible) of this argument, but simply pretending everything is hunky dorey because you dont want to get involved is Bullshit. i still say that the right thing to do, for anyone, is to speak up.
That’s because if a woman intervenes anyone in the environment will probably move to assist or support her and the perpetrator will think twice about harming a woman. However a man never knows when his intervention will lead to a false charge or an attempt on his life.
It’s much easier to be noble when you’re protected by almost all of society.
So you are not equal. I am a small man and I get no pass for that. I have to pass the male standards and I am still doing it as I am on my way to 50.
That’s right, you’re an armchair general.
Men are the main victims of violence in society. It’s easy to be bold and courageous when you’re nearly positive that your attacker is going to take it easy on you.
“I dont get it.”
That much is obvious. Look, you’ve been raised to expect every single male human being to become your personal bodyguard whenever you ‘need’ (want) it. You are a member of the protected caste and have been socialised accordingly.
We, on the other hand, have been raised and socialised as members of the protecting caste. We are expected to throw our bodies on exploding grenades just to ensure you don’t get a nail chipped by the shrapnel.
Is it really so hard to imagine life from that point of view? Hell, half of us have to LIVE that life, it can’t be that difficult for you to IMAGINE it for a moment.
Going deeper down the rabbit hole: we are ALSO told that women are equal – no, better – than men at everything, and that they sure as hell don’t need men, for anything.
Well, the logical conclusion to this is that men are liberated from their role as protector. Because separating men and women into protecting and protected castes doesn’t jive with equality, you dig? … We can’t be equal if one half of us has to expose ourselves to violence to bail out the other half when they make bad choices – or even when they don’t.
Whatever bad is happening to a woman, WORSE will happen to the man who intervenes.
Intervention will increase the amount of violence in the world, and it will be directed against the member of the protected caste – there is always, at least, this risk.
Where things are bad for women, always they are WORSE for men.
Where women are beaten, men are tortured.
Where women are raped, men are killed.
Where women are killed, men are beaten, tortured, raped and killed.
Do you get it yet?
If women are equal, they can and MUST fight their own battles. ALL of them. No man should lift a finger to help.
Now, you have been socialised as a member of the protected class, and you have been deprived of something very special. Having grown up in a society which extends protection to you as it expends males, you are devoid of that quality which develops from personally overcoming struggle. That quality is known as character. You may think that you have overcome many struggles, but I assure you these are trivial in comparison to what men are expected and forced to go through. Men develop character because they live through hardship. Men protect and provide for women, but there is nobody to protect and provide for men. They have to do that for themselves.
The reason you should cheer on male non-intervention is because, when men stop protecting and providing for women, women will have to start protecting and providing for themselves – just as they promise, when they claim to not need men for anything – and then they will develop that most wonderful personal quality, character.
How to identify a woman devoid of character? She is a grown adult who thinks and speaks like a child, utterly dependent on the efforts, the labour, and the disposable status of others. I know plenty like this, including every feminist I’ve ever met or read.
Now i get it. Its so sad though. I once stopped on the highway and pulled over and aksed this BIG fat mexican guy if he needed help cause he had been standing there waving his arms as the cars kept on driving by…he was so thankful and he called his wife on my cell phone to come pick him up…. he also said in spanish, before i drove away”thank you so much, noone else stopped because im a big ugly guy, and i dont have a cell phone and i was wondering how i was going to get in touch with my wife, to let her know i was in trouble”
……..This is all so sad.
Thus showing that of all of the people that drove by the man, one person stopped, and it made a difference for that man. You literally proved nothing through this statement.
Right on the money, Snark, but why do ye cast pearls before swine?
I believe Giselle is here to learn. She has asked questions sincerely. I see no indication that she is a troll/feminist trying to derail.
Fantastic, Snark! Flesh this post out, and it could be an article. We need more articles on the woman-child phenomenon. A lot of people don’t understand that concept.
“If women are equal, they can and MUST fight their own battles. ALL of them. No man should lift a finger to help.”
Does my basic human decency to always help anyone in need make me a slave? Does my dedication to my fellow man make me a puppet in your “gender war” if I help someone who happens to be female?
The idea of male non-intervention as a message or a statement is asinine. Non-intervention is non-intervention, no matter your intent. I am reminded of Edmund Burke, who said “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” The sociological norm of male protecting female is outdated, to be sure, but that is no excuse for not helping others. All people have a duty to help each other, male or female, to the best of their ability. I believe that, and if you think that makes me a sucker or a pawn in your gender war, then that’s fine. But if you ever find yourself in an alley, being set upon by a group of muggers who are beating you senseless, perhaps you would do well to hope that a sucker like me is around.
Finally someone sane. The long and short of this entire argument is, if someone is getting raped/mugged/robbed, you do have an obligation to help if you think you can without endangering your life, regardless of your gender or stature.
Even just from a legal standpoint, not reporting a crime is a crime. Not doing anything to stop someone from getting beat to death can make you an accomplice in some states.
Male or female, rape is a terrible thing. I think many people on this site don’t realize it usually severely scars the victim for life. Some other post to the effect of “Id rather get raped than mugged” shows severe ignorance in the matter, expecting to be back to normal a few weeks later is a pipe dream.
When it comes down to it, if you would protect a man from getting raped, you should protect a woman from getting raped. If you arent willing to help someone in dire need when you can, I personally would not be able to find worth in you, and I’d be amazed if you could find it in yourself.
“If I saw a woman getting raped…like real rape…I would totally try to help her…what about doing the right thing? Its not because youre a man, but because someone is being attacked and fucked against their will…”
At one time I would have,not anymore. One Hannah Rosin article too many,I suppose. I’m just tired of being shamed as an oppressor for doing better than women or shamed as a “child man” when I’m doing worse.
When the reward for helping women is the same as the reward for not helping women,and that “reward” is being treated like scum, where is the incentive for men?
If a woman is standing up for men, I will stand up for HER.If she isn’t, neither I,nor many of these men here will, and I don’t blame them. It’s time for women to practice a little reciprocity.
A child is vulnerable, any child is vulnerable and deserving of adult protection. Also a female child’s thinking is not twisted. They learn that form adult women. We are talking about grown men and women here, not children, although Lara Logan’s behaviour was both childish and foolhardy.
Women want to be equal and they profess they can do anything a man could do, so go protect yourself and have fun with it. This woman to risk walking into or being near a volatile dangerous situation deserves to be rebuked for her blatant stupidity.
How stupid can you get walking into the lion’s den then complaining because you got clawed?
In other words, if she gets raped, “She asked for it?” What about all the men who have had violence perpetrated against them? Did they “ask for it,” too? What kind of sick, twisted thinking is this?
Looks like you’re on the right page.
“In other words, if she gets raped, “She asked for it?” What about all the men who have had violence perpetrated against them? Did they “ask for it,” too? What kind of sick, twisted thinking is this?”
Definition of NON SEQUITUR
1
: an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2
: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said
Thanks, but I do know what a non-sequitur is. I just don’t agree with your assessment of my comment. I was addressing Attila’s implication that women are raped because they “walk into the lion’s den.” There are many myths about rape, and this is an area I do know something about because my father is a police officer and I was attached to an MP unit in the Army. The stereotype of the woman being raped who walked down a dark alley in the middle of the night in high heels and a mini-skirt (the “Lion’s den”) just doesn’t fit with most real-life experiences, not that it never happens that way. Rapists are also not usually boogie men that jump out of the bushes waiting to grab any woman that comes along. Most women who are raped are raped by someone they know and felt they had every reason to trust. Attila’s comment implied they wouldn’t have been raped if they didn’t put themselves in danger just doesn’t align with most women’s experiences and just places blame on the victim. This applies to men, too, and I’ve known men who were victims of Military Sexual Trauma, same as women.
“what about doing the right thing?”
I’ve never heard of a woman saving a man from rape. And women hear about men getting raped in prison all the time and just laugh. I won’t ever save a woman from rape because she wouldn’t do the same for me.
Why do women always compare themselves to children? Children deserve help, women do not.
Barbarossaaaa
With all of the destructive repressive actions taken toward and leveled upon men and boys under the banner of ‘feminism’ and ‘women’s equality’, it’s understandable that there would be a few men who would refuse to aid a female in need. The reasoning might be, “Even though women aren’t in any imminent physical danger themselves why aren’t they voluntarily helping who aren’t as well”? Yes, why indeed?
I’d propose that there are some women sympathetic and helpful to men in some ways but my perception is that the majority don’t. And I believe that some print space has been devoted in men’s blogs discussing the reasons why this is so. Essentially, age old custom, for starters.
I, too, have thought about your position – not assisting females under direct physical threat. As much as the entitlement attitude that many gals exhibit may bother any one of us it is still difficult to determine whether a beating, leveled upon a female, something that men receive for stupid behavior, is deserved or not.
And I do wish to see all females rounded up, identified and soundly penalized for their contribution to advancing and profitting from the fraudulence that feminism contributed to the world.
There are places in the western world, France I believe, where it is a criminal offense to not aid someone in need and/or prevent a crime from occuring. Again, it looks like a “law” aimed more directly at men, those having the strength to physically intervene. This ‘law’ may become enacted in N.America if some female, any one will do, is refused aid. The mania for females is already present. All it takes is for one of those self-interested creatures to propose such a similar measure here.
I would at least phone the police or offer first aid, but I wouldn’t put my personal safety at risk for a stranger.
Who are these white knights claiming to be MRAs?
At least you would phone the police or offer first aid. That’s the least any of us should do, in my opinion, for our fellow human beings. As someone else has already pointed out, doing nothing makes you an accessory to a crime. I could be wrong, but I don’t think anyone here is offended by someone calling the police or offering first aid after the fact rather than physically intervening; after all, he could end up getting ambushed himself if the perp has buddies nearby. I think what is offensive is that some are saying they would do *nothing*…literally, walk away.
“I think what is offensive is that some are saying they would do *nothing*…literally, walk away.”
If you think that’s offensive,wait until you find out what 95% of women would do if they witnessed another woman removing your penis with a serrated kitchen knife for no reason.
gissele said
“would u not help a child getting raped because the child is female?> wtf”
this sentence is either a subconscious or deliberate equation of adult females to children.
once again, women have all the reasoning capacity of a full grown adult human being. children are incapable of defending themselves, which is why we punish pedophiles so severely.
however in an age where the female collective is spewing out a cacophony of victory speeches all hinting at “the end of men”, they should now defend themselves from danger.
speaking of children keep in mind that it is the very feminists marxists machine that would make a man think twice about helping children in need for fear of being branded a pedophile. when society thinks its okay to separate men from children on airlines, then it sends a clear message, and it is now time for men to send a clear one right back.
aaarghh! I KNOW that women are NOT children….I am not a feminist. I dont view men as inherently evil or as having rapist tendencies. I dont dislike men, I LOVE THEM…I still have alot of questions that have not yet been answered and when I post them here all i usually get is an avalanche of thumbs down…answer my questions, cause I assure you that they are coming from a sincere and unbiased base. If I dont have an answer, ill keep asking. I am not a feminist or a misandrist…geez I love men. I really do..shit!
Do you love men as human beings, or as instruments put to use for the benefit of females?
How do you feel about the man who is of no benefit whatsoever to women?
I love men for the qualities that they have that most women do not. yes i love men for the human beings they are. their creative masculine spirit . i really love you. not because you’re hot, but because you’re so awesome. Of course there are those of the male gender who are pieces of dookie, but the vast majority of men are actually very good people My love for men stems from respect for them, an admiration if you will of their history.
As for a man who is of no benefit whatsoever to a woman….what does that mean? Like an MRA? someone who wont be taken advantage of in any way whatsoever by a predatory female? i applaud them. I dont need to want to get into someones pants to like them. And to be honest with you, the vast majority of the human race is of no concern to me…But I do give credit where credit is due…and i love you guys…does this kind of answer your question?
I think he means could you love a man who has no status or material resources, (car, money etc.).
She would try to “improve” him.
I’m not so sure about that, I don’t think Giselle is a quasi/pseudo/crypto-feminist. I think she’s being honest here. I asked the question and I got a reasonable answer.
“”I think he means could you love a man who has no status or material resources, (car, money etc.).”"
I think that’s like asking a guy “would you love your girlfriend if she was ugly”.
Status for men is what looks are for women. Its pretty much biology. Asking women to give up their attraction to status, is like asking men to give up their attraction to looks.
Except that in my experience, I’ve seen the latter occur more often than the former.
It does. Thanks for the answer.
Many times online I’ve seen women who supposedly ‘love men’ but actually only appreciate what men can DO for them – i.e. what they are ‘in love’ with is male utility, and once a man stops being of use to them, they complain and shame and so on.
From your answer, it seems you are not one of THEM. Good thing too!
You don’t love men. Your monopolisation of a blog space for where men find sanctuary, for no other reason than to satisfy yourself, is absolute proof of that. Read this post by Hestia on The Spearhead Forum and learn from your so much betters.
http://www.the-spearhead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1031#p11814
Absolutely true. If she wishes to learn let her read, but it does seem she craves attention more than wisdom.
It’s sometimes difficult to distinguish between an attack on one’s ideas and an attack on one’s person. Most of the men who post here are contributing for very good reasons based on past experiences. I am happy that you are here asking questions. Also, I’m sorry to say, however, that sometimes you’ll be a target of convenience. Sometimes it’s good to start email conversations on the side with people who are receptive to legitimate questions and concerns who won’t take your head off or view your questions as baiting. Hang in there.
Tom, if you’re so concerned about her ‘education’ and her feelings, put your money where your mouth is and YOU take her in hand and answer her questions off-site.
If you love men then prove it by organizing to demand that the government start prosecuting WOMEN for false accusations of abuse in divorce cases and for false rape.
That means you need to read more and post less.
Not an uncommon problem.
@Barbarossaaaa:
To my mind, a white knight is a chivalrous male who has some sort of leverage — in elected office for example — and who imposes unjust burdens on other men under the pretext that he personally is protecting or saving women in the process. In truth, such a male is only attempting to glorify himself in the minds of women.
In my opinion one defining aspect of manhood is to follow one’s own independent judgment, and not be swayed by external validation or fear of social alienation. And so I chafe when someone tells me, “We’re in a gender war! Do as I say, or else you’re no MRA!” Am I supposed to cast aside my own personal independent judgment and become your little foot soldier, out of some allegiance to a nebulous war? Am I a lemming that I should reject military conscription, but somehow embrace social coercion to be a soldier in your pet cause, embracing all of your standards and definitions? No. I am a man, and I’ll follow my own judgment, thank you very much.
Also, in terms of what defines a men’s rights activist, I’ll state this: a men’s rights activist fights to get the coercion of the government out of the way, so that men can once again set and live according to their own standards, rather than the standards that are set by lawyers, judges, politicians and their lackeys. Being an MRA is primarily about changing the law. If you seek to change the culture as the means to the end of changing the law, then by all means do so. If you prefer a more direct route and want to be engaged politically (or fund an operation that is so engaged), then by all means do so. This is what it means to be an MRA. But the goal of a genuine MRA is to change the law. If changing the law is not ultimately your goal, then in my opinion it is *you* who aren’t a genuine Men’s Rights Advocate.
As far as whether I would physically intervene to stop the rape of a female rape victim, or whether I would so intervene to save a male victim, or whether I would dial 911 on my cell phone, or whether I would scream “fire” or “stop” or whatever, THAT’S MY CALL, end of story.
@ john
nobody asked you to be a “foot soldier” at no point did i ask you or anybody to “Do as I say, or else you’re no MRA!”, however i do have a very different vision for mens rights than you do.
“Being an MRA is primarily about changing the law. If you seek to change the culture as the means to the end of changing the law, then by all means do so. If you prefer a more direct route and want to be engaged politically (or fund an operation that is so engaged), then by all means do so.”
so you basically just told me not to tell you how to be an MRA, and then you proceeded to recommended your ideas about how to be an MRA. not only that but you implied that funding a political initiative is a viable option, which is laughable.
i fully suggests that you as a man follow your own judgement even if that judgement lines the coffers of some corner of the defunct political infrastructure that has given up on men altogether. but i will do the exact same thing by REACTING to the society i am in a way that withholds benefits to women.
you say
“In my opinion one defining aspect of manhood is to follow one’s own independent judgment, and not be swayed by external validation or fear of social alienation. And so I chafe when someone tells me, “We’re in a gender war! Do as I say, or else you’re no MRA!””
i partly agree with this statement in that, every man should follow their own independent judgement to to imply that we should hold to certain individual “principles” that do harm to men is madness. change our principles based on what changes within society all the time. It was once considered honorable to get married and raise a family, but society changed feminism happened and so men have been FORCED to change their principles based on what society forced on MEN.
“If changing the law is not ultimately your goal, then in my opinion it is *you* who aren’t a genuine Men’s Rights Advocate.”
IMHO, the way to change the political and legal climate is to use multiple methods. One might be the legal route. Trying in today’s climate to make positive change for men is um difficult. Rather, I prefer to take a more indirect route by advocating for men to ghost in their support of women, government, and society. I don’t want to be treated as a provider-protector object.
John,
You made some good points but…
“Once again”, when did that happen before? Men’s rights will be something new.
Just stumbled this one of Barbarossaaaa’s vids.
Is this ‘anikinippon’ the guy ‘Sarge’ who called in to AVfM radio?
Ah, shit, sorry – Brain fart again! Damn!
Ignore what I just siad.
I just checked his channel (which I remember seeing before) – anikinippon (“barry”) did call the show, I think he was the third caller.
Anyway, sorry and ignore my previous post. *shakes head*
Someone said the opposite of white-knight..a zeta…would be a dark-knight?
I like..
We are indeed working in the shadows, fighting for the justice that can’t be achieved through normal means.
So…you’re going to become…Batman???
That kinda what I was hinting at. 8)
Hell with that….I’m the fuckin Joker!
‘Add a little anarchy…”
“Someone said the opposite of white-knight..a zeta…would be a dark-knight? ”
The opposite of a white knight would be a guy going his own way. A dark-knight is still a knight and focused on women. Whereas as the white-knight bases his life around pleasing women, the dark knight bases his life on hurting women.
The MGTOW however says “mmm, I’m going my own way
”
Remember… The opposite of love is not hate. The opposite of love is indifference.
well,,,true that’s why I’d rather be the Joker. Consider Ledger’s version of him. He was outside of the loop.
“… unless she was a member of my family”.
That is the deal. In the first place, I would not allow a female member of my family to be placed in a situation where she may get raped. If a stupid female places herself in a rape vulnerable position, it is my position that it is her fault for doing so.
While the state has taken responsibility for her welfare in so many realms (child support, alimnony, DV etc etc), why should nt the MRAs let the state take responsibility for protecting her from “rape” as well. As an individual male, one already has enough to defend oneself against from the state’s brutality, why invite brutality from an arbitrary stranger to help another arbitrary stranger.
So, is it also a man’s fault if he is attacked, for putting himself in a vulnerable position? What kind of sick society have we become?
Perfectly articulated article – one of the best I have read on this (or any other) site.
@Lead article.
“We will not give economic opportunities to women we will not hire them to any jobs. We will reserve that position for a qualified and competent man to combat discriminatory affirmative action laws against men.”
I vowed a long time ago that – “whenever I can possbly avoid it I will never provide business for, or do business with a woman”.
I stringently stick to this in every aspect of my life – from getting my hair cut to, just recently, taking my dog to a vet. If a man is available – he gets my custom. No questions asked.
This form of everyday, ‘on the ground’, pro-male activism is far more important than closing the shutters down on largely fringe and occasional “to the rescue of Maid Marion from physical threat or inconvenience” scenarios.
Well why not?
Many professional women in positions of authority, that may or may not call themselves feminists, do the same thing.
It is interesting, John. I find myself agreeing with aspects from both of you. I certainly don’t think there is any individual that can define what an MRA is any more than one can define what manhood is for anyone else. But I also note that this is precisely what you are doing in the following:
I respect your right to your opinion about this, and the definition has its merits, but I honestly find less merit in it than I find in Barbarossaaaa’s.
Speaking for myself, while there is certainly a lot of laws that need to change, being an MRA is much more about how men operate in relation to women. For instance, if I don’t define myself as a provider and subsequently find myself someone to tie myself to providing for through a marriage contract, then I have to worry a lot less about those laws than if I took the “expected” path.
To me, the social expectations of men generally lead to a lot more misery for them, even as bad as the laws are. And while I don’t have a problem if you want to step in and face bullets for strangers, I have a serious problem with anyone else expecting me to.
Much of the MRM, in my opinion, is about bucking the expectations of women and white knights. That is why I enjoyed the OP so much. It totally puts a middle finger in the face of anyone who doesn’t like it.
On a personal level, I think white knights are fools, but I would never instruct the foolish away from their foolishness. If they think putting their own future and/or that of their families at risk to feel like honorable men on behalf of a stranger that by average odds would walk past them bleeding on the street, who am I to argue?
And that is my call.
my apologies for the typos in my last comment, it makes it hard to understand, i typed it by phone.
If I saw a man or woman being beaten or threatened with a weapon, I would take action regardless of the circumstances. Actions could range from calling the police to physically intervening. However if I saw a man and woman in a sexual act and he wasn’t beating her or holding a knife to her throat, I wouldn’t do anything (even if I heard her telling him to stop.) Rape does minimal physical damage and ranks below simple assault, in my opinion. So no, I wouldn’t get involved.
I think if the victim of any sexual assault is (1) a child or (2) fighting for him/herself, I would help.
If the victim is an adult who either does not care or is too afraid of injury to fight back, then why would I risk injury to fight for them?
well, in that case, i wouldnt intervene either. I was talking about obvious rape…like i mentioned before, punching the person, choking them, knives, etc… then yeah i would totally make a scene and call the cops, unless, of course i had my gun on me, in which case it’s game over for the savage.
Regarding defending the innocent, all people, women and men, must make this decision for themselves. Men resent that they are expected to do so, receive no credit when they do, and are shamed when they do not.
Regarding your MRM participation, I for one greatly appreciate your support. To fight for one’s own freedom is a noble thing. To fight for the freedom of another is both noble and generous.
I think that rape, aside from sadistic hardcore rape is made to be a much bigger event than it actually is. The crisis workers, the family members will tellmthe victim that her life is runined and that she should expect to be traumatized long term over what has occured to her. If anyone here is an avud reader, i strongly suggest an author by the name of Jim Goad. He told a true story of one of his friends who was in jail for a few days and on one of those afternoons, was both anally and orally raped by over 45 inmates. One day…45 rapes. one man. noone helped him, noone wrote an articale about his nightmarish and surely painful ordeal…. as jim Goad put it, rape is forced fucking that bottom line. Now, if it happens to a child, or is particularly violent, the emphasis should not be on the sex act, but on everything else that occured…i.e. ted bundy was not executed because he raped girls, he was executed because he fucking bashed their heads in and but off chunks of their flesh. baby brianna, a 4 month old baby was raped by her father and uncle and then died from blunt trauma to the head…thats some serious trauma right there. When I was 21, a guy tried to rape me, but i fought back and screamed bloody murder, he shoved his fingers into my panties and made me bleed for a few days, but i got over it in about 12 hours, its really not that big a deal…..read jim goads book, shit magnet and redneck manifesto.
remember the scene from once upon a time in the west when the ex hooker from new orleans tells henry fonda that he can go ahead and rape her and call in his boys as well, and once he leaves a pot of boiling water and a bar of soap will make her just the way she was before he showed up……bad ass. Thats how you deal with it…i think.
Are you sure you’re a female?
Giselle has excellent taste in writers. Jim Goad’s “Shit Magnet” is an excellent account of how men and women are treated differently in the DV situation. His publication “ANSWER Me! #4,” which deals with rape and radical feminism, was at the center of an obcenity trial.
So, you successfully fought off your attacker. Good for you! However, for those who haven’t, the psychological effects can be much more devastating than what you experienced, unfortunately. I hope you never have to learn this first-hand.
Too bad AVFM doesn’t make “This is what a mangina looks like” t-shirts, you could be the model.
You do realize that it’s pretty much assumed by honest clear-thinking individuals acting in good faith that any particular person you are speaking to thinks rape is an abhorrent crime. Yeah, you don’t have to go around trying to prove how anti-rape you are because just about EVERYONE is anti-rape.
Doubling down on it like you are is like being ultra proud of your bipedalism. Sure you walk on two feet, so does everyone else.
Mangina=”man with a female-centric worldview.” Sexual assault and rape are NOT just female issues, if you didn’t know. As I said in another post, when I served as an MP on active duty, we saw a lot of soldiers who had suffered Military Sexual Trauma (MST), both men and women. Although it was most prevalent for female soldiers, male soldiers who experience MST have the highest prevalence rate for PTSD, at 65%. Actually, the source I quoted is from 2008, and documented cases of PTSD from MST have increased since then. So, yes, it does have severe psychological effects, especially when you add multiple traumas, and yes, this is an issue that concerns men. It must be nice for you to be so sheltered away from this harsh reality, though. There have been numerous news articles written about MST if you’ve been paying attention. So, perhaps you might want to read something that has to do with more than your own little corner of the universe before embarrassing yourself again by posting such drivel. Source: http://www.ok.ngb.army.mil/j1/sarc/sarc_documents/Training/NGB_UVA_SARC_Training/Handouts/Galbreath_Street_Psychological_Trauma_of_Sexual_Assault_in_the_Military.pdf
Better yet, instead of saying you’re concerned about sexual assault and rape, and that you care about men, why not demonstrate this by giving back to the men who have really sacrificed and put themselves in harms way by volunteering at your local VA?
No argument here and that is my call
Honestly, I want a world where people do the right thing and help those being obviously victimized. I want a world where people are willing to intervene where someone is obviously being brutally assaulted
The problem is that men are expected to selflessly protect female strangers and women aren’t expected to lift a finger for men (well maybe a mother is expected to protect her children).
Could this issue being attacked from another angle? Say a guy gets beat up outside a bar. Could the girlfriend who stood around and did nothing be shamed and called out on her cowardice? Tell her, “If you were being beaten up you’d expect your boyfriend to help you. Why don’t you do the same for him?”
Just wanted to correct a flaw. It doesn’t even have to be girlfriends – that’s just a start. Female strangers should be called out for not helping male victims.
Nearly all of the YouTube videos showing men being attacked and beaten on the street are video taped from cell phones in the hands of female spectators. When a man is attacked on the street, or a cop is in a struggle with a suspect, for that matter, women reach for their phones. But it is not to call for help. It is to stand in mockery and pretend to be Steven Spielberg.
So true. YouTube removes posts that have anything to do with violence against women, but when it’s men being attacked, presumably it’s just entertainment. It’s fucked up.
Thye do it on sitcoms on a nightly basis…all the men are portrayed as sniveling turds and babbling idiots….big strong babies with deep voices and the social skills of a 5 year old.the women of course are portrayed as super classy, brilliant, gorgeous and in control of these buffoons..thats just one of the many reasons i threw away my TV.
LOL..i’d jump on the guys back and gouge his eyes out for my honey…some women just dont have any balls. No pun intended.
Barbarosa,
That was a great article.
“Most women are feminists by association and approval of feminist doctrine. They are feminists by proxy and any MRA that says otherwise has failed miserably at understanding the true nature of feminism.”
– So true even when they claim they are not feminists.
“Any true tactician will identify that as a chink in the armor and withhold that defense.”
– If the USA breaks apart in the future and suddenly gets filled in with troops from Mexico, China, and Russia, I’m not going to defend women. Same goes for anarchy following a social-economic collapse.
“IF you’re an MRA, act like one. Identify with us and our needs, not feminists and not women. Once again women have acted against men as a collective for the better part of sixty years. They willingly chose to attack men.”
– At best, a few women are a non-friend to men. The majority are the enemy directly or indirectly.
“A group of people that insist on the defense of another group of people that have attacked them mercilessly for decades is not acting honorably – it is acting stupidly.”
– Truth. Enough said.
I would help someone if I can – male or female. To me it has nothing to do with chivalry and everything to do with compassion.
I won’t let the feminists or the chivalrists get me to give that up just because they’re making unfair demands.
The other reason is that I could not live with myself knowing that I could have prevented an atrocity but consciously chose not to. Especially not if it’s only for political reasons. Yep. I would even help if I knew it the victims was a raging feminist. Perhaps especially then because that might help them open up to my views on discrimination against men.
Most of all, because I want this world to be a better place and that can only happen if people help each other and fight atrocities.
“I would even help if I knew it the victims was a raging feminist. Perhaps especially then because that might help them open up to my views on discrimination against men.”
Help them if you like, but this will not happen. I guarantee it.
What will not happen? The radical feminist having a change of heart? Yeah, probably, but then I can at least rub it in a la “If it wasn’t for me you’d be dead”.
Definitely worth it!
Hm, all things considered I think I prefer “if it was someone else you might still be alive.”
I believe in compassion and might help an average male, but the gender that when given political and legal influence saw it within their purview to castigate my humanity in the most obnoxious terms, AND who might falsely charge me if I intervene? I have to draw the line personally and say no.
The sex war is the only war in history in which one side – in fact, the side which declared the war – has stamped its feet and cried that enemy forces must have an obligation to be chivalrous towards them and protect them from harm.
@Paul:
“I certainly don’t think there is any individual that can define what an MRA is…”
Words do have objective meanings. Words get their objective meanings from social consensus, and so at any snapshot moment in time there does exist an objective meaning for any word, insofar as consensus is concerned. And so at this particular moment, there is indeed a socially perceived definition for the word (or term) “MRA,” as there is for the term “manhood.” A sociopolitical movement can exert influence over the social consensus for a word’s definition, and so it’s both relevant and important that any social movement collectively define its lexicon.
My original point stands, and you seem to have agreed with it, namely that no one individual can solely define the socially perceived meaning of a word. But where I take issue with Barbarossaaaa — the author of this post — is when he makes a statement of his own individual opinion about the meaning of the term “MRA” and seems to conflate that subjective definition into the realm of fact, as though his definition has already attained the level of linguistic social consensus. It hasn’t. It’s completely implausible to state that there currently is a general consensus (even within the men’s rights movement) that being an “MRA” must somehow preclude any rescue of a female rape victim by any self-professing MRA. There is no consensus behind that definition, and if you disagree with me on that, then I challenge you to prove it because it is not self-evident. As far as my definition of “MRA,” however — a person who pushes for political change for the benefit of males — there is far more consensus on that definition, and not just in the men’s rights movement.
The meaning of a word depends on language, and language is a phenomenon based on perceptual consensus. I’m quite certain that my definition of MRA as one who seeks political outcomes is more widely used, than the definition used by Barbarossaaaa as one who manifestly refuses to rescue rape victims. If you or Barbarossaaaa seek to influence the consensus definition, then you should come right out and admit that, while conceding that your definition is not currently the consensus.
Like w both said, John. We are not far off from the same perspective. I just wanted to point out that he was no more guilty of telling everyone what an MRA really is than you.
But in this post I would argue that there is at least anecdotal evidence that his definition is likely more widely accepted than yours.
But trying to prove that either way won’t result in anything but a pissing match. I support his take on matters, and will echo them as far as I can.
I will be less likely to deliver it in such absolutes, but I agree with it nonetheless.
I carry a concealed weapon. The way the law works is that if say a man is raping a woman and I have to shoot him to protect her from him…I’M AT FAULT…because I was not using the weapon to defend myself or someone known to me. Now would I be charged and prosecuted. Probably not. But the rapist would have a civil case against me; and if he’s black and I’m white, he’d have the NAACP and an army of free legal help.
By legal definition. If I shoot him, hit him over the head with a brick…whatever I do, it has to be in MY DEFENSE ONLY. He would have had to turn around and attack me instead of her. Is that really what you want? Do what cops do on their way for donuts, just pretend you didn’t see it. She needs to learn to protect herself, not walk around town late at night in a short dress.
The safest place for a woman is with a man.
Don’t forget though, that most Police forces don’t like citizens usurping their authority by acting themselves. I’ve heard Police say that the perception of their power is more important than a citizen’s right to defend themselves.
So they might convict you if you do anything other than inaction and that includes self defense.
@Barbarossaaaa:
“you implied that funding a political initiative is a viable option, which is laughable.”
What’s laughable is for you to make the above statement, on this Web site — A Voice for Men — literally only hours after Paul just made a radio broadcast in which he publicly urged his listeners to support and even donate money to a political action group known as SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments); this group does political lobbying at the federal level to challenge unjust anti-male policies in legislation, usually pertaining to domestic violence policy.
So when you say that the above appeal is “laughable” — an appeal made by Paul Elam, who permitted your article to be posted here — you’re really only stating that it is subjectively “laughable,” i.e. laughable *to you.* What is OBJECTIVELY a fact, however, is that the men’s rights movement collectively values the work that SAVE is doing, which leaves your perspective in the minority. It would be laughable if you thought that the collective MRM agrees with your nihilistic, cynical perspective; in fact, they disagree with it.
I agree with Paul most of the time, but he was only being polite to SAVE. And yes, it is laughable to contribute money to a lobbying group IF you are in the position of men in the MRM (i.e. not already rolling around in politically obtained money). It is a evil chain reaction and it has not been occuring yet for men. Also, SAVE will not have a chance to do anything if it took positions as Paul does (let them try.. seriously!).
Always remember and know that your enemies have far more money poured in to (and coming out of) the political game. Its not nihilistic, just realistic.
Again, there are many on this board that would disagree with me and barbarossa and a few others, but the political route at this point in time is laughably naive. It is not the volume of money that will get your voice any weight, but votes and voices.. really loud voices before the vote and after it. MRAs, if any, at SAVE have a lot to learn from the Tea Party folks in that tiny area.
John said
“laughable *to you.* ”
yes in regards to the politics angle i can certainly agree that this is my perspective and that on this point many MRA’s might disagree, fair enough.
but when you say
“that being an “MRA” must somehow preclude any rescue of a female rape victim by any self-professing MRA.”
you are being dishonest here in that you are implying that this article is simply saying that a prerequisite for being an MRA is not saving a woman from rape.
it is saying in the broader sense that one of the most damaging mindsets found in the MRM is the tendency to uphold protections for females, that men and men only are expected to provide in this society.
to imply that this article is simply about what a MRA should do when confronted with the situation of a woman being raped, is a manipulation of my words.
the article addresses the indisputable fact that men protect women from rape while the male gender is simultaneously and unjustly being characterized by the act of rape.
ask yourself. if there where not a system in place where a woman can press three buttons on her phone, and say that she is being raped (immediately prompting several large and armed men to rush to her aid wherever she may be) do you think that rape would be preventable to the degree that it is today?
since random men on the street feel it necessary to spring into action at the mere sight of a woman under the threat of violence even if they dont even know her, essentialy providing an unofficial body guard service wherever women go, do you think that rape would be preventable to the degree that it is today?
so it is then safe to say that men are doing all the work of protecting women no?
with that said do you think if men refused to protect women from rape that other women would then take up the task and actually (gasp) protect themselves?
well the answer might never be answered because men insist on protecting women dont they?
and so you deem it “nihilistic and cynical” that i would dare appeal to other MRA’s to stop participating in the defense of women. Does the fact that i dont quite say it the way you think it should be said change the fact that men are still burdened with the responsibility of protecting a socio-economic class that is in direct competition with men?
if i where to say “men dont support affirmative action for women, as MRA’s we should refuse to hire women etc.” and then if you see a man loudly proclaiming that we have to help women close the wage gap etc. would i be imposing my “nihilistic” agenda on other MRA’s who decide to support this measure by calling them whiteknights?
so this basically amounts to you telling me i cannot define what being an MRA is followed by you saying what amounts to (more MRA’s share my opinions so i can define it blah blah blah)
“the men’s rights movement collectively values the work that SAVE is doing, which leaves your perspective in the minority.”
you act as if the amount of MRA’s who have said “fuck it” to the entire corrupt political infrastructure is some miniscule minority. how many MGTOW are lining up to donate to political causes? my guess would be very few, my guess would be that if anything they are much more likely to donate to AVFM then to S.A.V.E.. the amount of men in the MRM that view this more as an apolitical movement that will (when necessary/possible) dabble in changing laws might be smaller than your supposed majority, but IMO its certainly close to the amount of men that think pursuing legal change is a viable alternative for men.
I respect Paul because there is commonality between us, we both wish to see equality for men, and how he chooses to pursue this is his choice, but i have made up my mind a long time ago that voting with your feet, by not participating in any political fundraising is ideal. and i can assure you that many other MRA’s have made this decision as well
@ barbarossaaa:
It seems to me that you’re more accurately defined as a MGHOW than a MRA. If so, then it would behoove you to make that clear when you make statements that have the potential to define and influence the legitimacy and impact of the MRM. MGTOW aren’t necessarily MRAs.
As far as I am concerned they are. MGTOW is part of the MRA paradigm.
@ john
i think it would behoove you to explain what exactly was the point of your rant?
we can agree that men are the sole protectors of women in this society.
we can agree that men are unfairly treated as default rapists, and labeled as inherently violent.
so sure its “your call” to defend a woman from violence but you have yet to explain how doing so would help to challenge the expectations of women, that have cultivated a line of thought in which they feel they are entitled to have average everyday men step in between them and a psychopath capable of rape (probably murder as well)
why exactly would you take issue with this?
explain it to me instead of asking me to validate to you what particular flavor of MRA i am
we can agree that expecting men to be obligated to protect women, when doing so can get them killed is a targeted act of violence against men, since no such social pressures are exerted onto women.
lets play the switch the genders game
do you believe that women would be willing to defend men if our society expected it of them whilst proclaiming that they are naturally violent?
if your answer is no then do you believe that men should provide this defense to women anyway?
so explain to me why “your call” wouldn’t be in line with my reasoning on the subject
@Sir Oliver of Zeta:
1. MGTOW are not necessarily part of the MRA sphere. The early articulators of the MGTOW philosophy made it very clear that MGTOW is a social phenomenon of men all around the world individually rejecting the expectations that others would thrust upon them and instead go their own way. Those men may never have heard of “MGTOW,” the MRM or MRAs. They just go their own way. They may have no loyalty to the agenda of the MRM at all, nor any awareness of men’s issues. But they are going their own way. That’s what MGTOW is. The founders of the MGTOW philosophy, Meikyo and Ragnar, created a manifesto 7 years ago which articulate what the who MGTOW phenomenon is about. Zenpriest is a luminary among MGTOW, and he has very clearly said that MGTOW is absolutely not a movement. So if you want to muse about what MGTOW is and what it represents, it would be in your interest if you knew the history of it.
@Barbarossaaa:
“[John Dias,] it’s ‘your call’ to defend a woman from violence but you have yet to explain how doing so would help to challenge the expectations of women”
If I chose to rescue (or attempt to rescue) a particular woman from a rapist, it would not be a political act. I would do it because I cared about a fellow individual human being. Whether or not there was a consequential political dividend “for the cause” would be irrelevant to me. I probably wouldn’t want to go through the rest of my life knowing that I witnessed human suffering, had the ability and power to do something about it without compromising my own values and priorities, and still ended up doing nothing. The men’s movement is extremely important to me; I’ve been involved in it for 5 years now and have given an enormous amount to it. But it’s not my religion, nor does it embody my moral values. It’s just a vehicle through which I hope to highlight and combat government-inflicted injustices that threaten me, my family, and society at large.
I’m amazed how some people, apparently including yourself, can just shut off their moral compass and instead be completely guided by ideology. What if I saw a man suffering on the street, for example, getting stabbed by a mugger? It’s quite possible that if I were to rescue him, he would be ungrateful after the fact, and may even accuse me of being the mugger! And if I were to intervene on behalf of a woman who was being raped, it’s possible that she could later accuse me of being a rapist. But it’s also possible that any persons who I help might appreciate how I helped them, and they themselves could go on to have empathy somehow for someone else. Like I said, it’s my call to take on that risk or not. But if I did ignore someone’s suffering, then I wouldn’t subsequently expect that decision to be some sort of profound political statement that would “raise consciousness” in the public mind about the injustice of chivalrist expectations nor would I expect my non-action to somehow “take a bite out of misandry.”
Ideology — especially collectivist ideology — is a dangerous animal. It has motivated people throughout history to perpetrate or to morally justify some of the most heinous atrocities known to mankind. Blind ideology (especially when combined with seething resentment) can easily suppress individual moral judgment, and it can turn people into automatons who unwittingly do the bidding of whatever spokesperson can most effectively articulate that ideology. And so this idea that I must let a particular woman suffer — “for the cause” — is just flat-out bizarre to me. I’m not saying that any man should be obligated to rescue a stranger, but neither should he be shamed out of doing so either.
My religion commands me to “rescue those who are being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.” I am also commanded, “Do not withhold good from those who deserve it, when it is in your power to act.” The second most important command in my entire religion requires me to “love your neighbor as yourself.” Do you see how completely reasonable it would be, then, for me to deviate from your expectations as a means of following my own moral judgment?
You may not embrace these ideals, but what I’m trying to say is that it is perfectly reasonable for me to do so, and I am absolutely not trying to obligate anyone else to follow my ideals either. I’m just standing up for what I believe in, and demonstrating that in my mind there really is a legitimate reason for me to believe this way. In the next life, I believe that I am going to be judged for it, and so in a sense, I am doing something for myself if I follow the aforementioned commands. If you’ve ever read the Bible, you may be familiar with the following passage (Matthew 25:31-46):
31“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Reeeaally think you oughtta keep the bible-thumping and preaching out of this John. I really do.
I was asked to give my reasons, and I obliged. I won’t be shamed by you, either.
You’re right, I apologize.
Thank you… That was a nice gesture. I don’t see that kind of disposition too often in the blogosphere.
I am of the opinion that although we perhaps do not need to sing koombaya together..as men fighting a common enemy we should do as little fighting as possible.
Also note that the Bible verses were directed at Barbarossa, and Barbarossa is a defender of Christianity.
So it was a semi-private discussion between two strong Christians, not a public “preaching”.
I’m MGTOW and am definitely part of the MRM.
Same here. And John, I am aware of who Rangar is to some extent. I do know he and Meikyo pretty much made MGTOW popular (the term). You are correct that I do not know the whole history of it. I look merely at whatn it means, men..going their own way. Which is essentially what every MRA starts out doing. I doubt too many MGTOWs and MRAs will disagree with how men should interact with women at this point in time. How we should no longer be protectors and providers and so on. So when I meet a fellow who describes himself as a MGHOW , I see him as an asset and benefit to the MRM.
I agree, learning more of the history would behoove me. Doubt it would change my view much.
whats MGTOW?
men….going…their…own….way
More specifically, MGTOW is the societal trend are deciding to “tune out” of society’s expectations.
They are deciding that the expectations society thrusts upon them are “not worth the effort”. Most often they give up on marriage, relationships with women, and often if sex isn’t easily obtainable, they even give up on trying to score.
They throw away most of the expectations that society has for a man, and they’re immune to shaming tactics such as “grow up and be a real man” or the label “loser”.
The funny thing is most of it is unconcious and its happening all over the world. Men didn’t sit down in some room and decide to protest mistreatment from women and society. They didn’t decide collectively to protest the male gender role… They just somehow, just do it.
In japan as much 60% of men are MGTOW. They are not interested in women, not interested in having a family and perfectly fine playing video games all day. They have given up any notions of “growing up” or slaving away at un-fulfilling careers as a way attract women. A huge percentage of the population is virgins, and most are single and celibate. In fact, as much as 1/3 of the population has never had a girlfriend or a relationship.
Japan is leading the way, but this trend is exploding all over the world. Some do it consciously and have conscious names for this trend, some don’t… but its an increasing phenomenon that shows no signs of slowing down.
Here’s an article on it:
http://aleknovy.com/2010/01/17/why-men-are-increasingly-prefering-videos-games-over-dating-mating-and-courtship
Alek you wrote this? This is great!
Thank you kind sir
You are so right about that, it’s as though this MGTOW mentallity is part of male evolution…..oops wait we men don’t evolve we are apes and neanderthals. Heh.
Speaking of which:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/science/14gene.html
http://www.sciencecheerleader.com/2010/01/men-evolving-faster-than-women/
http://www.time.com/time/quotes/0,26174,1953549,00.html
Lame. I responded to your comment with a few interesting links, and the comment went to moderation.
Basically just google “men evolving faster than women” for some interesting news
Did a quick scan of the topic, apparently Japanese women are like women everywhere else. They’re waiting for the “perfect” man, when they are in fact nowhere close to “perfect” themselves.
And “all the best ones are married”, all that’s left, is “nerds, unemployed freaks, and ugly guys”.
They can’t get through their heads that they are just more trouble then they are worth.
lol seen this?
I can’t believe they used to stone people to death just for saying “Jehovah.”
OW! Owowowowowow! …Ow!
don’t know if they actually did, but I have heard of “Taking the Lord’s name in vain”, even these days.
They actually used to misspell “Yahweh” (YHWH, I believe) in the bible in order to avoid people saying it in vain.
wait til Biggus Dickus hears about this
Ahhh – those were the days….
(sigh)
(notice follow up reference to monty python!)
“I can’t believe they used to stone people to death just for saying “Jehovah.””
Watch the film “Life of Brian” then…
Ah, i did not know the link leads to the film, sorry… just ignore me
I…put this vid up here because..well..it is of some significant relevence.
Women dressing up as men…..to enjoy stoning a man to death.
I will say that Barbarossaa has conviction and is one of those rare MRAs who are pushing the envelope and bringing the battle to the enemy.
Next Tuesday is Chix Day, March 8 and I have noticed that in my workplace, it has dropped off the radar significantly over recent years. If they do corral us into some guilt-meeting, I will be either skipping it, or standing front and center with a smug smile on my face.
I like barbarossaaaa’s hard hitting style, and I agree with him on most things I’ve read that he’s said. I also agree with John that it is the laws that are our biggest enemies. After all, it’s the law the takes your house, you kids, your child support, your alimony. It’s the law that comes to arrest you and imprison you on nothing but the say so of a woman. It’s the law that doesn’t help you if a woman is beating up on you, or stealing from you. I beleive it’s a waste of time trying to get women to change their attitudes, to them, there is no contradiction in saying……I can do anything a man can do…….so I should be a police officer, fire fighter, SAS commando if I want……but I’m so weak and helpless that I should have all these laws to pretect me and give me preferences. You won’t change their cultured minds about this…….because it works to their advantage.
It’s hard to change mens minds too, because most men feel they have to suck up to these double standards and rubbish to continue to get laid.
For many years after my second marriage broke up, I was Charlie Sheen in Two and a Half Men, but a lot more hard hitting when it came to staying single. I used to date and screw an average of 3 women a week. Never used to lie to any of them……no relationship…….just friends with benefits was a far as I was prepared to go…..period…and no monogamy……..I would openly declare that I fuck who I want to fuck…..anytime I feel like it….and thats it. Every woman that asked me why I was so against committment I would tell them……it’s the laws. I told one woman……lets go live in Afganistan and get marriad and have kids…..when she declined I asked why not…….silly question…..it was the laws…..and women have no rights over there…….well…….now you know why I wont make a committment here in Australia.
Thats what I’d like to see MRAs focused on primarily, changing the laws. But I’d also like to see men, all men, stop sucking up to what women want on a cultural social level, especially for the sake of sex, or being seen as attractive to women. It’s counter productive, it has the opposite affect to the one they desire anyway. Take Paul for instance, MRA, hard hitting, takes no bullshit from women with feminist leanings or beliefs, and I’ll bet his relationship is rock solid, and he doesn’t have to grovel for sex, and I’ll bet he has lots of women that would jump his bones given half a chance, why, because he’s a man…….not a doormat.
Yes, you can give the law the finger, and ignore it’s existence. If a woman comes up to me and hits me, I’ll hit her back…….i dont’ care whos there……and I dont’ care what the law is…….I’ll do it…and I’ll pay the price……I won’t be told by bullshit laws that I have to take that crap…..period…….and I wont be told that I have to run to every womans rescue because I’m a man. I’ll choos what situations I’ll intervene in…….I’d probaby help anyone that was in dire danger…..except someone I knew to be an arsehole……or a feminist. That doesn’t mean I’d rush over to resue someone being beat up by six guys…..I’d assess that and take action accordingly…….if I could arm myself I might rush over…..if not…..I’d call the cops.
For the girls reading this. What would you do if you saw a few woman ganging up and beating up on a guy. My guess is that you would do nothing, or watch with amusement. If you did intervene……it would be to add reinforcements for the women.
Thats good enough reason for a man to say he’s not helping women.
Non-action as a criminal act can simply be avoided by making a phone call to emergency services, from a public phone. That will be on the record. One cannot be expected to intervene, as the police always advise against it.
Paul, going after rape really is going for the femmy jugular. You hard bugger
. That really exposes their whole game. They know how much they need da menz to buy into their game. They cant really change anything without us, which is why the are dependent on our buy-in and always seek to engage us. Call their bluff AND go all-in with counter rhetoric, they go pop. They pull out the usual nonsense all in the vain attempt to get us back on the hook. That tactic is starting to fail for them, en mass.
Imagine they started a war and the enemy showed up AND played it their way, hard.
Quite a provocative article. I remember when Paul wrote something months ago along similar lines. For a brief second, I have to admit, I thought, “I’m writing for this guy?!” But then, why not consider all reasons why male-on-female rape might occur? Here are what I think they may be, in order from most significant cause to least:
1. Men with deep-rooted hurt and violent tendencies who are not allowed to follow their volition in general, and who refuse to be honest with themselves. (Not very many.)
2. Men with deep-rooted hurt and violent tendencies who are not allowed to follow their volition sexually, and who refuse to be honest with themselves. (Even less.)
3. The absence of a cop.
4. No man to come to the rescue.
5. No man with a gun to come to the rescue.
6. No woman to come to the rescue.
7. No woman with a gun to come to the rescue.
8. She won’t defend herself.
9. She won’t defend herself with a gun.
I’ve left out a few causes, to be sure. The top two are, I’m convinced, at the root of most societal problems, and society in general seems to have little interest in investigating them. The third (if that’s where it belongs), while contributing superficially to prevention if the state gets more actively involved, obviously exacerbates the conditions that lead to the first two, meaning that the problem becomes cyclical. But look at where the female-oriented reasons are on this list (if that’s where they belong). You have to ask yourself: Why aren’t women en masse lobbying government for conceal and carry?
And I will hereby concede that what I propose above may only be a straw-man argument since I have no idea which of the last seven reasons belongs there, in which order, or that I may have left out some reasons. But obviously, if you want to strike at the root of male-on-female rape, rushing to women’s collective defense has little to do with the first two reasons, where I don’t see a hint of straw, and which I propose would take up a sizeable portion of any pie chart.
Its an image thing. You cannot claim victimhood after you conceal carry, although the latest hue and cry over cop-killing has me reconsidering that. Second thing is that women – almost wholesale accept the idea that “guns kill people”. Third thing is – if they do that, then they cannot claim that they are better than human males. Fourth it is too heavy to carry a gun on you all the time, also contradicts the delicate dainty image of women. Fifth, the dangers are not as much as hyped by feminists and with eager males everywhere there is barely a need. Sixth, once you take responsibility for protecting yourself you cannot blame others for “not doing enough”. Seventh, you cannot conceal a gun while wearing short revealing clothes as are essential to make a woman feel good about herself (you know what i mean).
And yes, I support supporting political action and objective. I wish their was a political party that had at least an influencial voice and enough numbers to have some affect on laws. I support donating to MRAs, and as most people regular on here would know, I’ve made quite a bit of financial donations. I’ve actually contributed funding to quite a few MRA sites and projects and I wish I could see a lot more men doing the same.
What we need, is professional MRAs. I mean people like Paul, that have the voice, the charisma, the vocabulary, the passion, the intellect, to affectively push for, and make progress in getting mens voices heard and listened to, by the man and the woman in the street, by the teachers, by the lawyers, and especially by the politicians.
The only way we are going to have those “professional” MRAs is to pay them a livable wage so they can devote themselves full time to the course, without living a life of poverty.
Unfortunately it will probably be many years before we can have an army of MRAs funded by the state, such as in the case for feminism. But we have to work towards that, and that means funding it out of our own pockets until we are powerful enough to demand our piece of the pie from our governments. I know a lot of people see that as growing government, more greedy pigs at the pie, eating tax payers money up on gender issues, but it’s an arms race, and we didn’t start it, and the pigs will be at the pie anyway, eating as much as they can and demanding more, the issue is, will any of them be our pigs
That’s what I’d like to see. Fund guys like Paul, Angry Harry, etc etc. Get them working full time for mens causes, and from there, who knows, maybe guys like them can be the leaders of the political parties and movements we need to get into the corridors of power.
A lot of men just want to get rid of feminism and see the MRA as just another form of feminism. I don’t like socialism, but if there is a pot of money for special interest groups then we should get our share.
I thnk the last thing we need is paranoid man hating women getting around with concealed guns, especially when I can be charged and fined for carrying a knife on a fishing trip.
“Feminist by association” ….Beautiful I think this is an idea that we should promote
By the way, on top of the cash donations I’ve made to avfm, I’m in for $25 per month subcription. That’s per calender month, so it’s about 80 cents per day.
A pissy amount if you say it like that. It’s a cappuccino or a Beam and coke per week. But imagine 100 guys doing the same thing. $2500 per month. Or 500 guys doing $5 per month, same thing. This goes beyond AVFM radio. My guess is that if Paul had a secure income from his MRA activities and could therefore spend all his time pursueing the advancement of mens rights (your rights) then you are going to see the benefits of that rolling in, in a few short years.
Now imagine having 100 such MRAs with such talent and determination, all free to devote all their time to advancing mens rights.
It really is at the tip of our fingers. It’s that simple. Fund it, and and it grows, in size and power. Leave it to someone else to fund, and it stagnates, and we sit here posting of our woes forever while the feminist machine rolls on like a steamroller with no brakes.
NOW has roughly 500,000 members that pony up $35 a year. This doesn’t include corporate extortion money, er, I mean donations.
And that’s just NOW. There are several other wymyn’s groups that rake in more than they ever should.
If they ever make it the law that you must aid people being assaulted if you see it, it will apply to men, not to women. In theory it will apply to women, just like DV laws apply to women in theory. In theory it’s against the law for a women to abuse her husband, but in practice nothing will be done about it, and in most cases the male victim will be called the abuser.
That’s how it will work for a compulsory intervention law too. If someone gets mugged in daylight in the cbd, women who walked past and done nothing will not be pursued, but men who done the same will be charged with a crime if they can be identified. They will probably put a heap of “ifs” and “buts” in the fine print of the legislation that would enable women to be exempt, worded in a non sexist way, that would state something like, if a reasonable person would deem you capable of intervening, then the law requires you to intervene. Of course all women would be deemed incapable, even though we have female police officers, etc. All able bodied men would be deemed capable of intervening.
A law like this would make every man an unpaid security guard working for free for the state, and mainly for the protection of woman.
The fact that it’s even been thought of means that it will come one day, if we don’t stop it.
On a legal level the state has made men do many things against their will, but on a societal level, that will never be possible. All hell will break loose once men have decided that they have nothing to lose but their very freedoms that they have fought so hard to obtain.
The Western governments have done nothing positive for men, and we will be damned if they tell us what to do right in front of our faces. The only authority that a man should submit to is God’s authority. Not women, not children, and certainly not government.
Men are the great leaders of society, the inventors, the protectors, and that role cannot be usurped by women or the state. The state has done a piss poor job in protecting our children, when we are our childrens fathers, and it is our sworn duty to protect OUR children.
They are killing, drugging, and maiming our boys and even steering them to a life of crime because of a lack of a male presence in their lives, mainly their fathers, while they are leading our girls astray to a life of sexual promiscuity, because they lack a male figure who can give them love and attention, and they look to men who are criminals, products themselves of a feminized system, for attention. Let’s not forget legalized abortion either.
We owe nothing to a state that oppresses our gender, leads our children astray, and indoctrinates weak-minded women into a bloated sense of entitlement.
What’s up Paul. I am Richard, formerly known as Redpill on this site, but used as my prominent username on other MRA sites. And I also go by the YouTube username RichardRich1989. But all introductions, or re-introductions aside, I just wanted to say congratulations on your new radio show. This is progress for the Men’s Movement. It has been a long time since the last time I was on this website, but I am not here to stir up trouble or go into a rant. I am just here to say congrats, and Barbarossaaaa is a true leader of the MRM, a strong voice for men everywhere, and I fear that without him, we are lost.
He was actually the first MRA that I actually had the pleasure of listening to, and shortly thereafter I found your site Paul. But anyway this is a decent article that should reflect on the opinions of many TRUE Mens Rights Activists who are involved in the Gender War.
Why shouldn’t women be expected to risk themselves for men in trouble? After all, they’ve been trying to convince me to ditch every other preconception I could possibly have about their abilities – and nearly all of their arguments thus far have been harder to believe than women being able to take a risk for someone else’s benefit.
So I’m fine with the idea of shaming women to start acting like compassionate human beings for a change – I sincerely believe they are capable of it.
But until I hear of them getting killed and injured being equal protectors, I refuse to do likewise in return. I personally think it plain silly to do otherwise.
I just went to Youtube to hear Barbarossa’s video on Logan. There, in the comments section a stupid whore said that “men getting raped in prison is their fault”. LOL actually the bitch said “it is their choice they choice to commit the crime.”
Like I said, shrill-voiced feminists would tear a man apart for indicating the rape of a woman was ever her fault. And yes, that includes rape in a woman’s prison because I had this argument with a feminist on this very subject. Fuck that stupid cunt, and fuck feminism and anyone that supports it.
and yes..I was venting
I think it’s an expression of female biology. Men vulnerable enough financially to wind up in general population prison are too low in status to count. No need for empathy because those men aren’t really human.
I was having a discussion with a guy at work over our internal communication system, about men’s rights. He was mocking me about it subtly, but I continued the discussion. Until I mentioned male prison rape victims and he said something like “it is their choice to commit the crime.” I responded that I was sickened by his comment and that to condone rape – even prison rape – is morally unconscionable. I haven’t talked to him since.
Wait though… so you WOULD do something if you walked by a woman getting raped? It seems like most posters on this site would elect to not do anything..
“it is their choice to commit the crime” sounds a lot like “well, they should be able to protect themselves” in terms of rationalizing an opinion…
@Giselle
On the rape issue. Yes I believe that if rape isn’t done by using violence, or very real threat of violence then it’s not rape. The exception would be if if a women was unconcious, or totally unable to resist for some very real reason.
In the case of violent rape, I see the violence as a bigger crime then the actual sexual act, and this is obvious to anyone who thinks about it. If a mugger bashes your head in to get your wallet, what is worse, the theft of your money, or the bashing. The sexual act itself is not injuring you, or threateing your life, unless the perp has aids or something, its the violence used to get it that would be a bigger problem to most people.
In the past I can see why rape was regarded as much more serious. No contraception or abortions, no affective treatement of what are now easily cured stds, the socially enforced shame for any woman having sex with anyone but her husband etc etc. But instead of rape being considered a lessor crime in step with the lessor potential for harm done to the victim, it has become a crime worse then murder for which any man who has sex with any woman, including his wife, can be had up for rape for merely groveling for sex.
It’s become such a joke that the whole abuse industry needs to be wiped out. There would be less victims if the abuse industry ceased to exist.
Remember the old days when you knew a girl wanted it when you started to take her panties off and she would let you know it was cool by raising her pelvis ever so slightly to help you get them off?
The future of sex will be more like this:
Excuse me? I noticed that when I was reaching for your panties, you lifted your pelvis. Does that mean that you want my erect penis in your vagina? I also noticed that you got a little wet down there. Does that mean you are excited and want me? Do I have your permission to insert my penis you just sucked a little into your apparent wet vagina? I mean I’m not trying to ruin the mood here….Sorry I’m verifying so much…….I was just told that I am supposed to be REALLY sure you want to have my penis penetrate your wet vagina.
She says Yes.
Then you say: We did have a few beers at the bar, would you mind holding on sec while I turn on the video camera that streams to my computer so I can film us having sex just in case you change your mind about me sticking my penis in your vagina in the morning?
[img]http://avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/2010-10-21-ServingTheQueen.jpg[/img]
Lol I thought this comic was relevant
Honey bees with stingers are all female. The male bees (drones) have no stinger and do no work.
There’s a matriarchy I’d like to see.
It is very relevant…brings to mind the many young, conscripted men dying in meaningless wars. What makes it not-so-funny is that you essentially can get men to do this.
It is asking a lot to expect men to just stop being men. We are the most perfectly genetically engineered slaves ever known. We not only serve women but we do so willingly and derive pleasure and self-worth from it.
Understanding that the willingness to protect and defer to women is genetically coded in our DNA is the first step to understanding why women get away with the shit they pull. For thousands of years women have shaped the way they want men to be through selective breeding with only those males that privileged and defended them. This wasn’t some conscious master plan but a result of natural selection. Women who reproduced with men who served them the best were most likely to successfully reproduce and see their offspring thrive.
It is for this reason that feminism is so dangerous. Women have set themselves against men through feminism. We are forced to compete against women not by choice but by circumstance. Therefore, so long as women are hypergamist our goal has to be female failure. This is not a choice but a necessity. There isn’t enough jobs for everyone to have one and when men don’t work we have no value to society or women. Therefore, in a system where I am forced to compete against women I choose “ME”.
Women just haven’t pushed enough men far enough it seems. So long as men who call themselves MRA’s are still longing to be “bridled” and haven’t seen it for the servitude and subjugation that it is they will continue to unknowingly and seamlessly revert to their former slave selves.
I would rather encourage men to indifference towards the health and safety of women than to see them bottle their rage and go George Sodini on them. I wish he could have found a community like this to focus his anger and isolation.
RIP GS.
I see more Sodinis in the future. It may well be the only way to get any attention at all. It seems that men have always had to kill and die to get basic respect and dignity. Women got all the rights that men bled and died for just by asking. It seems in order to get some of those rights back we may well have to bleed some more. We aren’t there yet by a long shot. But by the time we are you can guarantee that women will bleed right along with us.
Until then we should engage in civil disobedience by ignoring the needs of women no matter how exigent. We are all equal. Therefore my life is equally valuable to a woman’s and I’ll not lose it defending her. Ever.
The ruling class love to use what you’ve just described against men and have done massive damage to our standing and human dignity. Alpha’s and women alike thrive on busting down and dominating men. Time to end the cycle I say.
Quite possibly, the best response-post here so far. Well done Jean.
And thank you.
Feminism has created a situation where many men have nothing to lose, no reason to behave as good slaves any longer, no reason to worry about what might happen if they rebel against misandry.
See W.F. Price’s comment here: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/03/02/charlie-sheen-finds-out-how-they-deal-with-troublesome-men/#comment-76322
The most dangerous person in the world is a man with nothing to lose. As more and more men are marginalized and discarded in society they will fall through the economic cracks and wake up one day realizing they have nothing left to lose.
When enough men find themselves in this position all hell is going to break lose.
We are seeing it in the Middle East right now.
At the rate that our government is spending money it doesn’t have, incarcerating males, fighting a useless drug war, and spending on military it won’t be long before there is a reckoning in the U.S. as well.
19 men shut down this country for a week and cost us billions. Imagine what would happen if just 1% of the 7million men in prison realized that they are there because the system pigeonholes men into poverty and crime? That there lives are shit because the other half of society thinks they are disposable?
Scary stuff if you are on the wrong end of that equation.
Excellent article Barbarossaaaa.
OK we all got a little intense and had a little bickering….this here’ll lighten us all up.
C’mon then lads..sing along
“Always look on the bright side of life.”, unless the organ donor people show up a bit early.
Monty Python, the grandmasters of all comedy.
agreed
I was just reading through the posts, and I have to say…….poor Giselle lol
I was looking at all the downvotes on her posts, and a lot of them don’t make any sense….like this one.
“LOL..i’d jump on the guys back and gouge his eyes out for my honey…some women just dont have any balls. No pun intended.”
That got a heap of downvotes. There was a fair few more very reasonable comments made by Giselle that got a heap of downvotes lol
Now, either there is a bunch of feminits downvoting all Giselle’s pro male, or neutral comments, and leaving the guys anti feminist comments alone, or guys are just looking at the name on the post and hitting the red thumb no matter what she says. lol
I got to hand it to you Giselle, you’ve stuck around all this time and are still here in spite of that.
I’ll tell you what I think Giselle. I think your pretty alright. On some things you don’t get it……or wouldn’t have a clue…….and can’t understand the position of some of guys comments….but you seem willing to try and understand…and that’s a sign of a fair minded person. The other thing is, I think you get it that some of the more harsh comments are people just blowing off steam.
Now I’ll admit, I’m holding you to lower standards then a man, but then why shouldn’t I, you haven’t had to walk in a mans shoes all your life…..and I sort of think you get that too. But at least you realise that men have very real issues that are created by feminism, very real problems, and very real injustices done to them by women.
Your comment above where you said you’d jump on a guys back and gauge his eys out to protect your man. Your man probably requires more of your help to protect him from other women actually. Men can’t defend themselves against women at all, not even from a verbal assault. How about showing some agro against women that spew out sexist rubbish in front of you man. If more women called these hate mongers on the shit that falls out of their mouth, that would go a long way towards shuting them up.
Anyway, I think your ok. Oh, the kitten on the hotplate……geez….have you ever tasted pan fried kitten……yum. Just kidding.
Agreed. And Giselle, I too admire your courage for still sticking around. You do have to note that we have a percentage of men who have been burned REALLY badly by women their whole life, and they have a natural skepticism and suspicion of women.
It might not be fair, but it is what is. A lot of them are down-voting you without even reading your comments, or reading things into them.
Omg STU, we’re gonna get downvoted now too. OMG we’re such manginas
“Now, either there is a bunch of feminits downvoting all Giselle’s pro male, or neutral comments, and leaving the guys anti feminist comments alone, or guys are just looking at the name on the post and hitting the red thumb no matter what she says. lol”
A large number of her comments (not all) deserved the downvotes for their thick-headed, oblivious nature, including the “neutral” ones. The last thing we need is a skadi, Lara, or julie (aka j) bombarding AVfM with irrelevant chit-chat getting in the way of significant discussion.
I did, just for kicks. 8)
I have no problems with Giselle, I really was just pointing out how women often have a kind of assumed privilege, which, they hold us to the same standards of, despite having no such privilege ourselves.
Rules are broken or re-made for women and excessive protections are given to them, but never for men unless we fight like hell.
I don’t hate you Giselle.
Hey I upvoted both you and Stu.
Yep, I figured that lol
But I’m a bigger mangina then you, I got two downvotes
Nah, that’s coz I pre-empted the fuckers by making fun of their down-voting
damn…
Lara Logan is disgustingly hot
what a dumb bitch for putting herself in that situation…
and apparently, she was a really bad person too
so I have little sympathy for her
I know nothing about her, so I won’t make judgements. Whether bad person or not, if she was just doing her job reporting, then what happened is a bad thing. But shit happens, hundreds of people have been killed in the Egyption riots, and thousands more injured. I will say that what happened to her probably woundn’t even get a mention if it happened to me…….a man. And I’m sure far worse has happened to many men over there, but we won’t hear about them except for stats of dead and injured
Remembering off the top of my head, she definitely used her sexuality as a weapon. She would seduce mmen to get a stor, she’s married, but she’s been knocked up (I think, twic) with married soldiers in iraq. Destroyed marriages, treated her husband like shit, and shows no remorse for it all. Probably third wave feminist judging by her behavior
A man shouldn’t go to her rescue because she’s a woman. Conversely, a man shouldn’t ignore her just because she’s a woman and he’s an MRA.
I think men should hold themselves up to a higher standard than what barbarosssa is saying. What he’s advocating is an immature tit-for-tat mentality that doesn’t solve anything. What we want to do is reverse the damage of feminism. We don’t do that by creating a militant men vs. women mentality; by drawing a line in the sand between men and women. We see the vestiges of that through the works of feminism
I don’t think there is a “should” that all MRA’s have to blindly abide by when confronted with such a situation. How one chooses to react is up to the individual. Why? Because *how* he chooses to react is irrelevant in the men’s movement. I don’t think men should choose their actions on nothing more than the sex of the individual. We still need to treat individuals as individuals. Otherwise, we’re falling in to the same collectivist trap feminists indoctrinated the world with: All men are guilty because of the actions of individuals. It’s impossible knowing what a stranger is guilty of if the first time you see her is while being raped in a back alley. Men are about honor, and that means retaining standards in the face of injustice. If we lose that we lose our integrity.
“A man shouldn’t go to her rescue because she’s a woman. Conversely, a man shouldn’t ignore her just because she’s a woman and he’s an MRA.”
I agree, because that is still reactive. If you treat women DIFFERENTLY, then you’re effectively giving them higher status.
If you would have helped a man in the exact same situation, but then you don’t help her… That means you still have some resentment and she holds power over you.
Its weird and counter-intuitive, but the biggest way to reduce female supremacy is by treating women as equals. That means not only treating them like a man when its negative. It also means don’t treat a woman negatively if you wouldn’t have a man in the same situation.
Its kind of like when women perform shit-tests. They ACTUALLY want you to react negatively to something. If they get a reaction out of you, they know they have power of you.
The opposite of love is NOT hate. The opposite of love is… indifference. Remember that…
======
Here’s the official definition of power:
======
“Person A has power over Person B, to the extent that person B performs differently than if Person A was not present”
======
Do you get that part guys? If you act differently because a woman walks into the room, that means she has power over you. That means even if you act negatively. If you were super-positive before a woman walked into your group, and now you’re negative… guess what? That means she has POWER OVER YOU.
So all of these guys who get prissy and emotional whenever they see a female name… You’re not “winning power back”, you’re just demonstrating your powerlessness. As a man you gain your power back when you become indifferent…
Well, if you consider it a form of power … I’d rather they hold the power to make me not give a fuck about what happens to them, than they hold the power to make me into their personal bodyguard.
You don’t get it.
If you’d help a man, but not a woman, that means SHE CONTROLS YOU. It means you are still controlled by the concept of “woman”. If you’d help man, child, dog, frog, turtle, but not woman… That means she has power over you and controls your emotions, and makes you go out of your way to act differently.
If you’d not help anyone else that’s fine.
“”"they hold the power to make me into their personal bodyguard.”"
Again, it comes down to what you would do if an old man was in the same situation. Would you help the old man? And if so, would you refer to this as “I was acting as the old guy’s bodyguard”.
If you wouldn’t call it “acting as the old man’s bodyguard”, then what does that mean? WOMEN HAVE POWER OVER YOU to control your definition of a bodyguard.
The opposite of love is note hate snark… The opposite of love is indifference. Indifference to the concept of “woman”.
I will say what I always say, and that is that we haven’t got a social contract. Ergo, there is no EXTERNAL (or “political”) obligation for you to act morally or benevolently toward any woman.
Still, I get your point about not being “controlled” by women in the way you are describing. So-called misogyny ought not to sway your thinking in either direction.Indifference is the key.
And so, the ultimate arbiter of indifference would be a coin toss. . . yes?
That is a thought experiment that could keep you going for hours on end.
I think AlekNovy is talking about indifference to who the person is, not indifference about the act going on… that would then be your personal choice on if you should intervene on the matter…
Would you intervene if a bunch of women were holding a guy down and tickling him while he pleaded with them to stop? No? Then indifference to sex/age/etc would dictate that you also would not intervene in a situation where the roles are sex-reversed.
However, if you were to say that you would intervene if a man was being tortured (take whatever definition you want – the key is that this one moves you to act), then indifference to the sufferer means you would also intervene on that act regardless of who was on each side.
Essentially, react to the situations as if you did not know ANYTHING about the sufferer… right?
“I’d rather they hold the power to make me not give a fuck about what happens to them”
But that’s the whole point dude. YOU DO CARE… except in the opposite direction.
Whereas a mangina would go out of his way to help a woman more
You go out of your way to help a woman less
If you DONT CARE, you would treat her exactly the same as a man, child, turtle. If you’re proactively hoping she fared bad, you do care! You care about her failing or getting it bad.
The opposite of love is not hate, its indifference
(to treat without difference).
I think my approach pretty much exemplifies indifference.
“I think my approach pretty much exemplifies indifference.”
The best test for this in any situations is asking yourself the question “Is this exactly how I would treat a guy?”
If yes, you’re indifferent.
“The best test for this in any situations is asking yourself the question “Is this exactly how I would treat a guy?””
No it isn’t.
The best test is “do I react with indifference?”
“The best test is “do I react with indifference?””
And how do you know that you’re not lying to yourself?
I know plenty of people who are bitter, angry and emotional, that claim they are indifferent. And they believe they are indifferent too.
Alek, this is practically a shaming tactic.
Shame on YOU for going down this route. Is it not enough simply to understand that we’re not going to see eye to eye on this issue?
What is a shaming tactic?
I didn’t call you any names or insinuate anything about you. When I said “how do you know if you’re not lying to yourself” I meant it generally, as in “How does one know if they’re not lying to oneself”.
I’m talking about practicality. IF we want to be effective, we want to make sure we’re being honest with ourselves about how much power we have or don’t have.
I gave one suggestion of how I think we can accomplish that, you said you have a differing opinion.
I’m not trying to further the discussion to “beat you”… I’m trying to LEARN from you.
I’m open to having my mind changed. If you can demonstrate to me that your technique is good, then I will adopt it.
So I’m asking you “how do I know if I’m telling myself the truth by asking if I’m indifferent”?
Capitalized letters: check.
Shaming language: check.
Puerile sophistry: check.
Hyper-sensitive to men knowing their place: check.
Use of “dude”: check.
Lastworditis: double check.
I don’t really have a horse in this race, Alek.
But to whit:
I’m pretty sure that my indifference is an indicator of indifference.
I have the power, if you will, to not be a White Knight, and I shall exercise that.
A master acts differently because he has a slave. You would say that this means the slave has power over the master.
When a master beats his slave, you would say, it is the slave who is powerful, because the master would not be beating anyone if the slave was not there.
It’s fine to define ‘power’ that way, if you like. For me, that’s too broad and abstract to be meaningful.
Wow
Alek you are 100% correct! It is acting like the woman has power over you if your behavior, demenour and most importantly your mood, your emotional content change . And the whole point of being EITHER an MRA or a MGHOW is to empower ourselves and not allow women to have any power over us whatsoever.
I suppose that’s why when I ripped on that woman that posted on Barb’s YT video I then added that I was venting. And I admit it Alek, there I went letting her rent some fine real estate in my head. The best way to show that the woman has no power over you really is an attitude of indifference huh?
It is… And these angry-boys don’t get it. They’re letting “woman” or the concept of female occupy space in their head. They rant and they whine, and they think that’s a form of empowerment… In truth, a woman is controlling their emotions, their state and their composure.
They think they’re gaining power, but in truth they’re just displaying that they’re still powerless around “woman”.
“These angry-boys”?
I thought you were attacking ideas, not using shaming tactics on individuals.
I guess your obvious anger towards me is a sign of the power I hold over you, right? LOL!
What’s funny is that it is my indifference, both towards women and towards you, that has caused you to react so aggressively, with shaming tactics a feminist would be proud of.
Zing! Really? Even if ‘angry-boys’ got your back up, you’re going to just go ahead and lump him in with feminists now? I really start to question the people who are voting these comments when you’re 19-0 on this one.
Do you really think AlekNovy has any sort of anger towards you? I’ve read the posts and he just seems to be victim of trying to explain very sound reasoning to someone who doesn’t want to even discuss the basis of his viewpoints.
AlekNovy already described his wish to learn.. to discuss and adapt. IT just doesn’t seem like you’re willing to enter the discussion.
Congrats on cementing yourself on your opinion.
100% correct Alek!
@Aimos
Here we go. Another self-righteous individual talking about “honor” and “integrity” when most women themselves have no honor or integrity. Where is the “honor” and “integrity” when men are falsely accused of rape, and have their children practically stolen from them, but since we are about upholding a greater standard than feminists, us men should just suck it up and go with the flow. Yeah, you’re preaching to the wrong choir. Women wanted “equality” (whatever the hell that means), now they are going to get.
“”"Another self-righteous individual talking about “honor” and “integrity” when most women themselves have no honor or integrity.”"
This is the same logic feminazis used to pass anti-male laws and fuck up our sons. When confronted with their anti-male rhetoric, they answered “well, well men are all chauvinistic pigs, they never cared about girls, why should we care about boys” – BUT OUR BOYS ARE GETTING FUCKED OVER… the feminazi responds “but men have been opressing women for centuries bla bla”.
Why are you guys so set on becoming an exact fucking replica of the fucking monster we’re fighting?
The idea isn’t to SINK to their level, the idea is to bring women up to our level, by killing legislation and trends in our society that favor and spoil women.
If women are acting as parasites, the idea is not to get men acting like parasites. If women are draining the state for resources, the solution isn’t to get men draining the state for resources.
We want to kill the monster, not become the monster.
“Why are you guys so set on becoming an exact fucking replica of the fucking monster we’re fighting?”
Calm down Alek. Stop letting us “angry-boys” have so much power over you.
Alek, don’t bother with this group. They are very cliquish just like the feminazi websites. All worship King Paul.
You don’t know any of us from a hole in a wall so stop spouting nonsense. I am all about Mens Empowerment, of Male Brotherhood, and combatting the State. Not agreeing with women, and arguing with my fellow men. That is what feminists want so they can pick us off one by one, and not band together to take them on. You seem to be more in line to catering to women, than you are with helping out your fellow men. This is what got us into this mess in the first place. You are with us or against us, and if you are against us then f**k off. We don’t need a weak and fractionalized movement.
The Internet is a pretty big place, and there are plenty of websites to browse through if you don’t like this site, and the message we are trying to spread.
I’ve just seen how you people are quick to judge and trash visitor’s opinions if they don’t agree with your collective view. Personally, I’m for treating PEOPLE with respect, if deserved, not just men. I have been railing since the early seventies against the false equality paradigm that feminists have spouted for decades . You’re Hegelian Bushism is very simplistic…the world is more than just black or white they’re are many shades of grey. That said, I bid you all good riddance.
Guys, let’s not fight
Rofl
Men need to do what’s in their best interests and stop worrying about what women want and what women do. This may involve being honorable sometimes and not so honorable other times, but preferably men will find their way without hurting others.
I think you Barbarossaaaa, have good arguments, and it brings up good questions, but I think you are missing a few key ideas.
To me, you seem to hold the idea that women are equals by your reasoning. This is an absurd idea invented by the feminists and in some women’s minds in general. I agree however that if women were in fact equals then your philosophy and modus opperandi should fit somewhat nicely and be pretty much correct.
but you say: “We will not give economic opportunities to women we will not hire them to any jobs.” This is sort of hostile. I don’t think any separatist strategy is going to win. Prohibitions against women doing X Y or Z are never going to work. This is a inferior way to solve problems, and only creates more problems. Feminists have done all this – we should learn from their mistakes.
Then the idea of not helping a person in need who’s being raped or beaten is simply a internal decision of your own. But I think as a political line of rhetoric is total suicide and going to really hurt the MRM. Because it is wrong and spiritually bankrupt.
If you want to know the truth. A leader is someone who looks out for people – listens and cares for people. I think that is the proper role of men – men are the leaders, not for personal power but for true superior character. To lead truly is to serve. This is evident in any great leader. While women in great service are usually followers, men in great service are usually leaders.
my 2 cents.
“but you say: “We will not give economic opportunities to women we will not hire them to any jobs.” This is sort of hostile. I don’t think any separatist strategy is going to win. Prohibitions against women doing X Y or Z are never going to work.”
There may not be any need to prohibit women from doing work similar to men, but there’s no necessity for women to be physically in the same space as men wherever men are doing their work. To insist that the two sexes must always be in proximity to each other, in roughly 50% proportions, is a gross violation of our freedom of association, and logically leads to absurdity.
Of course men are free to choose who they will employ and mix with. If the dudettes could stop hyper-ventilating and start thinking rationally for a change, they’d realize that being free to choose who you work and socialize with has immense value to them as well.
‘Dudettes’ is a nice touch.
I still prefer ‘chicks’ though. It’s already offensive in a way that ‘dudes’ isn’t (despite their best efforts in using it as a shorthand to demean all things male).
You say women are inferior to men, but you also claim that saying we won’t hire women is hostile.
That’s cognitive dissonance.
I guess you could sum up what you said as “women are less valuable than men intrinsically but we should still treat them as special angels who we ought to sacrifice ourselves for”.
Someone out there needs to invent something where a chick can verify she want’s to get banged by that Big Bad Alpha or the second place Beta she went home with from the bar.
Chicks love to get banged…..(Shhhhh, Don’t say that out loud)…….just about as much as guys love to do the banging……..but for those rising few who met the Alpha at the bar and then got to feeling all bad about it the next day……….we need an “I really want to get banged” verification device that could stand up in court. Don’t know what it would be or how the “Bang Me” could be verified……..
I think that invention would sell like crazy considering our current environment.
Ah, Never mind. Then how would we ever keep the Prisons Full and those Probation guys/anger Management groups/DA’s/Court workers…..blah blah blah employed?
Don’t get me wrong. A REAL rapist is scum. But we all know that those fellas are much fewer then the public is lead to believe.
Gender-Raunch Empowerment constructionists are more male than female. Gender-Raunch males can hide behind the curtain, while they send their gender-raunch lesbians out into the streets to “Mule the message”.
@mongo
“To insist that the two sexes must always be in proximity to each other, in roughly 50% proportions, is a gross violation of our freedom of association, and logically leads to absurdity.”
I totally agree with you. This is actually what infuriates me most about the women’s movement. More so, even, than the abuse industry aspect of feminism. It is relevant to far more people’s lives. It actually has a more direct and negative influence on social division between men and women. It lies behind the radical assault upon such institutions as marriage and the family unit. Such things as the feminist inspired abuse industry are, in my opinion, by-products of androgynous egalitarianism.
The neo-Marxist ‘Noah’s Ark’ fantasy which feminists seek to apply to every nook and cranny of human existence is the unattainable goal that, as I have said in other comments, fuels a deep seated inferiority complex which is the very root cause of the hatred feminists feel towards men. Men are the unforgivable heretics of this fantasy by reason of their very being, in the here and now, and for reasons of their history of accomplishment.
If (or, when) the consciousness of women can be moved away from such materialistic evaluating (which has the inevitable conseqeunce of subconscious self-deprecating mockery and collective frustration) – the rest of the feminist package – from sex crime laws to the anti-male debacle of family law court systems would all fall like a pack of cards.
There is an old saying which is very true, is very applicable in this sense, but with a meaning that is slightly different from the original.
“Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”.
Feminism has brainwashed women into feeling scorned. In a materialistic world that scorning, for feminists, is simply what they have been born as – women. Their hellish fury (defined by materialistic self-judgement of past achievement along with realistic present and future capability – which they dare not acknowledge even to themselves) is simply directed at those who have not been born as women.
The materialistic Noah’s Ark dream lies at the root of everything that has turned the women’s movement into something that is hateful and rotten. We are all damaged as a consequence, but it will be women’s primary loss in the long term when the world has suffered enough and has finally woken up – which it will do eventually.
Well, if all that stuff about Lara Logan is true, then I certainly wont be feeling sorry for her. I certainly wouldn’t be rushing to defend a woman such as she has been described as being. A woman like that falls into my catagory of……don’t give a shit what happens to her……then there is the next level up……where I wish for bad things to happen to her and feel like celebrating when it does. The highest level is the level that the Harriet Harm-mans of the world are on. For them it’s like, which scenario from the SAW movies will I subject her to, and nothing seems to be bad enough to satisfy my sadistic urges towards them.
The fact that women like her get to such positions of power and remain there for so long in a democracy only proves to me that most women today fall into my catergory of…….don’t give a shit what happens to them. It also proves to me that democracy might not be an institution that will ever serve mens interest again. They all seem to lapse into misandrist shit holes within a few generations don’t they.
Here’s the deal. Nobody is worth dying for unless they are your children or willing to fight by your side against danger. Naturally, the weakest will probably die first.
As far as the MGTOW / MRA. MGTOW are by definition passive resistance, the MRA are active resistance. An MGTOW doesn’t have to be an MRA and an MRA doesn’t have to be an MGTOW. However, an MGTOW+MRA is far more effective to wake women up about what they are losing because of their selfish behavior.
Amen…and if children are getting attacked, my knife and me will get invovled
I did not expect what I posted up there to be met with appreciation…but that subject gets to me everytime. I think in the future I will tend to keep out of discussions of violence.
I believe a civilized society of abundance has an obligation to assist the weak, but when ideological games are played with this concept it winds up invalidating it.
Cliffor at Reddit had the following to say:
“You should help your fellow human beings.
I hate most people, but I still can’t let them suffer needlessly.”
My response:
Neither can I, Cliffor. That’s why we must take a stand. More people will suffer in the long run if we don’t take a stand than if we help random women whenever they are in danger.
It’s kind of like Isaac Asimov’s Zeroth Law. We can break the first law if the zeroth law is met.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics
If you see a damsel in distress, clap your hands…
Politeness and civility towards women will get you nowhere.
Women are only attracted to men whom they fear.
And I mean the Biblical ‘fear’ as in ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’.
If sexual attraction is not the objective, then women will use you as a convenient tool, a doormat, a punching bag or a nagging target when you are polite and civil towards them. Why? They don’t fear you – it’s that simple.
If it’s better to be feared than to be loved, and women are incapable of love except of ‘loving’ what a man can provide for her… then the choice is pretty obvious.
Let her fear you. It can be as simple as working out and having a great physique. Muscles are certainly masculine, but they also indicate latent strength and potential aggression. They will know that you aren’t someone to be trifled with.
Now, concerning the topic of white knights, I am reminded of the issue of giving up your seat on the bus/train for a pregnant woman.
My policy is this: If you’re not carrying my child, I don’t care even if you fall and have a miscarriage. It is not my problem. So Miss pregnant woman, remain standing, and you won’t get my seat.
I get that there are bound to be a number of venting sessions in this forum.. but this really got a whole bunch of positive votes? “Let her fear you”? I would imagine that this is your mantra for all of life, not just to women, then. Fear = subjugation?
Your post has nothing to do with Mens’ Rights – it’s textbook inferiority complex.
Are you male? If so, how do you like being seen as a potential rapist/pedophile/DV addict? It doesn’t make you just a little angry to be thought of as worthless if you don’t achieve x amount of status by y date?
Men were accommodating and we found out that when we are nice, women and the state see it as weakness and proceed to take more from us and scapegoat us for more of societies problems. we’re not playing this game anymore sorry.
Feminists say things much more vicious than this about men every day. Are you equally put off then?
When you think about it why should any woman care if a pregnant woman falls and miscarriages either. After all, if unborn babies are not people, and there is nothing wrong with aborting them, then miscarriages are just nothing.
I knew a woman who had three abortions, then she got preg and wanted to keep the baby, and miscarried, and expected everyone to feel her great lose, and what a big emotional ordeal it was losing the most precious thing in the world. And everyone did pour on the sympathy.
I felt like saying…..so why was this one precious and the others that you flushed down the dunny just pieces of tissue to be disposed of. Felt like it, but didn’t say it. yeah that’s what I should have said, “so you lost your womb turd, why should we care about this womb turd and not the others” lol
The answer of course is obvious, every pregnancy is about her feelings, not about anything else.
Stu, don’t even attempt logic with these people. They’re intent on becoming the monster we’re fighting. They’re using the exact same logics and “rationales” that feminists used to bring us to where we are today.
Your world sounds like an interesting place to visit, Alek, although I wouldn’t want to stay.
Whatever will you come up with next? Anti-supremacy and devout dykism?
So what are we supposed to do Alek, facilitate those who use our acquiescence to bust us down even further. Remember we are despised by these people, they have all the power and to them, tolerance is often synonymous with weakness and therefore encourages dismissal.
Have you ever noticed that highly reasonable people who ruffle no feathers usually get ignored by the system, yet, those who agitate fiercely get attacked at first but eventually gain redress?
We don’t have enough funds to lobby so what should we do, and given the foul attitudes toward men in the west why is anger not justified? Why do you feel the need to ridicule justified anger?
I have a very simple maxim: “Fire in the belly, ice between the ears.”
Hopefully, that says something to somebody, somehow . . .
Speaks to me.
Yes I hear you Fidelbogen, and your right, but we still need to acknowledge, in an understanding way, the anger of our brothers in the MRM.
Abortion is murder pure and simple. Incidentally, while it is her body, it is NOT her baby for she by herself could NEVER become pregnant and therefore it is not her exclusive decision to kill the baby. The decision should be both mom’s and dad’s. She should be so thankful to have the blessing and joy of gestation that far too many women abuse with abortion as a means of birth control after having indiscriminate intercourse.
Three abortions then a miscarriage? No surprise here. What the abortionist will not tell you is that after performing midtrimester abortions if they intentionally or inadvertently cause bone fragments (previously aborted baby’s) to exists in the uterus the embryotic sac will rupture as it grows against these bone fragments. The body will reject, miscarry regularly, in essence making the woman sterile due to previous abortions!
http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(97)70500-3/abstract
You should have voiced your opinion Stu, but then you would have been deemed insensitive to her feelings and her stupidity.
Yeah, I didn’t say what I tought at the time, then years later when this woman became a pain in the arse I wished I had of. By the way……”womb turds” is not how I see the unborn, but it is how women see them, when they don’t want them. The moral of this is that unborn babies and precious and the most important thing when they want them……and worthless pieces of shit when they don’t. The way I see it, if someone is going to consider an unborn baby as not a life, having no rights, just a piece of tissue, then be consistent…..if thats what they are, then thats what they are……all of them…..the ones you wanted but died are too. Her changing attitude made me realise that women do actually think that “their” feelings about the unborn are what gives them value or not……rights or not. So there you have it……if life itself is only given value becaue of a womens feeling about that life…..then everything in the universe only has value by the same measure. Result….men don’t matter if women feel they don’t.
OK, it started with this from Almos:
Now in my opinion, there is a great deal right and wrong about this post. But my picking apart the details is not germane at this point. What I will say is that a lengthy study of group dynamics informs me of one thing for certain:
The relative dysfunction of any group can be measured in its power struggles.
That being said, we have a pretty damned good group here. This sort of infighting, especially with the vitriol, is the exception round here rather than the rule, and I expect that part of it is due to the provocative nature of the OP, and especially because it so effectively gets to the root of one of our problems, chivalry. I also note that this group has done more collectively and cooperatively for the MM than anything I have seen before.
In other words– Dude, it’s all good.
I am not going to take a position (though I certainly have one) on the current disharmony here. My bet is it will resolve itself in due course and that whatever, and whoever, remains to contribute to discussions will leave us with a stronger, more cohesive group – even if slightly smaller.
We are growing all the time, despite our occasionally unfortunate tendency to take a step back by pushing for groupthink.
ive seen many an MRA say that
1) we should refuse to get married
2) refuse to have kids
3) get a vasectomy
yet some of us are making the claim that we shouldnt allow feminism to affect our actions?
but when the oppurtunity to rescue a damsel in distress comes up, thats when we whant to be all principled and honarable, hmm how convenient.
once again we actually have MRA’s out there who would voluntarily sterilize themselves, as a reaction to feminism, and the vast majority of MRA’s would never get married (rightly so) because of feminism. but when it comes down to not risking your life to protect women that are complete strangers…. then all of a sudden we feel that a “moral” stand is necessary.
i will never understand that type of reasoning.
“we actually have MRA’s out there who would voluntarily sterilize themselves, as a reaction to feminism, and the vast majority of MRA’s would never get married (rightly so) because of feminism. but when it comes down to not risking your life to protect women that are complete strangers…. then all of a sudden we feel that a “moral” stand is necessary.
i will never understand that type of reasoning.”
I don’t think it’s reasoning barbarossaaa. It’s the last remaining vestige of a life-time of conditioning to ‘take a bullet for the president’. What the MRM is revealing is the hierarchy of conscious attitudes that make men slaves to women, and how resilient each of these entrenched behaviors are to reason. Like the skins of an onion, one has to peel off those layers close to the surface before trying to remove those deep at the core.
Rejecting marriage appears to be the first skin to peel. There are just so many individual stories of woe, and such obviously unjust laws, that most men understand this without the need for too many laboring of points. From there follow rejection of long term relationships, reproduction and all the other female privileges as soon as one becomes aware of them – but physical protection of women is right at the very heart of the matter. It will be the last thing men will acquiesce to – and I believe the reason for this is because it requires a subtlety that men only come to acquire after having first overcome the more obvious obstructions to his own best interest. I don’t fear that most men won’t eventually get there though. All things in their proper order.
Read the article, saw the video……good stuff, by virtue of being extreme.
I advocate a separatist position, not because of feminism but because of law. I cannot be charged if I am not in the proximity of the crime..rape, DV, etc. I am a separatist for my personal security and autonomy. I am indifferent to the “Logan” issue. If the argument or statement was to address dangerous work environments I would turn my head and listen. When it comes to walking by a rape in progress, the law requires that you intervene. You can be arrested for ignoring it. For this reason and for my own protection, I would intervene by calling the cops at the moment that a phone is available. Of course the best way to thwart a sexual attack is to declare that your HIV positive. Much like the best way to thwart a charge of sexual harassment is to declare that you are gay. The best way to deconstruct bullshit is with more bullshit. I take from your position that you advocate for personal security over chivalry. In this I completely agree. Your position on hiring women, as far as I am concerned is a personal security issue. So for me the central issue is personal security first and always. White knighting and chivalry have nothing to do with personal security and everything to do with standing in a path that exposes my personal security to harm. Personal security first and always.
Declaring you are gay will have no affect on a sexual harrassment claim at all. Because sexual harrassment does not have to be anything sexual, and besides that, it has nothing to do with what you do or do not do, it has to do with how the woman feels. If she feels threatened or harrassed by your presence, or any action or word you utter, your guilty.
You can run, but you can’t hide. The laws are running after you and the available personal space you can retreat to and hide in are being uncovered and more and more harmless behaviour and speech is being defined as abuse and sexual harrassment and assault.
You have to fight if you want to keep the right to anything at all in your life in the face of the feminist encrouchment into evey bit of space in you think they can’t get you in. In the future at some point in time, there may be machines that are able to read your mind completely……..do you think the feminists will leave that stone unturned in the pursuit painting more men as criminals and abusers……I think not……..I think the era of thought crimes will be upon us eventually…..then where will you hide……you wont even have your own skull space anymore.
declaring you are gay against an accusation of sexual harassment confuses the intent of an accusation. It throws both parties into question rather than just one. Yes by doing this I am fighting, for the brain space of the person judging my actions, not the accuser.
Oh, I meant to say…….it has to do with how the woman “says” she feels. Because that can not be determined either, we have to accept her word for it.
I believe that the mens rights movement is the chance for union between men and also between men and women. If we ignore the problems of others we are creating the indiference that got us into this mess.
This article is going at another way of way I think the movement is going to go.
Our enemy is the feminist ideology, not women.
We are all human being and we deserve respect. We must not do the same thing that the radical feminist did.
Remember this:
“No one should be treated the way feminist treat men.”
I treat you all with respect and I expect the same respect from you.
Thank you for reading my comments.
I understand your sentiments, Daniel, but I am not reading the article the same way, perhaps. what I see here is not treating women badly, but affording men the right to decided who they protect and who they don’t.
It is fulfilling the promise of freedom from exploitation that arises out of rigid gender roles.
After all, if women collectively said they would not put themselves at risk to stop men from getting mugged, who would notice?
In short, equality is a bitch. It doesn’t make us bad or selfish to practice it and honor it in others.
@ Paul.
I detected some agresivity in the article.
You are right about what you said, we should the right to decide to protect or not to protect, I agree with you.
Some women would help a man in trouble some not, lets not make generalizations.
Allow me to remind you and all the readers of this episode
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RCgxqfUtMY&feature=player_embedded
Of 164 people who walked by only 3 women were capable to look beyond the gender roles and they called the police to help the men.
Equality has advantages and disadvantages for men and for women, however it is a very good cause, I believe in it with all my heart, it is time for equality for men. Lets have a goal towards union of men and women against feminism.
If anyone (men or women) decides help someone (men or women) it is a noble act.
No one should be expected to do so, but it is still a noble act. It takes courage and selfness.
I am a very moderate MRA, you know me Paul. Keep up the good work.
“lets not make generalizations.”
No! no!.. Lets make generalizations. Why are feminists the only ones that can and DO make generalizations? They even have a name for it.. PATRIARCHY! Yet they get well paying tax funded jobs to make those generalizations in schools and universities, even congress.
If they can do that, we can atleast do it while not being disgusting parasites on the rest of society.
@ Daniel Martinez
I’m still pondering whether the enemy is feminist ideology or me!
When you say “deserve respect” what does that mean definitively?
Can one correlate the respect received against respect given. Where and when is it defined universally as human and where and when is it defined as privilege? If a portion defined as privilege is withheld is it indifference or self respect?
“No one should be treated the way feminist treat men.”………agreed, this is why I don’t associate with them. I don’t like the treatment or lack of it.
I have checked the comments, and this is the first comment you have made, although I may have missed something, I don’t think so.
“I treat you all with respect and I expect the same respect from you”
I understand a reasonable gesture of equality, I can respect that, not sure why you are stating this, unless you are negotiating for invisible people, in which case they should present themselves for a reasonable exchange. If your looking for wholesale or discount respect to redistribute at an inflated price to enhance profit for yourself, don’t! I’m not selling.
With all due respect to you (only)
@keith
I have nothing against you. The reason that I asked for respect in advance is because the comments are very “passionate” in this article.
When I said “deserve respect” I meant that in order to make this world a better place we all have to be a little less agresive, thats all. I am not correlating respect given with respect recieved, it would be naive to do so.
I have a Mens rights activism blog in spanish and I work really hard to spread the word about our cause in the spanish speaking world. I am very moderate in my aproach, I would not like to see the male version of the SCUM manifesto.
The crime of most women is to do nothing, it is unfair to compare every women with Valerie Solanas. The women who did bad things with the power that the state gave them are corrupted, everyone gets corrupted when they have power. I am from Ecuador and I know that, I have seen with my own eyes how good men turn bad when they enter the goverment.
The movement must fight to give more power to men becuase its fair, not because women are the enemy. Right now women have to much power and men have too little.
We must attack the problem of womens overprotection by encouraging men to protect and stand for men, instead to ignore women.
Indiference is worse than hatred.
That is my opinion
With all due respect to all of you
You people are fucked in the head. Oh, and you all need to GROW SOME FUCKING BALLS.
For AVfM readers. The supply closet was out of toilet paper, so I approved the above comment to fill in the void.
Also note the the email address associated with the username “Fuck you” clearly indicated the comment was from a female.
The username “Fuck you” on its own gives away that this is a female feminist.
They’re so clever aren’t they, with their overuse of F-words?
It can be a terrifying prospect to measure giving against receiving, apparently.
Ball busting is a predator sport, men have been leaving the court for years, did you just clue in. I’m sure you don’t need anymore balls for your collection.
Oh and here I thought she was gonna say something typically feminist-thanks for the surprise.
Why? Because I won’t protect you?
You’ve never protected me from anything.
I thought you wanted equality.
This was posted at Reddit WTF:
http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/fylfm/2nd_paragraph_you_cant_say_that_and_say_you_dont/
And it has brought about 5,000 hits to this site today.
And still counting.
As a woman, if you were being raped I would risk MY life to help you. Being a good person does not depend on gender.
As a woman, nobody has that expectation of you.
this has some really good points. before womens rights movements throughout the nation, one of the main reasons for women not being given job opportunities, involved in politics, allowed in athletics athletics, and other cliche sanctions was to keep them safe and to protect them from the dangers of these actions. They then began to stand up for themselves and ask to be exposed to the dangers of society in equality with men. This is why women should be just as inclined as a man to stand up for their own rights, fight their own battles (unless innocently attacked without provokation), hold the door open for their date, and work an 8 hour shift to pay bills. If a woman isn’t completely responsible for herself, then she is far more subject to being taken advantage of and conforming to all of the age old sexist restraints.
This being said, I will beat the shit out of someone drugging a woman. I would quite likely sacrafice myself for a woman with children. Because I value myself as a man with morals, and when someone that cannot defend themselves efficiently needs help, then I will act to the best of my ability. No matter sex or appearance.
Just because there is no expectation doesn’t mean I wouldn’t do it. I don’t expect anyone to do anything for me. If I want something I have to earn it for myself.
I also think feminist are making my life in a male dominated field more difficult.
Actually your wrong being a good person does depend on gender, as a baseline social interpretation.
Maybe we need a hero registry, so we can track peoples movements around the country and hold them accountable when they don’t deliver the good.
After all evil only prevails when good people do nothing.
If you were getting raped, and some guy walked passed you, would you feel empowered?
Would you stop to help a man from being raped?
If so, this stance is uber-sexist.
If not, then what use is equality if it means that nobody helps anybody else?
Ask hypocrites like feminists and the legal system because they started these convolutions that cause men to be victimized, (false charges etc.) even when trying to do the right thing. So why are you questioning us? Go ask the law and feminists why men being prison raped is such a joke to them. Put your criticism where it belongs. We are not the orchestrator’s of this mess.
Do you question them, or are we the only ones whom you seek to criticize. If it is only us that you criticize, then perhaps that is the actual uber-sexist stance being taken.
I see the ballerina from the nutcracker suite checked in.
I wonder if (s)he wears blue?
so if women dont deserve protection from rape neither does a man, ever.
this is why rape culture and gender based violence still exists is because of men like you.
in a truly equal society, a man would help a woman from getting raped, and vice versa. if i saw a women raping a man or man raping a man i would do whatever i could to stop it.
BECAUSE RAPE IN ANY FORM IS WRONG AND UNACCEPTABLE.
As a women I have taken measures to learn how to protect myself, but sometimes that isn’t enough.
Humans should protect humans, regardless of their gender.
I don’t depend on men for anything ever.
Feminism itself is the belief of becoming independent from men, and becoming strong enough to support/take care of yourself, not relying on men.
Clearly you people have met the wrong kind of feminists.
Men already never get protection from rape, ever.
There are no “good” feminists. That is like saying you are a “good” cannibal. The beast just does not exist.
That said their may be some carnivores(egalitarians) wrongly self-identifying as cannibals(feminists) which are infact not cannibals(feminists) at all.
Feminism at its’ core is an ideology of hate and female superiority often fuelled by feelings of inadequacy and inferiority.
And, let’s not forget the greed inherent in feminism. Always demanding more money(from men usually via government agency) for WOMENS health, WOMENS education, and CHILD benefits(and let’s face it child custody is decidely lopsided in favour of mothers, mothers that have the sole choice in matters of conception, abortion and forced male wage slavery).
I would suggest subscribing to Chapins Inferno and GirlWritesWhat youtube channels and educating yourself before openning your trap and making a bigger fool of yourself. The HappyMisogynist and ManWomanMyth are other good sources.
Oh the author of this article also has a worthwhile youtube channel you can review.
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. You are saying that if we were equal, we would help women. Then you turn around and say that feminism is about becoming strong enough to not need the help of men, meaning that feminism is not about equality, even as you yourself define equality.
So in a round about way, even you comprehend that feminism has nothing to do with equality.
Clearly you people have met the wrong kind of feminists.
Clearly you haven’t met the leaders of the hate group that have assimilated your intelligence. I am assuming that you had some to begin with.
Have you ever tried to convince a holocaust survivor that there really were nice Nazis?
so if women dont deserve protection from rape neither does a man, ever.
As another already pointed out, men already receive no protection from rape. None. Rape laws should apply to everyone, but they don’t. Only women are protected, and feminist groups all over the place constantly whine about how it isn’t enough, which is the very reason why the government has recently reversed the presumption of innocence in at least three (and hardly insignificant) jurisdictions, and the president ordered all colleges to lower the burden of proof in allegations of rape (and ONLY rape) to a “preponderance of evidence”, which is lower than what the courts use. So in essence, not only are men not protected from rape, but their protection from false rape allegations is pretty non-existent as well.
this is why rape culture and gender based violence still exists is because of men like you.
Talk of a so-called “rape culture” is the very reason why guys like me have to fear being intimate with women, because people like you make them think we’re rapists.
And gender-based violence exists because human being exist, and consist of two separate genders, you ignoramus.
in a truly equal society, a man would help a woman from getting raped, and vice versa. if i saw a women raping a man or man raping a man i would do whatever i could to stop it.
That’s not an equal society, that’s a JUST society. And we don’t live in a just society, thanks to people like you using terms like “rape culture”.
BECAUSE RAPE IN ANY FORM IS WRONG AND UNACCEPTABLE.
Your caps lock key appears to have gotten stuck there for a second.
As a women I have taken measures to learn how to protect myself, but sometimes that isn’t enough.
So you don’t dress like a slut, I take it? Good for you.
Humans should protect humans, regardless of their gender.
That’d be nice, but it’s not how it works currently.
I don’t depend on men for anything ever.
Oh really? You’re totally independent in every way? Do you have a boyfriend who pays your rent? Do you collect child support or alimony? Food stamps? Welfare? If you answered “Yes” to any of those questions, then congratulations, you’re a fucking liar.
Feminism itself is the belief of becoming independent from men, and becoming strong enough to support/take care of yourself, not relying on men.
Correction: Feminism is founded on hatred of men, it seeks only to punish them in as many ways as possible for perceived injustices of the past.
BTW, are you a black person? If you are, you might want to examine just how many of the most vocal and well-known feminists over the years have been white women. You know, the same white women who were never made to work out in a field picking cotton in 100 degree whether? The ones that didn’t have to sit in the back of the bus, ever? The same white women who have always been more privileged than any other group of women in the history of this country?
Interesting how they would whine more than most black women, isn’t it?
Clearly you people have met the wrong kind of feminists.
There is no wrong or right kind. Only the kind that must be left behind as we move into the future.
I totally agree here in Toronto they did this Slut walk recently after a cop advised women to avoid dressing slutty at night. Which to a reasonable person is an appropriate measure to help lessen the chances of attack. But no a feminist who took issue to this as it apparently obstructs their freedom of choice. It has hubris stupidity written all over it like they don’t march for noble causes eg. world hunger or poverty but they will march when they can twist the voice of reason far enough to find a way they can demonstrate it hurts. When I heard this at that moment I said I will never, ever help a female that is being attacked. Its hedonism at its MAX: protection me! oh, I’m so afraid of every man, oh! look at how good I look in my mini-miniskirt and supertight top..
I’m glad to see you made your way here, Bar. Your Youtube videos first brought me to the MRM and I think this, in particular, is a critical point. If more men had the guts to act against their instincts and socialization we would all be much better off.
I’m all with Barbarossaaaa’s statement. If you tell a criminal that you’ll put her in jail for her crimes but never do when she acts in such a manner that should be punished, she’ll just get the idea that she can always get away without consequences. you entertain a complex of entitlement to justice escape. Let feminist and their followers have a taste of their own medicine the hard way. They’ll either fall or learn to follow the right path (10000000 bucks they’ll bend).
One cannot support them and be agaisnt or you’ll be agaisnt your self, in such a situation. This is a gender war, so act like war when at war.
United We Stand but Divided We Fall,
So United Men Stand – MRA/MRM
You article makes me think about how gangs and violence can take over a particular neighborhood. Your neighbor gets stabbed, you hear his or her screams and look outside the window, you see two people running away, you know who they are…and you close the curtain and go back to what you were watching on TV. I’m sorry, but it’s not about protecting women as a special class. It is about doing the right thing, which I try to do no matter who is being attacked. I’m not saying you have to stick your neck on the line, but at least call the police. That’s just the very least, in my opinion, that a man or a woman should do for their fellow human being, regardless of gender. Don’t just walk away and do nothing. “All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men (or women) to do nothing” (Edmund Burke).
As to your comment that child support is enforced slavery for men, I believe that children should not be penalized because their parents are divorced. Whoever the custodial parent is, mother or father, the other should still help support the child/ren that resulted from their union. Maybe there needs to be some kind of system in place where there is accountability, where the money actually goes toward benefiting the child, not the custodial parent. But, don’t penalize the children because of the parents’ mistakes.
I remember in philosophy class they asked us a question: Lets say you’re driving to work on the day you are to receive a big promotion. You look to the side of the road and see someone drowning. If you stop to save them you will be late and will never get the promotion. Do you save them?
It appeared to be structured to discern whether you were an egoist and placed your own material gain above the life of the person drowning. I looked at it a different way, sort of in an inverse of Kant’s moral imperative.
I said, if I were the one drowning in the river and I saw someone drive by, I wouldn’t expect them to stop and save me. I wouldn’t expect help of any kind from a complete stranger. According to the moral imperative we should treat people in a way that is universalizable. Hence if I don’t expect someone to save me, I shouldn’t save them.
To clarify, I wouldn’t expect a woman to save me from being raped. To my knowledge most women know full well what goes on inside prison and it seems they couldn’t care less. It follows that they likely wouldn’t care if I were in there being raped. So to treat them in a way that is universalizable, I shouldn’t care when they get raped.
So if I drive by and see a woman getting raped, I will continue on to my promotion with a clear conscience.
I enjoyed your post. Thanks.
@Barbarosa,
Hey I just wanted to say I really highly respect you and love your videos on youtube. But don’t you think its morally wrong to see any human being man, woman or child who is getting harmed and not do anything about it to save that person IF you have the capacity of doing so. But I also understand where you are coming from to, so I am not judging you.
Sincerely,
Shaikh
Women getting assaulted or raped in public is really rare.